Today's Press Conference With Mike McCarthy

[Maxie the Taxi]

A few things that I found interesting (and frustrating) in today's press conference...

I agree 100% with Patler's assessment in another thread that the Packers' running game wasn't that bad in Tampa. Grant did a good job with his opportunities and should have been given more.

This is what I don't understand about McCarthy's game planning...

Tampa Bay ranks 30 in rush defense; and 15 in pass defense. You would think -- especially in light of our pass protection problems and OL continuity -- McCarthy would have rushed 70% of the time (or until Tampa demonstrated they could stop the rush).

Yet in his 11/9 press conference McCarthy said this:


(To go back to the other question, so guys had trouble getting open?)
We were challenged by their secondary. So you can take that for what it's worth. They won the game. They did a good job against our passing game. We felt that our passing game would have been a strength versus their secondary, and if we played them again tomorrow, we would go right back at their secondary. But they did a good job.

McCarthy talks about wanting to rush more. He has since he got here, and yesterday was his chance. However, yesterday he consistently broke up the rhythm of a good rushing game by taking passing "shots" downfield.

The 3rd Qtr. "shot" to Jennings that was intercepted at the goal line by Talib was a perfect example:


1-10-GB 20 (11:28) R.Grant right tackle to GB 27 for 7 yards (T.Crowder).
2-3-GB 27 (10:49) R.Grant left guard to GB 32 for 5 yards (A.Hayward). R11
1-10-GB 32 (10:20) A.Rodgers sacked at GB 27 for -5 yards (M.Bennett).
2-15-GB 27 (9:44) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short right to D.Driver to GB 37 for 10 yards (T.Cox).
3-5-GB 37 (8:59) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass deep right to G.Jennings to TB 42 for 21 yards (A.Talib). P12
1-10-TB 42 (8:17) A.Rodgers pass deep middle intended for G.Jennings INTERCEPTED by A.Talib (C.Lynch) at
TB 1. A.Talib to TB 16 for 15 yards (D.Driver).

You're moving the ball effectively down the field rushing and passing short. Why take a "shot" 50 yards down the field? (In fact, why pass on first down after Grant's runs?)

Yet, here's McCarthy's 11/9 comments regarding that play:


(Are you OK with the pass Aaron threw that was picked off at the goal line, the decision there?)
I was OK with the decision based on the matchup of who Greg was going to the post on. They played what we refer to as quarters coverage. We were looking for our two-deep scheme there - quarters is a form of two-deep - and the ability to get Greg or Donald matched up on their safeties. I thought Aaron gave Greg a catchable ball. It was obviously a tight coverage throw, but as far as a shot play, which that is described as, I was comfortable with the decision.

How can he be comfortable with the decision (a "tight coverage throw," and a "shot play") when they had been moving the ball? Why take a needless chance?

I just think McCarthy is enamored with "big" "explosive" plays. He gets greedy. He just doesn't have the patience or temperment for ball control football which usually entails a lot of rushing, although he talks like he does.

I'm beginning to think there is a disconnect between what he says he'd like to do and what he REALLY likes to do and what he actually does.

Take the offensive line. Again, in his 11/9 press conference he says:


(Will you try Lang at some other positions to get him into the starting lineup?)
I think T.J. has warranted that. I think that is a good observation. But yeah, I'm a little concerned about the musical chairs that once again we have played on our offensive line. I think that's not a positive. I think it's been a deterrent of trying to gain continuity of getting five guys in there starting together. It's definitely something that we talked about this morning and it's definitely something that we'll look at.

So he doesn't like playing "musical chairs" with his OL? Then why doesn't he stop doing it. He's the head coach!

In the SAME press conference a few minutes earlier he said this:


(If Tauscher's not ready, do you go the same way you finished yesterday?)
That's something that after we look at the film today, we'll look at all of our options. I am not committed to a starting five today.

Unbelievable! For Cripes Sakes, if McCarthy can't decide week in and week out who his starting five are going to be, how does he expect to STOP playing musical chairs? It seems by signing Tauscher all TT did was give MM one more musical chair to play with.

[sharpe1027]

I don't disagree that the run game should/could have been used more.

Yet, IMHO, your analysis is misplaced. Rodgers is the one that choses to take the shots, unless they are all running go routes. Almost every play has a deep pattern that, if nothing else, clears space for something underneath. So when the ball goes deep, that doesn't mean that MM was dialing up a deep pass.

