So what's MM's problem?

[th87]

It's always interesting to read the game threads, where we rip MM for his play-calling. Too much passing, too predictable, etc. We like to suggest what he should've done. Simplify the playbook, shorter passing, screens, etc.

My question though is this - don't you think he's thought of those possibilities? He does have more football background than all of us combined, so anything we've thought of, I'm sure he has too.

So what do you think the problem is? Could it really be that we know more about play calling than he does, which makes him a complete idiot? Or is he just arrogant and gets too cocky with the passing attack? Or is he too obsessed with the mismatches on paper?

I really think he's a good offensive mind, but his inconsistent line tends to betray him from time to time. They're good enough to make things work sometimes, which lull him into a false sense of security to try riskier things. And at the most inopportune moments, they bite him in the ass.

[MJZiggy]

We get hindsight. We get to see whether a play worked before we have to determine whether it was the right call. We get more and better replays (in HD at home with no distractions) before we decide whether that challenge flag should have been thrown. We get to hear the infinite wisdom of the idiots in the broadcast booth tell us whether the playcall was right. MM doesn't have any idiots in the booth. He has to rely on people like Dom Capers, et al.

To be honest, given time to think about it, I was surprised by the bomb on 4th and 1, but I didn't get to survey the field and see who was or wasn't open short. Maybe the long shot was the only option that wasn't covered. Maybe it was Flynn who took it seeing that he didn't have anyone else to throw to.

[mmmdk]

I think McCarthy is working his butt off and he's doing all the thinking he can muster but he's not the one to lead you to a championship. That's the aim, right?

Sometimes I get the feeling that "doing fine" is what's expected by a group of Packer fans. The Packers has the talent to contend but have been bit by the injury bug. This season Packers should make the playoffs but it seems that's sliding towards failure. TT will keep Stubby 'cos a lockout is looming and I don't blame him. But changes in the coaching ranks needs to be done during post season. That might aid McCarthy in the long run...or the run that's left for him.

[Joemailman]

I think he's hampered by his offensive line. Their inability to run the ball consistently prevents him from doing what he'd like to do offensively. When Rodgers went out yesterday, that situation screamed for a running game. Yet, Flynn threw more passes in just over half a game than Stanton threw the whole game. I think he needs to make the change to a different OL coach, or we'll be saying the same things this time next year.

[Patler]

I mentioned in another thread that it seems like MM tries to out-think or out-fox his opponents, rather than letting his players outplay them.

What do the Packers do well? What is their signature play that they can ran against almost anyone? I can't think of one. They really have no identity on offense, other than that they are a passing team. They were a passing team under Sherman, too; but the play they could complete in their sleep was a slant. They would go to it time and time again. Is there such a play now?

Variety is good, but reliability is better. Right now, the Packers have variety, but not a set of core plays that are reliable. MM tries to win with play-calling rather than play-execution. When push comes to shove and he needs a play, he has more confidence in himself to call a play that will trump the defense than he has in the offense to execute a bread and butter play.

That, and he shows signs of being impatient. Long, time consuming drives are not in his nature. He prefers a quick strike.

[Pugger]

I think he's hampered by his offensive line. Their inability to run the ball consistently prevents him from doing what he'd like to do offensively. When Rodgers went out yesterday, that situation screamed for a running game. Yet, Flynn threw more passes in just over half a game than Stanton threw the whole game. I think he needs to make the change to a different OL coach, or we'll be saying the same things this time next year.

+1

This may very well be what's ailing this team. Our O line got beat badly all afternoon. Until this problem is corrected by either better players and/or a new position coach we're gonna be inconsistant and Rodgers' career will be cut short if he is our leading rusher.

[swede]

It might be better for this team, in the long run, to not make the playoffs. Rodgers does NOT need a third head injury this season.

The team taking the field wouldn't have the running game or tight ends or Defensive line depth to go very far anyway.

And I'd hate to have Campen keep his job because we backed into the playoffs somehow.

Losing to a 2-10 team has a way of spoiling a week.

[mmmdk]

The Patler said:"Variety is good, but reliability is better." but it sounds like Vince to me.

Can you coach too, Pat, or is it just politics? :razz:

Wanted: 4th Lombardi trophy and then some more Lombardi trophies.

[Patler]

The Patler said:"Variety is good, but reliability is better." but it sounds like Vince to me.

Can you coach too, Pat, or is it just politics? :razz:

Wanted: 4th Lombardi trophy and then some more Lombardi trophies.

Oh, I coached for a lot of years, but not football.

[red]

I mentioned in another thread that it seems like MM tries to out-think or out-fox his opponents, rather than letting his players outplay them.

What do the Packers do well? What is their signature play that they can ran against almost anyone? I can't think of one. They really have no identity on offense, other than that they are a passing team. They were a passing team under Sherman, too; but the play they could complete in their sleep was a slant. They would go to it time and time again. Is there such a play now?

Variety is good, but reliability is better. Right now, the Packers have variety, but not a set of core plays that are reliable. MM tries to win with play-calling rather than play-execution. When push comes to shove and he needs a play, he has more confidence in himself to call a play that will trump the defense than he has in the offense to execute a bread and butter play.

That, and he shows signs of being impatient. Long, time consuming drives are not in his nature. He prefers a quick strike.

i mentioned this a couple months ago and got blasted for it.

to me M3 seems to think he's the smartest man alive, and to me he seems like a big dumb idiot

i agree he seems to try and outsmart everyone, in his mind he might think he can do it, but i don't think he has the brain skills to pull it off

[pbmax]

I don't know if it is out think or out fox. He is pretty straightforward. He watches the film of the upcoming opponent and attacks their weaknesses. But that is actually linear thinking. Its doesn't account for adjustments by the opponent and it does not account for whether his team can accomplish those tasks. He is building from the film to the gameplan.

In the case of Detroit, he saw exactly what he expected to see from their Defense. But he did not get the execution he needed to complete his plays. At this point in the season, its time to adjust the plan. There are no player adjustments left. Some of his players can give him better execution (Jennings on that would be catch or Jones for instance), but there are no more options to be had in terms of adding abilities.

I am curious; does anyone remember if McCarthy called the offensive games for NO or San Fran from the booth or the sideline? I wonder if his view of the field of play is an issue.

[3irty1]

I mentioned in another thread that it seems like MM tries to out-think or out-fox his opponents, rather than letting his players outplay them.

What do the Packers do well? What is their signature play that they can ran against almost anyone? I can't think of one. They really have no identity on offense, other than that they are a passing team. They were a passing team under Sherman, too; but the play they could complete in their sleep was a slant. They would go to it time and time again. Is there such a play now?

Can't not having an identity be an identity? The multiples playbook has been mighty successful for the Patriots although historically they have older, steadier, more reliable players running their scheme. Not really this year though.

The domination of the slant didn't stop with Sherman, we rode it to a 13-3 season under McCarthy as well. This is simply the route that Brett Favre threw best. Eventually teams begin to cheat it which led to a ton of picks but even more double moves for TD's. I'd say that Rodger's best throw is the 15 yard comeback thing along the sidelines and we've had enough success with that this season that teams were also attempting to cheat it and have gotten some explosive plays doing double moves with it as well.


Variety is good, but reliability is better. Right now, the Packers have variety, but not a set of core plays that are reliable. MM tries to win with play-calling rather than play-execution. When push comes to shove and he needs a play, he has more confidence in himself to call a play that will trump the defense than he has in the offense to execute a bread and butter play.

That, and he shows signs of being impatient. Long, time consuming drives are not in his nature. He prefers a quick strike.

Agree with this bolded part! You can run an entire offense at any level of football off of just one or two plays! You'd like one of them to be a running play (other than the draw) and in the past such a running play has always emerged by this point in the season for the McCarthy Packers. In 2006 it was a specific inside zone play. While Ryan Grant was ripping it up in 2007 it was the outside zone. The Packers were nearly guaranteed to not lose yards on these plays and could often get a couple of yards successfully--with a guy like Ryan Grant these can even be explosive gains. It might be too late in the season to find such a play at this point.

As for impatience, I disagree. I just think its his overall philosophy. He'll always take the score when its there and I wouldn't call that impatience. I happen to agree with it, the long time consuming drive is a good ability to have but to play ball control all the time is an underdog strategy. Meaning if you shorten the game, the inferior team has a better chance of winning. As Vince Lombardi once said:

"The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game. They just ran out of time."

[MichiganPackerFan]

I did think that vs SanFran, MM got his team out of a funk by going to a no-huddle (coincidentally RIGHT after Brian Billick commented that he had to do something to get his team going. I was hoping he would try that again when the team came out flat vs detroit.

[3irty1]

I did think that vs SanFran, MM got his team out of a funk by going to a no-huddle (coincidentally RIGHT after Brian Billick commented that he had to do something to get his team going. I was hoping he would try that again when the team came out flat vs detroit.

They went no huddle on their first two series.

[mmmdk]

Oh, I coached for a lot of years, but not football.

I'm not surprised! You got the "it" factor.

I've coached soccer with the little 'uns. Had a ball doing it; kids are so awesome.

[Fritz]

I would make the argument that his "problem" is mostly injuries. The go-to play for Rodgers early in the season was "throw it to Finley cuz he can probably come down with anything."

I think people are focusing on the playcalling at the expense of execution. The offensive line stunk, stunk, stunk. Very early in the game the Packers were driving with ease, when Quarless fumbled on about the Detroit 30 yard line. Then Jennings dropped a sure touchdown. Either or both of those plays, had they been made, would likely have changed the entire complexion of the game.

[pbmax]

The Patriots are an example of a team using a multiple offense that has multiple ways to go short. McCarthy has only dabbled in WR screens, pitches and screens. The Patriots have to lead the league in yards run by all offensive players while gaining 5 yards. Every snap looks like an explosion has occurred behind the center. And there is much more misdirection in the Patriot gameplan than M3s.

The best single play I saw repeated versus the Lions was some kind of fake one way, then boot the other with a blocker or TE available.

In the end, I agree with Fritz. If no one but single covered deep WRs are winning a battle anywhere, you are not going to do well.

[MichiganPackerFan]

If the playoffs or success in them avoid us this year, looking back would we have been better off not overachieving with a LOT of backups and gotten a higher draft pick or is the overall team development more beneficial to the coming years?

[steve823]

I didn't get to read all of the posts in this thread because I'm in a rush. However, while MM occasionally may not be popular or call the play you fans want, he is good at doing what he does. The problem is execution. It's hard to execute when our offensive line is in such disarray and can't block to save their asses.

Now with that being said, I do have a problem with MM's inability to adjust his gameplan. He seems to stick with it even if it doesn't work. When our o-line is playing as bad as they were why not try slants, quick passes, screens (especially when opponent's d-line is rushing the qb and playing the pass), and plays to get the offense in a rhythm ?

I can't wait to see what he comes up with this week against the Pats. I have a feeling we are going to either come out real sharp and put up a good game against the Pats that comes down to the end, OR we are going to come out flat and our O-line will be as bad as they were last game. One or the other, no in between.

[steve823]

The Patriots are an example of a team using a multiple offense that has multiple ways to go short. McCarthy has only dabbled in WR screens, pitches and screens. The Patriots have to lead the league in yards run by all offensive players while gaining 5 yards. Every snap looks like an explosion has occurred behind the center. And there is much more misdirection in the Patriot gameplan than M3s.

The best single play I saw repeated versus the Lions was some kind of fake one way, then boot the other with a blocker or TE available.

In the end, I agree with Fritz. If no one but single covered deep WRs are winning a battle anywhere, you are not going to do well.

You have to wonder what Bellicheck would do with our offense. We have Wr's that are GREAT at YAC, so passing short like they do most of the time would work out. It would also hide our horrible offensive line play.

[mmmdk]

The bag of bad losses is just getting bigger; at least McCarthy isn't pulling the injury card as some puppy eyed observers are [pulling].

PS - I promise I won't point fingers when the Stubby era ends and there'll still just be 3 Lombardi trophies on the Packer mantel.

[swede]

From the moment TT arrived he held the spotlight usually reserved for coaches. This was remarkable to me since he has such a deferential and deliberately blan public persona. After MM was hired the attention stayed on TT. This season, for the first time, it seems that MM is front and center and TT has slipped into the background.

I have always respected the way that MM spoke about players and kept team drama to a minimum. I think he is a hard worker and understands a lot about how much he can push his players and when to cut them some slack. Posters here have already pointed out his flaws with game planning and in-game adjustments that seem to keep him from being better than just a good coach on game day.

My fear is that we have become the Kansas City Chiefs under Schottenheimer: winning seasons, keep the coaches, lather, rinse, repeat, bad draft positions, and no championships to show for it.

[mmmdk]

From the moment TT arrived he held the spotlight usually reserved for coaches. This was remarkable to me since he has such a deferential and deliberately blan public persona. After MM was hired the attention stayed on TT. This season, for the first time, it seems that MM is front and center and TT has slipped into the background.

I have always respected the way that MM spoke about players and kept team drama to a minimum. I think he is a hard worker and understands a lot about how much he can push his players and when to cut them some slack. Posters here have already pointed out his flaws with game planning and in-game adjustments that seem to keep him from being better than just a good coach on game day.

My fear is that we have become the Kansas City Chiefs under Schottenheimer: winning seasons, keep the coaches, lather, rinse, repeat, bad draft positions, and no championships to show for it.

Top notch post ! :rock:

[Cheesehead Craig]

I think others have said this before, but MM is loyal to his staff to a fault. He makes a hire and sticks with that person even when they have proven they cannot do their job capably. Even then it took pressure from TT to order the changes (bringing in a new DC). While loyalty is an admirable trait and I appreciate that MM doesn't have a rotating carousel of coaches every year, there comes a time and place where he needs to put that loyalty aside and the "gosh darn it he's trying" attitude and make the changes that are necessary. The special teams and OL have been beyond brutal during his tenure with no action on his part for accountability. I think he needs to grow a pair when it comes to coaching personnel decisions.

[gbgary]

So what's MM's problem?


since mm year one...playcalling.

[Patler]

From the moment TT arrived he held the spotlight usually reserved for coaches. This was remarkable to me since he has such a deferential and deliberately blan public persona. After MM was hired the attention stayed on TT. This season, for the first time, it seems that MM is front and center and TT has slipped into the background.


How was the spotlight on TT? The guy was rarely seen or heard from.

[Smidgeon]

since mm year one...playcalling.

Give over. The offense has consistently been one of the best in the league.

Except in 2006 when he was putting his program in place for the first year, his offenses have been ranked 4th, 5th, and 3rd in scoring (this year they're currently at 11th). Even including 2006, they were in the Top 10 in offensive yards (except this year where they're currently 11th). And that's just a cursory offensive overview.

Now if you have complaints about playcalling in certain situations, that's different (and would spark a playcalling versus execution debate). But to complain about the playcalling that has garnered a consistent top offense is extremely shortsighted.

[sheepshead]

How was the spotlight on TT? The guy was rarely seen or heard from.

Exactly. I dont follow this at all.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I think we underestimate how bad the packers o-line is. Thats says a lot about Rodgers though. They need at least three new starters on the o-line IMO. Splitz, Colldge, Clifton, and Wells could all be let go and I wouldn't care at all.

[rbaloha1]

i mentioned this a couple months ago and got blasted for it.

to me M3 seems to think he's the smartest man alive, and to me he seems like a big dumb idiot

i agree he seems to try and outsmart everyone, in his mind he might think he can do it, but i don't think he has the brain skills to pull it off

While the statements are a little harsh there is truth in these statements.
MM panics under pressure. Again, good coordinator and qb coach -- not a head coach.

[rbaloha1]

since mm year one...playcalling.

Somewhat agree. Waits too long to get AR in rhythm. Often times too conventional--try more trick plays.

[rbaloha1]

The bag of bad losses is just getting bigger; at least McCarthy isn't pulling the injury card as some puppy eyed observers are [pulling].

PS - I promise I won't point fingers when the Stubby era ends and there'll still just be 3 Lombardi trophies on the Packer mantel.

Yes. It ends this season as the packers finish 8-8. Bring on Harbaugh from Stanford.