IMO, Rodgers was not willing to throw the short or intermediate passes. Instead, he either threw the ball deep or took a sack. Maybe the WRs couldn't get open, even so, sometimes you have to throw the WR open.

[red]

is that int at the one they are talking about, is that the one that was thrown into quad coverage?

[Maxie the Taxi]

I don't disagree that the run game should/could have been used more.

Yet, IMHO, your analysis is misplaced. Rodgers is the one that choses to take the shots, unless they are all running go routes. Almost every play has a deep pattern that, if nothing else, clears space for something underneath. So when the ball goes deep, that doesn't mean that MM was dialing up a deep pass.

IMO, Rodgers was not willing to throw the short or intermediate passes. Instead, he either threw the ball deep or took a sack. Maybe the WRs couldn't get open, even so, sometimes you have to throw the WR open.

I agree that Rodgers may be the one who chooses to throw deep, but McCarthy is the one who said he had no problem with Rodgers' decision. Maybe he just doesn't want to criticize Rodgers in public. Or maybe he and Rodgers are just on the same page.

[Brandon494]

is that int at the one they are talking about, is that the one that was thrown into quad coverage?

Even though he did throw it into traffic the ball was perfectly thrown and went right thru Greg Jenning's hands.

[Maxie the Taxi]

is that int at the one they are talking about, is that the one that was thrown into quad coverage?

Even though he did throw it into traffic the ball was perfectly thrown and went right thru Greg Jenning's hands.

Whether or not the ball was thrown perfectly is beside the point. The point is that he took the shot when IMO he didn't have to. It just points out the fact that our offense (whoever is responsible) is not patient.

[red]

you never throw the ball into quad coverage

a second grader player flag football should know that

yes it was a perfect throw, but an absolutely stupid one that m3 should be very concerned about

[pbmax]

Maxi, some of this is pretty straightforward. How can he be committed to a starting five if one is injured and another is still coming off injury? He clearly prefers Tauscher at this point. And given Barbre's performance, why would he commit to a lesser player if Tauscher can play? Because both had such limited game reps coming into warm weather, they already had a plan to give them a blow. Clearly they are not 100%.

As for run defense, remember back to the Jim Bates year, where are pass defense looked like the strength of the team and the run defense the weakness. But those numbers (especially total yards) were skewed by game situations. We were ranked near the bottom because teams had the lead on us in the second half and took the air out of the ball. So while the yardage rank (a bad number to base quality of defense on) put us last, our run defense at the time was better than our pass defense. But teams did not need to bother to pass with the lead.

Same with Tampa. Teams have taken the air out of the ball to kill the clock on them this year later in games. Simply because the yardage total is high doesn't mean the run defense isn't better than the pass. You cannot judge the talent of a team by that number. The fact that McCarthy saw this on film should show you the discrepancy.

[Brandon494]

Yes it was a bad decision but not a bad throw.

I mean its nothing we havent seen the last 15 years in GB by Favre.

Anyway I agree our offense is not patient which has to do with MM playcalling and AR holding onto the ball looking for the big play.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Maxi, some of this is pretty straightforward. How can he be committed to a starting five if one is injured and another is still coming off injury? He clearly prefers Tauscher at this point. And given Barbre's performance, why would he commit to a lesser player if Tauscher can play? Because both had such limited game reps coming into warm weather, they already had a plan to give them a blow. Clearly they are not 100%.

As for run defense, remember back to the Jim Bates year, where are pass defense looked like the strength of the team and the run defense the weakness. But those numbers (especially total yards) were skewed by game situations. We were ranked near the bottom because teams had the lead on us in the second half and took the air out of the ball. So while the yardage rank (a bad number to base quality of defense on) put us last, our run defense at the time was better than our pass defense. But teams did not need to bother to pass with the lead.

Same with Tampa. Teams have taken the air out of the ball to kill the clock on them this year later in games. Simply because the yardage total is high doesn't mean the run defense isn't better than the pass. You cannot judge the talent of a team by that number. The fact that McCarthy saw this on film should show you the discrepancy.

I'll yield to your expertise in game planning. I'm just looking at it from a fan's perspective. I'd still much prefer a ball control team and one that plays for field position.

As far as the OL is concerned, I understand injuries play a part. On the other hand it seems MM has been dithering all year, waiting until Saturday to name starters even when injury isn't a huge factor. Why would he do that if some players are clearly better than others. (Plus, I like Tausch, I just don't think he's the answer at this stage of his career.)