[MJZiggy]

Yes. It ends this season as the packers finish 8-8. Bring on Harbaugh from Stanford.

Good luck with that one.:lol:

[rbaloha1]

Good luck with that one.:lol:

Mahalo!

[swede]

How was the spotlight on TT? The guy was rarely seen or heard from.

Are you kidding? All this fricking board did was wage a civil war over TT and scrutinize every move he made. The subject of MM was tedious.

MM is finally getting some serious scrutiny this year, as it should be. You're big into statistics. How many TT threads were there and how many Mike McCarthy threads were there in 2006? Attention has flipped from TT to MM this year.

[Patler]

From the moment TT arrived he held the spotlight usually reserved for coaches. This was remarkable to me since he has such a deferential and deliberately blan public persona. After MM was hired the attention stayed on TT. This season, for the first time, it seems that MM is front and center and TT has slipped into the background.


How was the spotlight on TT? The guy was rarely seen or heard from.


Are you kidding? All this fricking board did was wage a civil war over TT and scrutinize every move he made. The subject of MM was tedious.

MM is finally getting some serious scrutiny this year, as it should be. You're big into statistics. How many TT threads were there and how many Mike McCarthy threads were there in 2006? Attention has flipped from TT to MM this year.

I don't think of this board as a very bright spotlight.

[3irty1]

I have always respected the way that MM spoke about players and kept team drama to a minimum. I think he is a hard worker and understands a lot about how much he can push his players and when to cut them some slack. Posters here have already pointed out his flaws with game planning and in-game adjustments that seem to keep him from being better than just a good coach on game day.

My fear is that we have become the Kansas City Chiefs under Schottenheimer: winning seasons, keep the coaches, lather, rinse, repeat, bad draft positions, and no championships to show for it.

This implies that there is threshold of coaching ability that is required in order to win a superbowl and if a coach doesn't have it now they should be fired because they never will. Nevermind that it would be a tremendous setback to an offense that is just entering their prime, or would be if not for injuries.

Jesus Christ could be calling the plays and posters would be critical when they didn't work. Who is questioning McCarthy's ability to make a gameplan? This is his biggest point of strength IMO. People claim he was "out coached" after a tough loss but I'll still point out that we haven't lost decisively in over a year. His gameplans put his players in a position to win nearly every single game. His teams are historically young and thanks to injuries, have more youth than usual. I'd blame the infuriating unreliability of all but a handful of the players.

The most legit excuse I've heard for replacing McCarthy is if you subscribe to the thinking that its a coaches job to motivate. Meaning he has instilled an "awwww shucks" attitude in the team when things don't go well. Fans want to see a coach grabbing facemasks and bitching players out when they do something stupid. I won't say McCarthy's teams aren't motivated, as you said he seems to command the respect of his team but respect doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from dropping TD passes, lookout blocking, and missing field goals. Personally I expect the players to be plenty motivated by their millions of dollars or even each other to get better and not fuck up. McCarthy isn't the problem here either.

Even if I didn't think McCarthy had what it takes to win a SB. I don't think that even matters as long as Capers does. McCarthy is has shown he can win and even when he doesn't win he almost wins. As the team matures and with 1/10th of the luck that the Bears have had over the last decade, McCarthy wins a couple of superbowls before this team is past its prime.

[sheepshead]

Are you kidding? All this fricking board did was wage a civil war over TT and scrutinize every move he made. The subject of MM was tedious.

MM is finally getting some serious scrutiny this year, as it should be. You're big into statistics. How many TT threads were there and how many Mike McCarthy threads were there in 2006? Attention has flipped from TT to MM this year.

TT gets slammed everywhere on sites like this . Its the nature of fans who somehow think they know personnel better than TT and his staff. ( some guys on here must have miles of game film and attend 1000's of college games). I have never ever engaged in that. I just do not watch enough college football and there's no way I can zero in on some nose tackle even if I did. I have never been sold on MM since his arrival. Many like his personality I think. I think he has done a fine job this year. Actually, this isnt necessarily the year to criticize him. He and his staff have gotten quite a bit out of a team of second stringers.

I still dont follow the spotlight comment either. Maybe you should read some newspapers or something.

[bobblehead]

I don't know if it is out think or out fox. He is pretty straightforward. He watches the film of the upcoming opponent and attacks their weaknesses. But that is actually linear thinking. Its doesn't account for adjustments by the opponent and it does not account for whether his team can accomplish those tasks. He is building from the film to the gameplan.

In the case of Detroit, he saw exactly what he expected to see from their Defense. But he did not get the execution he needed to complete his plays. At this point in the season, its time to adjust the plan. There are no player adjustments left. Some of his players can give him better execution (Jennings on that would be catch or Jones for instance), but there are no more options to be had in terms of adding abilities.

I am curious; does anyone remember if McCarthy called the offensive games for NO or San Fran from the booth or the sideline? I wonder if his view of the field of play is an issue.

I think you nailed most of it here with only 2 things you didn't address. First, Rodgers has always held the ball a bit long, dating back to college. Second, we simply are totally predictable as to when we absolutely will not run. If the run is not VERY successful MM throws it out. 2nd and 10 in a one score game is 50/50 run/pass, but with MM its 95/5 pass. Other teams have figured it out and are committing to stopping the run on first down only, then go nickel regardless of down and distance. I would like to see a breakdown of 2nd down runs by MM in his career. Interestingly MM's biggest weakness in my book was Sherman's biggest strength. If we had a running game like that with a QB that protects the ball and throws it deep like AR we would be unstoppable.

As far as Rodgers holding the ball too long we need a QB coach that hammers him between every possession of every game to unload it quicker. Much like we needed that guy to tell Burt to stop throwing it late over the middle. After Holmgren that guy didn't exist until MM, but by then it was too late.

[bobblehead]

I think we underestimate how bad the packers o-line is. Thats says a lot about Rodgers though. They need at least three new starters on the o-line IMO. Splitz, Colldge, Clifton, and Wells could all be let go and I wouldn't care at all.

Spitz isn't a starter, so its been irrelevant. Clifton and Wells both do what they are asked to do pretty well. Wells occasionally gets beat by elite talent, cliffy can't run block. Neither is a reason to be cut. Suh will beat 30 of the 32 centers in the NFL the way he is playing right now. Clifton consistently makes great pass rushers disappear (but occasionally makes meh players look great). College is wildly inconsistent and gets beat in short yardage consistently so I wouldn't mind replacing him. For the record Bulaga hasn't been lighting the world on fire either.

[rbaloha1]

From the moment TT arrived he held the spotlight usually reserved for coaches. This was remarkable to me since he has such a deferential and deliberately blan public persona. After MM was hired the attention stayed on TT. This season, for the first time, it seems that MM is front and center and TT has slipped into the background.

I have always respected the way that MM spoke about players and kept team drama to a minimum. I think he is a hard worker and understands a lot about how much he can push his players and when to cut them some slack. Posters here have already pointed out his flaws with game planning and in-game adjustments that seem to keep him from being better than just a good coach on game day.




My fear is that we have become the Kansas City Chiefs under Schottenheimer: winning seasons, keep the coaches, lather, rinse, repeat, bad draft positions, and no championships to show for it.

Good point. MM becomes too tense during critical games which reflects on team performance. This performance is similar to past regimes.

[swede]

This implies that there is threshold of coaching ability that is required in order to win a superbowl and if a coach doesn't have it now they should be fired because they never will. Nevermind that it would be a tremendous setback to an offense that is just entering their prime, or would be if not for injuries.

Jesus Christ could be calling the plays and posters would be critical when they didn't work. Who is questioning McCarthy's ability to make a gameplan? This is his biggest point of strength IMO. People claim he was "out coached" after a tough loss but I'll still point out that we haven't lost decisively in over a year. His gameplans put his players in a position to win nearly every single game. His teams are historically young and thanks to injuries, have more youth than usual. I'd blame the infuriating unreliability of all but a handful of the players.

The most legit excuse I've heard for replacing McCarthy is if you subscribe to the thinking that its a coaches job to motivate. Meaning he has instilled an "awwww shucks" attitude in the team when things don't go well. Fans want to see a coach grabbing facemasks and bitching players out when they do something stupid. I won't say McCarthy's teams aren't motivated, as you said he seems to command the respect of his team but respect doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from dropping TD passes, lookout blocking, and missing field goals. Personally I expect the players to be plenty motivated by their millions of dollars or even each other to get better and not fuck up. McCarthy isn't the problem here either.

Even if I didn't think McCarthy had what it takes to win a SB. I don't think that even matters as long as Capers does. McCarthy is has shown he can win and even when he doesn't win he almost wins. As the team matures and with 1/10th of the luck that the Bears have had over the last decade, McCarthy wins a couple of superbowls before this team is past its prime.

Good post. I think that you understood my point better than others did, as you artfully argued against the point I was making. You will be proven right if the wins keep coming and opposing defenses stop playing us as if they'd been practicing with us in the Hutson Center all week.

The opening point regarding TT was simply pointing out that the GM in GB received more attention and more criticism than MM did in his first few years, and I sense that balance is shifting back to the coach--as it is for most teams. If others don't feel that is the case I am surprised, but I won't labor the point since it is merely a perception I hold.

[Fritz]

This implies that there is threshold of coaching ability that is required in order to win a superbowl and if a coach doesn't have it now they should be fired because they never will. Nevermind that it would be a tremendous setback to an offense that is just entering their prime, or would be if not for injuries.

Jesus Christ could be calling the plays and posters would be critical when they didn't work. Who is questioning McCarthy's ability to make a gameplan? This is his biggest point of strength IMO. People claim he was "out coached" after a tough loss but I'll still point out that we haven't lost decisively in over a year. His gameplans put his players in a position to win nearly every single game. His teams are historically young and thanks to injuries, have more youth than usual. I'd blame the infuriating unreliability of all but a handful of the players.

The most legit excuse I've heard for replacing McCarthy is if you subscribe to the thinking that its a coaches job to motivate. Meaning he has instilled an "awwww shucks" attitude in the team when things don't go well. Fans want to see a coach grabbing facemasks and bitching players out when they do something stupid. I won't say McCarthy's teams aren't motivated, as you said he seems to command the respect of his team but respect doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from dropping TD passes, lookout blocking, and missing field goals. Personally I expect the players to be plenty motivated by their millions of dollars or even each other to get better and not fuck up. McCarthy isn't the problem here either.

Even if I didn't think McCarthy had what it takes to win a SB. I don't think that even matters as long as Capers does. McCarthy is has shown he can win and even when he doesn't win he almost wins. As the team matures and with 1/10th of the luck that the Bears have had over the last decade, McCarthy wins a couple of superbowls before this team is past its prime.


i think 3irty1 has written an excellent post. I would only add that there are coaches who are now considered golden boys in coaching - Bill Cowher in Pittsburgh, Dean Smith at North Carolina, to name only two - who coached for years and years and years before nabbing that first championship.

Were they bad coaches before they won it all? No. of course not.

My own opinion is that there is a base level of competence or high competence that a coach needs to have in order to get a team to a Super Bowl. But there are factors beyond the coach's competence that propel a team the rest of the way. The first factor is the talent he gets. Bill Belichik - what a crappy coach he was in Cleveland! Then he goes to NE and he's a sudden genius? Now, it is true that Belichik may have learned a lot and gotten better as he went along, but I would argue that if he probably had a base level of competency in Cleveland. A second factor beyond a coach's control is sheer luck. One lousy call, one replay that he doesn't challenge because the replay is slow. The third factor is, of course, injuries.

I think MM has demostrated a very high level of competence as a coach. His getting a team to the SB will most likely have a lot more to do with factors two and three above than with his perceived faults as a coach.

Can we not agree that this team has been absolutely decimated with injuries this year? Can we not agree that this team, given the ridiculous number of players missing, both in IR, to suspension, and simply week-to-week, has performed admirably?

MM's not perfect by any means. I do think he's hung on to certain coaches too long (Campen). I think his ability to hire excellent assistants is his weakest spot, yet even then he's managed to come up with some good coaches or was smart enough to keep good coaches who were already here.

Finally, I would say that I used to be one of those fans, too, who wanted an in-your-face kind of tough-guy coach. It made me feel good. But does that really work? For every Bill Parcells, there's probably two or three Mike Singletarys.

[mmmdk]

Good grief; a serious case of Stubby snatchers have invaded the bodies of (many) PR members. We're doomed :lol:

[th87]

Swede, I completely agree. TT had the spotlight for a while, where it seemed like every article was about his unwillingness to dabble in free agency, etc. MM's turn now. Hopefully that will get him to fire Campen. I honestly think the o-line is his downfall. He's innovative, the players like him, and he doesn't really lose in blowouts. If we had the Saints' line, people are talking about him like they do Payton. Hopefully he realizes that he needs to replace the weak link.

[RashanGary]

Philbin is the most experienced OL coach on our team and with MM calling plays and running the passing game (along with Clements) I see no reason why a OL background offensive coordinator shoudn't take some of this blame. I'd shit-can Philbin and Campen.

You're going to have a million times easier job hiring a highly successful OL coach to be your coordinator than you will finding some quality control assistant to be your OL coach. The NFL only lets you hire up and the most successful OL guys will be looking to move UP not laterally.

Bye Philbin. It's the right move. It's the smart move. It's the only move with a high probability of working.

[bobblehead]

i think 3irty1 has written an excellent post. I would only add that there are coaches who are now considered golden boys in coaching - Bill Cowher in Pittsburgh, Dean Smith at North Carolina, to name only two - who coached for years and years and years before nabbing that first championship.

Were they bad coaches before they won it all? No. of course not.

My own opinion is that there is a base level of competence or high competence that a coach needs to have in order to get a team to a Super Bowl. But there are factors beyond the coach's competence that propel a team the rest of the way. The first factor is the talent he gets. Bill Belichik - what a crappy coach he was in Cleveland! Then he goes to NE and he's a sudden genius? Now, it is true that Belichik may have learned a lot and gotten better as he went along, but I would argue that if he probably had a base level of competency in Cleveland. A second factor beyond a coach's control is sheer luck. One lousy call, one replay that he doesn't challenge because the replay is slow. The third factor is, of course, injuries.

I think MM has demostrated a very high level of competence as a coach. His getting a team to the SB will most likely have a lot more to do with factors two and three above than with his perceived faults as a coach.

Can we not agree that this team has been absolutely decimated with injuries this year? Can we not agree that this team, given the ridiculous number of players missing, both in IR, to suspension, and simply week-to-week, has performed admirably?

MM's not perfect by any means. I do think he's hung on to certain coaches too long (Campen). I think his ability to hire excellent assistants is his weakest spot, yet even then he's managed to come up with some good coaches or was smart enough to keep good coaches who were already here.

Finally, I would say that I used to be one of those fans, too, who wanted an in-your-face kind of tough-guy coach. It made me feel good. But does that really work? For every Bill Parcells, there's probably two or three Mike Singletarys.

The players still are the first factor in winning a superbowl, I have to remind myself of that a lot. The coach matters, but remember, Barry Switzer won a superbowl in his first season with the cowboys. That moron from miami could barely win a game with the Redskins.

[mmmdk]

The players still are the first factor in winning a superbowl, I have to remind myself of that a lot. The coach matters, but remember, Barry Switzer won a superbowl in his first season with the cowboys. That moron from miami could barely win a game with the Redskins.

Yeah, let's generalize SB coaches around the fluke called Barry Switzer. One freckin' disaster coach is not the trend; the rest of the SB winning coaches are legends and even many that were SB runner ups are near legends.

Do yourself a favor a run through the all SB coaches and you'll understand. Stubby will never reach that list; no, we'll have to wait till it's obvious to the blind that a change is needed.

Lastly, as I've (now) stated a zillion times; it's probably not a good idea to unseat Stubby any time soon. Especially with lock out looming. I just wish this Packer could win big - SOON!

[3irty1]

Philbin is the most experienced OL coach on our team and with MM calling plays and running the passing game (along with Clements) I see no reason why a OL background offensive coordinator shoudn't take some of this blame. I'd shit-can Philbin and Campen.