[pbmax]

I'll yield to your expertise in game planning. I'm just looking at it from a fan's perspective. I'd still much prefer a ball control team and one that plays for field position.
Hold on there. I possess no expertise and do not profess to. I only point out that there is more involved in scouting an opponent than looking at yardage totals.

For example, Football Outsiders ranks Tampa Bay's defense 31st against the pass and 30th versus the run. While this helps illustrate the case, I think I just made myself sick again.

[LEWCWA]

is that int at the one they are talking about, is that the one that was thrown into quad coverage?

Even though he did throw it into traffic the ball was perfectly thrown and went right thru Greg Jenning's hands.

"touche"--gotta catch the damn ball!

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'll yield to your expertise in game planning. I'm just looking at it from a fan's perspective. I'd still much prefer a ball control team and one that plays for field position.
Hold on there. I possess no expertise and do not profess to. I only point out that there is more involved in scouting an opponent than looking at yardage totals.

For example, Football Outsiders ranks Tampa Bay's defense 31st against the pass and 30th versus the run. While this helps illustrate the case, I think I just made myself sick again.

Me too. :)

[hoosier]

As for run defense, remember back to the Jim Bates year, where are pass defense looked like the strength of the team and the run defense the weakness. But those numbers (especially total yards) were skewed by game situations. We were ranked near the bottom because teams had the lead on us in the second half and took the air out of the ball. So while the yardage rank (a bad number to base quality of defense on) put us last, our run defense at the time was better than our pass defense. But teams did not need to bother to pass with the lead.

Same with Tampa. Teams have taken the air out of the ball to kill the clock on them this year later in games. Simply because the yardage total is high doesn't mean the run defense isn't better than the pass. You cannot judge the talent of a team by that number. The fact that McCarthy saw this on film should show you the discrepancy.

Tampa may be even worse at pass defense than they are at run defense, but it seems to me that the real mystery is McCarthy's apparent lack of commitment to running the ball. Take the end of the 3rd quarter and beginning of fourth quarter. On the first drive Grants gets the ball twice and picks up 12 yards. Then Rodgers gets sacked on first down. He manages to pick up the third down, but then throws it up for grabs to Jennings, who is triple covered (it was a max protect in which the Bucs rushed four and dropped seven, so Driver was probably well covered as well). Result: interception. On the next drive Grant carries twice, picks up a first down, but then Colledge (I think) misses a block and Grant gets stopped for a loss. The drive stalls there. On the third drive the Packers go back to the run, this time with Ahman Green running for 26. But then, with the running game having lots of success and getting them into the TB red zone, Rodgers throws five straight passes. McCarthy even has him in the shotgun on first and goal from the TB seven yard line, so it can't just be Rodgers switching off at the line.

In fact the Packers scored on that last drive on a third down scramble. But the play calling, and especially the formation, send a message that when it comes to crunch time (GB is up 21-17 at the start of the 4th) the Packers are not going be a physical team. We all know that the OL can't pass protect worth a damn, so as a coach how do you just give up the other half of your offensive playbook at that point? I don't care how bad TB's pass defense is, their run defense had shown itself incapable of stopping anyone yesterday. Why would McCarthy NOT want to run the ball down their throats then?

[Scott Campbell]

Bizarre play calling. It's like he kept trying to find ways to lose.

[Fritz]

As for run defense, remember back to the Jim Bates year, where are pass defense looked like the strength of the team and the run defense the weakness. But those numbers (especially total yards) were skewed by game situations. We were ranked near the bottom because teams had the lead on us in the second half and took the air out of the ball. So while the yardage rank (a bad number to base quality of defense on) put us last, our run defense at the time was better than our pass defense. But teams did not need to bother to pass with the lead.

Same with Tampa. Teams have taken the air out of the ball to kill the clock on them this year later in games. Simply because the yardage total is high doesn't mean the run defense isn't better than the pass. You cannot judge the talent of a team by that number. The fact that McCarthy saw this on film should show you the discrepancy.