You're going to have a million times easier job hiring a highly successful OL coach to be your coordinator than you will finding some quality control assistant to be your OL coach. The NFL only lets you hire up and the most successful OL guys will be looking to move UP not laterally.

Bye Philbin. It's the right move. It's the smart move. It's the only move with a high probability of working.

I'd have a hard time with this. Philbin has been a part of some of the greatest offenses in franchise history.

I think giving Campen the boot is in the longterm plans as soon as McCarthy feels that Jerry Fontenot is ready to be promoted to OL coach. One disadvantage of being a young, first time head coach is that you mostly have to pick from young first time assistants. Fontenot could be the OL version of Kevin Greene, both are relatively new to coaching and both themselves were ideal players for their schemes. Fontenot was a player from 2000 to 2004 under Mike McCarthy in New Orleans where he played center. Coming into the NFL Fontenot was the quintessential TT offensive lineman. He was smart, versatile, durable, and athletic midround pick who used sound technique and hard work to have a long and productive NFL career. Most importantly, the guy played in and excelled in McCarthy's ZBS. He was obviously brought here to take over one day, I feel that his 5 years should be enough. I'd also like to see Tauscher brought back as a coaching intern to fill the void left by Fontenot's promotion.

[RashanGary]

I see your point, 3irty1, but I'll add this. Joe Philbin has ZERO experience coaching an NFL passing attack and it's arguable if he has any in the college ranks. There are two types of offensive coordinators.

1. OC's with QB/Passing background
2. OC's with OL/Running background

If you're a head coach with QB/passing experience, you will almost always hire an OC with OL/Running experience. That's why MM hired Jags when he came here and it's also why he stayed with an OL guy when he promoted Philbin. If you're a running/OL coach, you hire a passing offensive coordinator, like what Sherman did with Tom Rossley.

Joe Philbin is an experienced OL guy but he's in training in the passing game. Look at his background. Do you really think he's to credit for our outstanding passing game? Do you really think he's not to blame for our horrendous offensive line production?

And if Philbin is the expert you think he is on the OL, what the hell is promoting Fontenot going to do for our running game? NO way in hell a squirt like Fontenot overrides a 20 year OL coach. Not gonna happen, man.

The bottom line is the OC position is the carrot that all outstanding OL coaches are striving for. We have a fine, fine damn fine defense. We have a great passing attack. Any outstanding OL coach across the league would be licking their chops to fix our big weakness. But we can't hire laterally, we have to promote.

Goodbye Joe Philbin. The Packers OC job is one of the most desirable jobs for an OL background coach and you're not holding up your end on the OL. Lets get the best like we did with Capers but if you want the best, you're going to have to give him the title he's looking for and the pay.

ST's is the tricky one. You can't just pry someones ST's coach away from them with the way hiring works in the NFL.

[gbgary]

Give over. The offense has consistently been one of the best in the league.

Except in 2006 when he was putting his program in place for the first year, his offenses have been ranked 4th, 5th, and 3rd in scoring (this year they're currently at 11th). Even including 2006, they were in the Top 10 in offensive yards (except this year where they're currently 11th). And that's just a cursory offensive overview.

Now if you have complaints about playcalling in certain situations, that's different (and would spark a playcalling versus execution debate). But to complain about the playcalling that has garnered a consistent top offense is extremely shortsighted.

it's absolutely situational but there are generalities too. he's extremely stubborn which makes him shortsighted. instead of taking what the defense is willing to give up he'll try to take things that aren't there. how many times has he tried a running play when it's hasn't been there all game long or when the D is clearly expecting it...or gotten away from it when it was working? his brand of wco (if you can call it that) doesn't seem to include throwing to the backs and, other than finley, the tightends have been larely ignored. seems like puting together drives takes a back seat to big plays. the high percentage pass gives way to the lower percentage deep ball. the latest example is flynn's last drive. plenty of time on the board and timeouts to use and it ends with a deep ball on 4th and one.

[3irty1]

Philbin is valuable for the scheme part of things, Campen and Fontenot in the technique. Philbin is a career coach and an X's and O's guy who most notably served in Iowa under Kirk Ferentz, the zone-blocking Mike Shanahan of the college level. Campen and Fontenot are both former players. Personally I like the scheme, I just think the players suck at it. I doubt the ability of our position coach to teach the guys, specifically in the footwork and techniques specific to zone blocking. I guess I think they suck more on an individual level rather than as a unit--I just don't see any improvement in the new OL this staff has been given. Thus why I'd rather get rid of Campen than Philbin but would understand getting rid of both.

Before McCarthy came to GB he was considered a great QB developer but also a run-first type of offensive guru with the great rushing attacks he had led in NO and SF as an OC (under two defensively-minded coaches). I have a feeling that even if we did fire Philbin that we'd promote Tom Clements to OC rather than go look for another OL guru. Clements has grown quite the resume around here and with all the QB turnover in the league this coming offseason you've got to believe that he'll be on a couple of other teams' lists. Promoting him might be the only way to keep him.

[RashanGary]

3irty1, I can definitely why firing Philbin and replacing him from outside would be difficult.

1st - Philbin does have some valuable experience where he probably has some pride so firing him is really a slap in his face, saying he's not good enough. It has to be difficult to fire a person.

2nd - Clements is accomplished and passing over him would be a major slap in the face


but. . . .

Even though MM would have to do some really tough things to some good guys, the fact remains the biggest coaching need we have is on the OL and the best way (probably the only way outside sheer luck) to get one of the most qualified OL coaches in the league to our staff is to give him the OC spot.

I know it's teh tough thing to do, but clearly it's the right thing to do if he's true to his word of trying to win a championship.

[rbaloha1]

Why blame Philbin? MM calls the plays.

[rbaloha1]

5-15 in close games -- Sherman II

[swede]

I find myself agreeing with both the pro and anti-MM crowd as both groups are making good points. Currently I have my dial set at +45% supportive of MM. That is up from a low of +35%.

That 5-15 in close games stat is pretty provocative, though. I may have to drop the support to +42%

[Bossman641]

5-15 in close games -- Sherman II

Would you like to try again?

Sherman's record was something like 14-13 in games decided by 4 or less.

[Pugger]

I would make the argument that his "problem" is mostly injuries. The go-to play for Rodgers early in the season was "throw it to Finley cuz he can probably come down with anything."

I think people are focusing on the playcalling at the expense of execution. The offensive line stunk, stunk, stunk. Very early in the game the Packers were driving with ease, when Quarless fumbled on about the Detroit 30 yard line. Then Jennings dropped a sure touchdown. Either or both of those plays, had they been made, would likely have changed the entire complexion of the game.

This.

[th87]

I find myself agreeing with both the pro and anti-MM crowd as both groups are making good points. Currently I have my dial set at +45% supportive of MM. That is up from a low of +35%.

That 5-15 in close games stat is pretty provocative, though. I may have to drop the support to +42%

Being a Marty disciple, I always wondered whether his lack of clutchness would rub off.

However, if we're going to count that stat, we also have to consider that he never gets blown out.

[Fritz]

Again, the knock on Bill Cowher and Dean Smith and others like them is that they couldn't win the big one. This sounds remarkably similar to the lament now being given that MM can't win the close games.

Hey, I wonder if people would be happier if the Pack had gotten blown out in say, eight or nine of those close games. MM would still have the same coaching record, but it'd look like he was better in close games.

Another way to look at that 5-15 record is that if MM wasn't such a good coach, they'd have gotten blown out in games that should not have been even close. Hmmm....

[MJZiggy]

Again, the knock on Bill Cowher and Dean Smith and others like them is that they couldn't win the big one. This sounds remarkably similar to the lament now being given that MM can't win the close games.

Hey, I wonder if people would be happier if the Pack had gotten blown out in say, eight or nine of those close games. MM would still have the same coaching record, but it'd look like he was better in close games.

Another way to look at that 5-15 record is that if MM wasn't such a good coach, they'd have gotten blown out in games that should not have been even close. Hmmm....

Now that you mention it, when is the last time we were truly blown out?

[rbaloha1]

Now that you mention it, when is the last time we were truly blown out?

Irrelevant. Its about playoffs and super bowls. After all the Packers expectations are different than the Browns or Lions, etc.

[Guiness]

Now that you mention it, when is the last time we were truly blown out?

maybe it's just me, but I consider last Sunday's loss to the Lions a blow out!!!:shock:

[Pugger]

maybe it's just me, but I consider last Sunday's loss to the Lions a blow out!!!:shock:

No. Heck, had Jennings caught that pass in the end zone we'd all be marveling about Flynn saving the day.

[rbaloha1]

maybe it's just me, but I consider last Sunday's loss to the Lions a blow out!!!:shock:

In one sense. MM is good for gamblers -- maybe that is why there is so much MM love?

[Bretsky]

Tony.......a bit crude on the response to Jimmy H as our coach; I'd still puke if the Pack hired him but he might be a good NFL coach someday.
I continue to think MM is an average NFL coach. It would be a fun thread...ranking the coaches from 1-32....bring out lots of arguments

My guess is I'd put MM somewhere between 14-20

[MJZiggy]

Irrelevant. Its about playoffs and super bowls. After all the Packers expectations are different than the Browns or Lions, etc.

You're obviously young enough not to have endured too many blowouts. You can't win playoffs and super bowls if you're getting blown out. Why do you think your expectations are different than the Browns or Lions?

[Patler]

The bottom line is the OC position is the carrot that all outstanding OL coaches are striving for. We have a fine, fine damn fine defense. We have a great passing attack. Any outstanding OL coach across the league would be licking their chops to fix our big weakness. But we can't hire laterally, we have to promote.



Why can't GB you hire laterally to get a good O-line coach? It is done all the time. However, the field you are limited to includes assistants with expiring contracts, and more likely, those on the staffs of fired head coaches. Assistants do not like to get the rep of jumping from staff to staff, so most will stay if offered a renewal, but not always, and most work on 2-year contracts at most. However, when the HC is fired, most assistants are granted the right to look elsewhwere, and many times the staff is let go in its entirety. That is where you can often find a proven coach with success at the area you want him.

[bobblehead]

Irrelevant. Its about playoffs and super bowls. After all the Packers expectations are different than the Browns or Lions, etc.

If that is true, then its irrelevant what his record is in close games....which is basically what I have been saying. I want to make the playoffs consistently AND win some games with an eventual Lombardi Trophy.

BTW, anyone have a clue as to when the 2nd overall team in the NFL (and first in the NFC) in point differential didn't make the playoffs was??

[bobblehead]

Now that you mention it, when is the last time we were truly blown out?

Ask that question again say.....Monday morning.

[rbaloha1]

You're obviously young enough not to have endured too many blowouts. You can't win playoffs and super bowls if you're getting blown out. Why do you think your expectations are different than the Browns or Lions?

My point is those teams have never reached the super bowl -- the Wolf/TT era has brought us numerous years of super bowl contention. Trust me, I was around for the Starr era.

[retailguy]

Being a Marty disciple, I always wondered whether his lack of clutchness would rub off.

However, if we're going to count that stat, we also have to consider that he never gets blown out.

Umm. Well that's not my recollection, so I looked it up.

September 10, 2006 Chicago Bears L 26–0
October 2, 2006 Philadelphia Eagles L 31-9
November 5, 2006 Buffalo Bills L 24-10
November 19, 2006 New England Patriots L 35-0
December 3, 2006 New York Jets L 38-10
December 23, 2007 Chicago L, 35-7
September 21, 2008 Dallas L, 27-16
November 24, 2008 New Orleans L, 51-29

I just looked at scores. I'm sure all wouldn't be considered a "blowout", it depends on how you define the term. I personally think the team was "blown out" three times last season - Cincinnati, and the two Vikings games. The scores were close enough to not qualify in my mind, however, the team didn't play well in any facet of the game.

So, McCarthy has trotted out more than a fair share of "stinkers" in my mind.

I don't necessarily want to fire the guy, but I really do question whether or not we can win it all with him and Ted.

[rbaloha1]

Umm. Well that's not my recollection, so I looked it up.

September 10, 2006 Chicago Bears L 26–0
October 2, 2006 Philadelphia Eagles L 31-9
November 5, 2006 Buffalo Bills L 24-10
November 19, 2006 New England Patriots L 35-0
December 3, 2006 New York Jets L 38-10
December 23, 2007 Chicago L, 35-7
September 21, 2008 Dallas L, 27-16
November 24, 2008 New Orleans L, 51-29

I just looked at scores. I'm sure all wouldn't be considered a "blowout", it depends on how you define the term. I personally think the team was "blown out" three times last season - Cincinnati, and the two Vikings games. The scores were close enough to not qualify in my mind, however, the team didn't play well in any facet of the game.

So, McCarthy has trotted out more than a fair share of "stinkers" in my mind.

I don't necessarily want to fire the guy, but I really do question whether or not we can win it all with him and Ted.

Let me reply with my MM apologist mindset -- it was during the early years of his career but recently there are no blowouts. Maybe another Belichek if we keep him around.

[Joemailman]

Umm. Well that's not my recollection, so I looked it up.

September 10, 2006 Chicago Bears L 26–0
October 2, 2006 Philadelphia Eagles L 31-9
November 5, 2006 Buffalo Bills L 24-10
November 19, 2006 New England Patriots L 35-0
December 3, 2006 New York Jets L 38-10
December 23, 2007 Chicago L, 35-7
September 21, 2008 Dallas L, 27-16
November 24, 2008 New Orleans L, 51-29

I just looked at scores. I'm sure all wouldn't be considered a "blowout", it depends on how you define the term. I personally think the team was "blown out" three times last season - Cincinnati, and the two Vikings games. The scores were close enough to not qualify in my mind, however, the team didn't play well in any facet of the game.

So, McCarthy has trotted out more than a fair share of "stinkers" in my mind.

I don't necessarily want to fire the guy, but I really do question whether or not we can win it all with him and Ted.

To me a blowout would be a game that is essentially over after 3 quarters. MM suffered several his first 3 years, but hasn't suffered one since New Orleans in 2008. Buffalo in 2006 was no blowout. The game was tied in the 4th quarter. At any rate, I think MM does a good job of getting his team to play competitive football every week. I agree that whether or not he can win a championship is open to question.

[pbmax]

And 11 point loss (less than two TDs) is a blowout? I guess if the definition of a loss is either close OR blowout. But if there is a middle ground, I think less than two scores easily qualifies for that.

And rb, five were not just during the early years, but during the FIRST year when beloved Shaper, Wahle and Rivera had been let go.

McCarthy's point differential and overall record demonstrate that he wins big and loses close. Isn't that what the Packers want? Does anyone want to win close and then get blownout while losing?

The problem is too many avoidable losses, close or not. Silverstein was on the radio hammering away at this record in close games. And he said it had to mean something because it wasn't just a couple of games. He assumes because his sample size COULD be smaller that it must be significant. But that record says good and bad things about McCarthy, it is not an indictment of him as a coach and tells you little unless you find the same errors in his blowout wins. And those answers are well known by now: bad special teams, penalties, problems with the 4 minute drill settling for FGs and adjusting to the capabilities of his offense (O line, RB, QB). Previously you could have included the defensive staff, before the change to Capers.

[Bretsky]

Seriously, why in the heck can't we find a quality special teams coach from a staff that was fired; staffs are fired every year. We fire our special teams coach and hire his dang assistant with limited credentials.

It's been said plenty around here but MM is loyal to a fault.

And was Tom Clements on staff (I consider him overqualifed coach for his position) when Philbin was hired as the OC.

Philbin seemed like a very valuable OL coach and one might argue hiring him to be OC and Campen at OL has been less than stellar

JH has brought up some very solid points regarding him as the OC; I was never fond of that hire with other more experienced candidates out there.

In retrospect the dude was valuable as a OL coach and for those who argue Campen is not good there............well.........do that Math

[th87]

The lack of blowouts recently is a very good sign of a good team ready to take the next step. I think Waldo did an analysis on it somewhere. As cliche as it is, the Packers do need to learn to finish. Mental mistakes down the stretch need to be eliminated. Fumbles, penalties, blown ST coverages seem to come at the worst times. That's just a reflection of focus and maturity. And MM does need to dance with the girl that got him the 4th quarter lead. That's what Belichick does.