Tampa may be even worse at pass defense than they are at run defense, but it seems to me that the real mystery is McCarthy's apparent lack of commitment to running the ball. Take the end of the 3rd quarter and beginning of fourth quarter. On the first drive Grants gets the ball twice and picks up 12 yards. Then Rodgers gets sacked on first down. He manages to pick up the third down, but then throws it up for grabs to Jennings, who is triple covered (it was a max protect in which the Bucs rushed four and dropped seven, so Driver was probably well covered as well). Result: interception. On the next drive Grant carries twice, picks up a first down, but then Colledge (I think) misses a block and Grant gets stopped for a loss. The drive stalls there. On the third drive the Packers go back to the run, this time with Ahman Green running for 26. But then, with the running game having lots of success and getting them into the TB red zone, Rodgers throws five straight passes. McCarthy even has him in the shotgun on first and goal from the TB seven yard line, so it can't just be Rodgers switching off at the line.

In fact the Packers scored on that last drive on a third down scramble. But the play calling, and especially the formation, send a message that when it comes to crunch time (GB is up 21-17 at the start of the 4th) the Packers are not going be a physical team. We all know that the OL can't pass protect worth a damn, so as a coach how do you just give up the other half of your offensive playbook at that point? I don't care how bad TB's pass defense is, their run defense had shown itself incapable of stopping anyone yesterday. Why would McCarthy NOT want to run the ball down their throats then?

I'm with Hoosier on this. You've got hte running game working, finally, and you have a chance to wear down a team. You know your offensive line can't pass block for crap. You call several runs, you get the chains moving...then you call passing plays that get your QB sacked or result in intercepts. So you end up in down and distance situations in which you no longer have a choice but to pass. And your QB gets mowed down.

I agree there is some kind of disconnect between what MM says he wants to do and what he actually does. And if you want to use the pass to set up the run, then you have to be able to pass. And right now there are too many risks in the passing game this team has.

[ND72]

is that int at the one they are talking about, is that the one that was thrown into quad coverage?

Even though he did throw it into traffic the ball was perfectly thrown and went right thru Greg Jenning's hands.


that was my problem...it hit greg square in the hands....he catches it, it's a TD cause Tampa was not about to make that tackle at the 1 with momentum going into endzone.

[Maxie the Taxi]

More thoughts from today's press conference...

A lot of posters in the last couple weeks (myself included) have written that they liked McCarthy a lot initially but have recently climbed off the bandwagon.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this and I think I know why this is. Consider this quote from Vince Lombardi:


Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate.
Vince Lombardi

MM is very knowledgeable. If you listen to his press conferences, it's obvious he's a hardworker, knows a lot about every facet of the game, is fair, is organized, level-headed, and has a lot of stats in his head like field position yardage, etc. etc. etc. He's a beast for watching film, game film and practice film. He can break down the game of football into a thousand pieces.

This is what impressed me and probably what we liked about him.

The problem as I see it is that the Green Bay Packers are a player-motivated team.

Granted, I am not inside the clubhouse. I am not privy to what he tells the team. But from my prospective on the outside, I see a coach who wants his players to perform but doesn't know how to motivate them.

MM knew the Sunday's game against Tampa was a trap game, yet he couldn't get his players motivated to perform.

I listen to his press conferences and read the transcripts. It's all football analysis. When he's asked a question about getting the team up, he seems clueless and spouts cliches. More from his 11/9 press conference:


(Will this week challenge you to keep the team together after these two tough losses?)
This is definitely a challenge. There's no question about it. Year four, you look at the different things you've experienced in the past, this will be a challenging day. It always is when you lose, even moreso when you lose two in a row, even moreso when you lose in the fashion that we did in Tampa. It was a game we expected to win. It's a game that we didn't do some of the necessary things in spots of the game. Yes, this will definitely be a challenge.

Does this sound like a coach who's capable for firing up his troops?

Or how about this:


(But to be talking about the same stuff every Monday, it seems the message is getting lost. Is there value to having a new voice in the room?)
There is structure. To have a new message or a new messenger, I'm confident that's not what our football team needs right now. They have a very loud, direct, clear message in the team meetings day in and day out. So there is no question or uncertainty of what we are asking everybody to do, coaches and players, and the accountability of what needs to be done. Hey, we're disappointed and we're 4-4. We're at the halfway point of our season. I'm very disappointed, but that's our work to this point. I take full responsibility. I'm at the point of this football team. I have all the confidence in this team that we'll get ready and we'll move on and win a big game here at home against Dallas.

Anybody else have a lot of confidence?