Of course, fix the o line, and this isn't as much of an issue.

[SnakeLH2006]

No. Heck, had Jennings caught that pass in the end zone we'd all be marveling about Flynn saving the day.

Flynn couldn't save the day if Jesus said, "Hey, it's in the scriptures, bro."

Trust in Flynn and we all burn in eternal fire.

[MJZiggy]

Flynn couldn't save the day if Jesus said, "Hey, it's in the scriptures, bro."

Trust in Flynn and we all burn in eternal fire.

Dude for godssakes, Flynn is just a kid who's played in a grand total of half a game. Let's not base his whole future on 30 snaps. Remember what AR's first 30 snaps looked like?

[mmmdk]

Tony.......a bit crude on the response to Jimmy H as our coach; I'd still puke if the Pack hired him but he might be a good NFL coach someday.
I continue to think MM is an average NFL coach. It would be a fun thread...ranking the coaches from 1-32....bring out lots of arguments

My guess is I'd put MM somewhere between 14-20

Wuhuu - I agree totally with B; between 14-20 is where McCarthy should be ranked. About Jimmy Harbaugh, he'd be a gamble to hire...much like McCarthy was a gamble to hire as a head coach - if your goal is to win a super bowl.

Teachers don't win super bowls.

[MJZiggy]

Teachers don't win super bowls.

You sure about that? I've heard of Belichick referred to as a great teacher...

[Pugger]

Flynn couldn't save the day if Jesus said, "Hey, it's in the scriptures, bro."

Trust in Flynn and we all burn in eternal fire.

If Jennings catches that TD we're up 10-7. Last I checked that would be enough to win.

[rbaloha1]

If Jennings catches that TD we're up 10-7. Last I checked that would be enough to win.

How is that simple? Playcalling changes and possibly the packers still lose. At the end of the day, no excuses losing to a bad team.

[bobblehead]

How is that simple? Playcalling changes and possibly the packers still lose. At the end of the day, no excuses losing to a bad team.

Not true, in a 10 point game MM still does not think calling a running play is a viable option. Playcalling doesn't change a bit.

[rbaloha1]

Not true, in a 10 point game MM still does not think calling a running play is a viable option. Playcalling doesn't change a bit.

What about Lions playcalling? Its impossible to project the outcome of the game with Jennings td catch.

Quoting Bill Parcells, "You are what your record says."

[denverYooper]

You sure about that? I've heard of Belichick referred to as a great teacher...

+50

[rbaloha1]

+50

Another so-called great teacher was Bill Walsh.

[MJZiggy]

Another so-called great teacher was Bill Walsh.

Thanks for making the point that M3 should be kept because he's a good teacher.

[Bretsky]

Thanks for making the point that M3 should be kept because he's a good teacher.



Maybe I missed this but as a head coach how is MM a great teacher ? He seems to be a great developer of QB's but not sure about the rest.
I think he's average which is not ground to get rid of the guy

But if he doesn't make some moves with his staff I'll think less than him

[rbaloha1]

Thanks for making the point that M3 should be kept because he's a good teacher.

He is a great teacher of qbs -- thats it. Does not have the teaching depth of Walsh or Belicheck which ultimately leads to super bowls.

[MJZiggy]

Maybe I missed this but as a head coach how is MM a great teacher ? He seems to be a great developer of QB's but not sure about the rest.
I think he's average which is not ground to get rid of the guy

But if he doesn't make some moves with his staff I'll think less than him

You already think less than him:taunt::mrgreen:

[RashanGary]

Why can't GB you hire laterally to get a good O-line coach? It is done all the time. However, the field you are limited to includes assistants with expiring contracts, and more likely, those on the staffs of fired head coaches. Assistants do not like to get the rep of jumping from staff to staff, so most will stay if offered a renewal, but not always, and most work on 2-year contracts at most. However, when the HC is fired, most assistants are granted the right to look elsewhwere, and many times the staff is let go in its entirety. That is where you can often find a proven coach with success at the area you want him.


Good point. This would be one way to land our guy, but if we're going to hire an OL guy to be better than Philbin, we should just fire his ass anyway. It's great that our offense, in total, is putting up excellent numbers, but it's in the areas of MM's expertise and we suck in the area of Philbins expertise.

It doesn't make sense to keep an OL background OC who's failing in the one area he has experience in. Look at his background. What the hell is he doing if not bringing OL expertise?


I say we find the most sought after OL guy in the business and replace our OL background OC with a better OL background OC. That's the surest way to get the top guy. Philbin is not the top OL guy. He's failing at the one thing he's supposed to be good at.

[Patler]

Good point. This would be one way to land our guy, but if we're going to hire an OL guy to be better than Philbin, we should just fire his ass anyway. It's great that our offense, in total, is putting up excellent numbers, but it's in the areas of MM's expertise and we suck in the area of Philbins expertise.

It doesn't make sense to keep an OL background OC who's failing in the one area he has experience in. Look at his background. What the hell is he doing if not bringing OL expertise?


I say we find the most sought after OL guy in the business and replace our OL background OC with a better OL background OC. That's the surest way to get the top guy. Philbin is not the top OL guy. He's failing at the one thing he's supposed to be good at.

I don't care if Philbin was an O-line coach before. Upon being named OC he became much less involved in the day-to-day training of the O-line players, and more involved in the overall operation of the offense. I doubt that he spends significantly more time with the o-line than he does with other position groups.

I would be more than satisfied with letting Campen take the fall!

[RashanGary]

You don't think McCarthy is most responsible for the passing part of our offense and Philbin the OL/running part? Come on, man. Look at their backgrounds.

[Patler]

You don't think McCarthy is most responsible for the passing part of our offense and Philbin the OL/running part? Come on, man. Look at their backgrounds.

What do you mean by "responsible"? Is Philbin focused more on running philosophy and MM on passing? Perhaps. But is he overly involved in the nitty gritty day-to-day coaching of the O-line? I doubt it very much.

You seem to suggest that he is just a glorified O-line coach, and I doubt very much that is the case.

[Fritz]

I think we can all agree that firing Campen would be a good move.

Okay?

Now let's all sing "Kumbaya" around the campfire!

[Joemailman]

I think we can all agree that firing Campen would be a good move.

Okay?

Now let's all sing "Kumbaya" around the campfire!

Can MM do it in the next few days so I don't have to worry about it at Christmas?

[pbmax]

He is a great teacher of qbs -- thats it. Does not have the teaching depth of Walsh or Belicheck which ultimately leads to super bowls.

Please list for me the teaching credentials that each had compared to McCarthy. Walsh was a RB coach, then coordinator (when O coordinator also meant QB coach). Belicheck had one year on the offensive side of the ball then did Special Teams(when it was not a separate coaching job) and linebackers.

McCarthy has been a WR coach then offensive coordinator.

Head coaches do not do much teaching day to day. McCarthy has demonstrated he can impart lessons to QBs, just as the other two did to their charges. But that is all that can be said. This topic, teaching, is just a rubric for complaining about the record.

[rbaloha1]

Please list for me the teaching credentials that each had compared to McCarthy. Walsh was a RB coach, then coordinator (when O coordinator also meant QB coach). Belicheck had one year on the offensive side of the ball then did Special Teams(when it was not a separate coaching job) and linebackers.

McCarthy has been a WR coach then offensive coordinator.

Head coaches do not do much teaching day to day. McCarthy has demonstrated he can impart lessons to QBs, just as the other two did to their charges. But that is all that can be said. This topic, teaching, is just a rubric for complaining about the record.

The point is from a stylistic point of view -- the ability to teach concepts and fundamentals to players. Players then execute. Understanding players strengths and weaknesses which result in placing player's in winning performance is the key. Holgremn's experience as a history teacher helped him as a football coach.

Walsh and Belecheck both have been cited as great teachers. Unsure where MM stands. At the end of the day both have super bowls while we await the donkey MM win meaningful and close games (5-15 and .333 in playoff games)

[red]

I think we can all agree that firing Campen would be a good move.

Okay?

Now let's all sing "Kumbaya" around the campfire!

can we shoot his dog too?

[gbgary]

needs a real OC and needs to give up the play calling.