Or this:


(On a few different occasions, you've said the team had a good week of practice, yet they fall flat on Sunday. Any reason for that?)
I don't look at our football team as falling apart or being flat. We have lost four contests but I do believe that the practice structure does carry over. And I'll stand by what I said yesterday after the game: if there was an error that was made leading up to this game it was probably too, too much work this week. That's something I am always very critical of myself as far as the scheduling and everything that goes into preparing your team week in and week out. There is a way to measure practice. Ultimately what you do on film is the clear-cut indicator of what you are able to get done, both on the practice field and the playing field. I think we all fully understand that you have to line up on Sundays and play the game. I felt in the fourth quarter that our energy level wasn't what it was in the first three quarters, and that's something that I have to take a very close look at because they had a good week of work. That's the facts.

Apparently MM's expertise in preparing his team is not carrying over to the field.

And then there's his academic handling of the Jolly head butt and his attitude toward penalties..."We'll fix that." "I'll have to see the film." "It's part of the game."

I don't want to be too hard on the man, but the players seem to be leading him. He's no Vince Lombardi.

[Smidgeon]

MM is very knowledgeable. If you listen to his press conferences, it's obvious he's a hardworker, knows a lot about every facet of the game, is fair, is organized, level-headed, and has a lot of stats in his head like field position yardage, etc. etc. etc. He's a beast for watching film, game film and practice film. He can break down the game of football into a thousand pieces.

Agreed on this point. This is why I liked him at first. He wasn't someone who seemed like he was in over his head. Bedard once alluded to the fact that the Packers don't have an offensive player that will keep defensive coordinators up at night, but McCarthy's scheme does that. I asked him to follow up on that but never got a response, so I don't know how deep that goes. I'm still impressed by his knowledge, but--like you--I'd like to see more of that be converted to wins.


And then there's his academic handling of the Jolly head butt and his attitude toward penalties..."We'll fix that." "I'll have to see the film." "It's part of the game."

Here's the quote from McCarthy (per the JSO) when he heard about Jolly's comments about not playing the game differently: "It sounds like Johnny and I will have a conversion shortly." That doesn't sound like someone with a cavalier attitude towards stupid penalties. Later he said penalties like that were inexcusable and cost the team 4 points. Again, it doesn't sound like someone deflecting responsibility--even to the media. That first quote especially belayed his frustration with the stupidity of one of his players.


I don't want to be too hard on the man, but the players seem to be leading him. He's no Vince Lombardi.

Of course he's no Vince. He never will be. Neither will any other GB coach in the future. He's got to find his own way to coach. As to whether or not the players are leading him or vise versa, that's pure speculation. The players are men. They are professionals. This isn't a pee-wee game. The players are getting paid to be prepared. That's what the player film study is. McCarthy's responsibility is to give them the tools: the scheme, the coaches, the plays, etc, to succeed, but it's the players responsibility to succeed. Who knows what's going on in the locker room? I don't. You don't. And it's pure speculation to assume that it's solely M3 who's failing here. It might solely be him, but the players aren't executing their end of the bargain either.

[Fritz]

My opinion is that as much as we fans would like that rah-rah in-your-face guy, it wears out pretty quickly and is really not all that important in the professional ranks.

Having said that, I am irked at MM's insistence on burying himself in his stupid playsheet all game long. How about talking with your players? How about coaching the team instead of acting like an offensive coordinator. The dude might as well be up in a booth.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Here's the quote from McCarthy (per the JSO) when he heard about Jolly's comments about not playing the game differently: "It sounds like Johnny and I will have a conversion shortly." That doesn't sound like someone with a cavalier attitude towards stupid penalties. Later he said penalties like that were inexcusable and cost the team 4 points. Again, it doesn't sound like someone deflecting responsibility--even to the media. That first quote especially belayed his frustration with the stupidity of one of his players.


I don't want to be too hard on the man, but the players seem to be leading him. He's no Vince Lombardi.

Of course he's no Vince. He never will be. Neither will any other GB coach in the future. He's got to find his own way to coach. As to whether or not the players are leading him or vise versa, that's pure speculation. The players are men. They are professionals. This isn't a pee-wee game. The players are getting paid to be prepared. That's what the player film study is. McCarthy's responsibility is to give them the tools: the scheme, the coaches, the plays, etc, to succeed, but it's the players responsibility to succeed. Who knows what's going on in the locker room? I don't. You don't. And it's pure speculation to assume that it's solely M3 who's failing here. It might solely be him, but the players aren't executing their end of the bargain either.

Re: Jolly...I don't have time to go back over MM's press conference comments. I remember the one you mention. But his initial comments when asked why he didn't bench Jolly were to the effect: "I didn't see the incident. I'll have to look at the film...You have to measure the good a player does vs the bad." Something like that.

All bosses consider such things when contemplating a bad incident, but few think about it in public. IMO he needed to lead without delay in that situation and he didn't. Penalties are "part of the game," but not that kind.

Re: Players leading MM and not doing their part...I actually agree with you. On the other hand, just because they're professionals doesn't mean you can simply teach them, train them and set them loose. My point is you have to figure a way to get inside their heads and motivate them to perform. I don't think MM's doing that.

Yes, I admit it's pure speculation based on what I see from the outside. But that's what fans do. In that sense it's my bad.

However, both MM and his players are millionaires. They can take a little heat from old Maxie now and then. :)

[Smidgeon]

Re: Jolly...I don't have time to go back over MM's press conference comments. I remember the one you mention. But his initial comments when asked why he didn't bench Jolly were to the effect: "I didn't see the incident. I'll have to look at the film...You have to measure the good a player does vs the bad." Something like that.

I think that's an extremely fair statement by the coach: not wanting to crucify a player to the media until he saw the play in question. I think after he saw the play he made up for it by splitting no hairs.


Yes, I admit it's pure speculation based on what I see from the outside. But that's what fans do. In that sense it's my bad.

However, both MM and his players are millionaires. They can take a little heat from old Maxie now and then. :)

Completely agree on giving the heat. As fans we should be giving heat because we care about winning. I just wanted to provide the side of the argument that seemed to be missing. I don't disagree with what you've said here, I just think there's more to it than just a coach who can't rally his troops.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Re: Jolly...I don't have time to go back over MM's press conference comments. I remember the one you mention. But his initial comments when asked why he didn't bench Jolly were to the effect: "I didn't see the incident. I'll have to look at the film...You have to measure the good a player does vs the bad." Something like that.

I think that's an extremely fair statement by the coach: not wanting to crucify a player to the media until he saw the play in question. I think after he saw the play he made up for it by splitting no hairs.


Yes, I admit it's pure speculation based on what I see from the outside. But that's what fans do. In that sense it's my bad.

However, both MM and his players are millionaires. They can take a little heat from old Maxie now and then. :)

Completely agree on giving the heat. As fans we should be giving heat because we care about winning. I just wanted to provide the side of the argument that seemed to be missing. I don't disagree with what you've said here, I just think there's more to it than just a coach who can't rally his troops.

Good discussion. We'll have to agree to disagree. There was another thread that dissected the Jolly incident. My position is: What's there to see on film that could possibly excuse a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty after a stop that cost you possession of the ball? The fact the referees saw it and called it would have been good enough for me.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Re: Jolly...I don't have time to go back over MM's press conference comments. I remember the one you mention. But his initial comments when asked why he didn't bench Jolly were to the effect: "I didn't see the incident. I'll have to look at the film...You have to measure the good a player does vs the bad." Something like that.

I think that's an extremely fair statement by the coach: not wanting to crucify a player to the media until he saw the play in question. I think after he saw the play he made up for it by splitting no hairs.


Yes, I admit it's pure speculation based on what I see from the outside. But that's what fans do. In that sense it's my bad.

However, both MM and his players are millionaires. They can take a little heat from old Maxie now and then. :)

Completely agree on giving the heat. As fans we should be giving heat because we care about winning. I just wanted to provide the side of the argument that seemed to be missing. I don't disagree with what you've said here, I just think there's more to it than just a coach who can't rally his troops.

Good discussion. We'll have to agree to disagree. There was another thread that dissected the Jolly incident. My position is: What's there to see on film that could possibly excuse a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty after a stop that cost you possession of the ball? The fact the referees saw it and called it would have been good enough for me.

We all know the officials have handed out some inappropriate 15 yarders this season. I'd rather have the HC looking forward to the next play than being a fan watching what happened in between the plays. Why trash a player in the media if you haven't seen that play yet?

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think you trash players in the media even if you have seen the tape.

Should your boss point out all your shortcomings in the company newsletter?

[Maxie the Taxi]

I don't think you trash players in the media even if you have seen the tape.

Should your boss point out all your shortcomings in the company newsletter?

No, just the "shortcoming" where I head-butted our top competitor's sales manager at the bar in a local steak house. :)

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think you trash players in the media even if you have seen the tape.

Should your boss point out all your shortcomings in the company newsletter?

No, just the "shortcoming" where I head-butted our top competitor's sales manager at the bar in a local steak house. :)



I suppose that is pretty newsworthy. :lol:

[Smidgeon]

Good discussion. We'll have to agree to disagree. There was another thread that dissected the Jolly incident. My position is: What's there to see on film that could possibly excuse a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty after a stop that cost you possession of the ball? The fact the referees saw it and called it would have been good enough for me.

I think it's perfectly fair for McCarthy to say he'd have to see the tape before responding. You know perfectly well that there are instances where the refs only see the retaliation and flag that. If McCarthy wasn't watching, without looking at the tape, he wasn't going to call out his player without knowing the context of the headbutt. I'm not saying Jolly did right (far from it), I'm just saying that in this context, McCarthy was right to wait to see the tape before responding. And when he heard how Jolly responded (about "staying on edge" and "that's how I play"), then he blew a subtle gasket.

[Pugger]

As for run defense, remember back to the Jim Bates year, where are pass defense looked like the strength of the team and the run defense the weakness. But those numbers (especially total yards) were skewed by game situations. We were ranked near the bottom because teams had the lead on us in the second half and took the air out of the ball. So while the yardage rank (a bad number to base quality of defense on) put us last, our run defense at the time was better than our pass defense. But teams did not need to bother to pass with the lead.

Same with Tampa. Teams have taken the air out of the ball to kill the clock on them this year later in games. Simply because the yardage total is high doesn't mean the run defense isn't better than the pass. You cannot judge the talent of a team by that number. The fact that McCarthy saw this on film should show you the discrepancy.

Tampa may be even worse at pass defense than they are at run defense, but it seems to me that the real mystery is McCarthy's apparent lack of commitment to running the ball. Take the end of the 3rd quarter and beginning of fourth quarter. On the first drive Grants gets the ball twice and picks up 12 yards. Then Rodgers gets sacked on first down. He manages to pick up the third down, but then throws it up for grabs to Jennings, who is triple covered (it was a max protect in which the Bucs rushed four and dropped seven, so Driver was probably well covered as well). Result: interception. On the next drive Grant carries twice, picks up a first down, but then Colledge (I think) misses a block and Grant gets stopped for a loss. The drive stalls there. On the third drive the Packers go back to the run, this time with Ahman Green running for 26. But then, with the running game having lots of success and getting them into the TB red zone, Rodgers throws five straight passes. McCarthy even has him in the shotgun on first and goal from the TB seven yard line, so it can't just be Rodgers switching off at the line.

In fact the Packers scored on that last drive on a third down scramble. But the play calling, and especially the formation, send a message that when it comes to crunch time (GB is up 21-17 at the start of the 4th) the Packers are not going be a physical team. We all know that the OL can't pass protect worth a damn, so as a coach how do you just give up the other half of your offensive playbook at that point? I don't care how bad TB's pass defense is, their run defense had shown itself incapable of stopping anyone yesterday. Why would McCarthy NOT want to run the ball down their throats then?

I'm with Hoosier on this. You've got hte running game working, finally, and you have a chance to wear down a team. You know your offensive line can't pass block for crap. You call several runs, you get the chains moving...then you call passing plays that get your QB sacked or result in intercepts. So you end up in down and distance situations in which you no longer have a choice but to pass. And your QB gets mowed down.

I agree there is some kind of disconnect between what MM says he wants to do and what he actually does. And if you want to use the pass to set up the run, then you have to be able to pass. And right now there are too many risks in the passing game this team has.

I'm with Hoosier too. MM is all talk. :talk: He says he wants the Packers to be a running team but his ACTIONS tell a different story. Both Grant and Green were running great but MM chucks it and goes back to the pass and we are in long yardage yet again after another freaking sack. Rodgers is gonna end up like Carr if we aren't careful! :shock: Plus the fact that this clown, who has been in the WCO for a number of years, seems to have abandoned it entirely and is now charmed by the big play down the field even tho he doesn't have the blockers up front to pull it off. It should be no surprise that AR is getting hammered every week.

[Fritz]

Reminds me of Tom Rossleys' bizarro play calling a few years back. Same crazy shit.