[mmmdk]

needs a real OC and needs to give up the play calling.

Yup ! :glug:

This way I'd accept him staying. But would he? Is it a slap in the face? Too proud to do it, is my guess.

[mmmdk]

You sure about that? I've heard of Belichick referred to as a great teacher...

No, not sure! But Belichick is more than a teacher and would never screw up, time after time, on time management. Plus Stubby's play calling is topsy turvy at best. Beli has that down.

[mmmdk]

McCarthy on final drive: "I didn't find anything chaotic about the final seconds of the game."

Are you kiddin' me? Squibby Stubby couldn't manage or orchestrate an offense to save his life.

Hey teacher, leave the Pack alone !

[rbaloha1]

No, not sure! But Belichick is more than a teacher and would never screw up, time after time, on time management. Plus Stubby's play calling is topsy turvy at best. Beli has that down.

If I recall correctly from the broadcast, Belecheck has a streak of 62 fourth quarter home victories when leading.

[mmmdk]

If I recall correctly from the broadcast, Belecheck has a streak of 62 fourth quarter home victories when leading.

Wow, that's amazing.

[swede]

I think we are one key injury away from getting back in the playoff race.

[denverYooper]

I think we are one key injury away from getting back in the playoff race.

To Slocum?

[swede]

Yep. I'm hoping he trips on a microphone cord.

[Bretsky]

To Slocum?

winner winner chicken dinner

he's the no brainer to lose IMO

[denverYooper]

Green Bay's offense has gone from dead last in penalties (118 last year) to 5th this year (71 currently). They got that cleaned up.

[bobblehead]

Yeah, let's generalize SB coaches around the fluke called Barry Switzer. One freckin' disaster coach is not the trend; the rest of the SB winning coaches are legends and even many that were SB runner ups are near legends.

Do yourself a favor a run through the all SB coaches and you'll understand. Stubby will never reach that list; no, we'll have to wait till it's obvious to the blind that a change is needed.

Lastly, as I've (now) stated a zillion times; it's probably not a good idea to unseat Stubby any time soon. Especially with lock out looming. I just wish this Packer could win big - SOON!

I just love people who say never and call me blind, then a couple weeks later post that we are going to win the superbowl. Newflash, winning superbowls MAKES coaches legends, not vice versa. If we run off 3 straight due to having superior talent on the field you will be proclaiming MM the bee's knees and gloating about how you knew it all along.

Oh yea.....BUMPWACKITA

[3irty1]

I've defended MM all along against a ton of the baseless criticism but even I'm starting to think that coaching this team is like coaching the '95 Bulls. Arod makes his job easy.

[vince]

I've defended MM all along against a ton of the baseless criticism but even I'm starting to think that coaching this team is like coaching the '95 Bulls. Arod makes his job easy.
Developed by McCarthy.

[RashanGary]

In 2007 the Packers had Driver and Jennings coming into his 2nd year at WR, and that looked like it. Favre sat out all of the offseason and they were just barely starting to click come the start of the regular season. MM never had a chance to get cocky. His back was against the wall from day one. Once Grant started running the ball, the Packers offense was elite.

In 2008, it was Rodgers first year. They were solid but defense and ST's didn't hold it together and at a few key times, MM took the ball out of AR's hands, maybe not trusting his first year QB.

2009, for the first 8 games, MM tried a vertical offense where AR stood patiently in the pocket. By the time they were 8 games in they had already lost 4 games. Their back was against the wall. They came back with shorter passes and runs and the offense was great. They made the playoffs and looked good doing it.

2010, for the first 6 games, the Packers seemed to be opening up a new, innovative playbook. 6 games in, the Packers were 3-3. Their backs were beginning to be against the wall. They went back to the shorter passes and went on a little run. Again, they seemed to settle into a lul where the offense looked a little confused at times. Maybe they started to overcomplicate it again. Then the Giant game came and AR just lit them up. The Bear game was that steady, trusty short pass dominated game. The Eagles was the short pass dominated but now Starks was a factor. Then the Falcon game and it was more long, short pass dominated drives with runs mixed in and beast 3rd down play by Rodgers. ..


I think there's a pattern. The Packers offense lights it up when their backs are against the wall. And back to TH's original post in this thread, it does seem MM might get a little cute when things are going well. He loves creating plays. He talks about how much he values creativity. I think that might be one of the things he has to keep in check. Keep it simple. Keep it simple. Keep it simple. There's no worry of MM oversimplifying it. He's not that type of guy, so keep it simple might be a good moto for him. It scares me if we make it to the SB too. If he has 2 weeks to dream up new plays, we might be looking at a sputtering offense.

[pbmax]

Everyone picks on Switzer. But no one remembers Brian Billick, Tom Coughlin or Mike Ditka.

[esoxx]

And Don McCafferty

[gbgary]

i've only been critical of his stubborn playcalling, at times, this season. he's proven to be a great coach and motivator. he called a great game yesterday. played Packer football to the end. the same must happen next week...and hopefully the following game.

[mmmdk]

I just love people who say never and call me blind, then a couple weeks later post that we are going to win the superbowl. Newflash, winning superbowls MAKES coaches legends, not vice versa. If we run off 3 straight due to having superior talent on the field you will be proclaiming MM the bee's knees and gloating about how you knew it all along.

Oh yea.....BUMPWACKITA

Can I call you blind now? Read my posts...and not literally like you do your bible.

[mmmdk]

Who dares taint the prophesy of the EURO RAT ? The prophesy of Packers winning the Super Bowl on my birthday??? You lot? YOU LOT? I thought so...

Yet do so and be forever known as the one RAT who squib kicked a Packer Lomardi Trophy into the gutter.

[bobblehead]

Can I call you blind now? Read my posts...and not literally like you do your bible.

I'm an agnostic...are you on drugs?

[mmmdk]

I'm an agnostic...are you on drugs?

What's with the drug thing? I shot Stubby and you gloated....searching for posts to prey on. I retaliated!

I then read your one good post and said "ok, bobble".

MOVE ON!

[bobblehead]

Fair enough. I had my fun today. On to whooping the bears and uniting packer nation for the superbowl. Like you said, I never really get mad either, I just have some fun. I can own my mistakes and I won't pretend I don't make any. Moving on.

[mmmdk]

Fair enough. I had my fun today. On to whooping the bears and uniting packer nation for the superbowl. Like you said, I never really get mad either, I just have some fun. I can own my mistakes and I won't pretend I don't make any. Moving on.

Ok! Glad I saved my own fumble too. Geez, I wish that online matters wouldn't get me so fired up but when it's Packers...it's BIG [to me].

Have a good day and thumbs for being an agnostic - I consider myself as one too.

[HarveyWallbangers]

In 2007 the Packers had Driver and Jennings coming into his 2nd year at WR, and that looked like it. Favre sat out all of the offseason and they were just barely starting to click come the start of the regular season. MM never had a chance to get cocky. His back was against the wall from day one. Once Grant started running the ball, the Packers offense was elite.

In 2008, it was Rodgers first year. They were solid but defense and ST's didn't hold it together and at a few key times, MM took the ball out of AR's hands, maybe not trusting his first year QB.

2009, for the first 8 games, MM tried a vertical offense where AR stood patiently in the pocket. By the time they were 8 games in they had already lost 4 games. Their back was against the wall. They came back with shorter passes and runs and the offense was great. They made the playoffs and looked good doing it.

2010, for the first 6 games, the Packers seemed to be opening up a new, innovative playbook. 6 games in, the Packers were 3-3. Their backs were beginning to be against the wall. They went back to the shorter passes and went on a little run. Again, they seemed to settle into a lul where the offense looked a little confused at times. Maybe they started to overcomplicate it again. Then the Giant game came and AR just lit them up. The Bear game was that steady, trusty short pass dominated game. The Eagles was the short pass dominated but now Starks was a factor. Then the Falcon game and it was more long, short pass dominated drives with runs mixed in and beast 3rd down play by Rodgers. ..


I think there's a pattern. The Packers offense lights it up when their backs are against the wall. And back to TH's original post in this thread, it does seem MM might get a little cute when things are going well. He loves creating plays. He talks about how much he values creativity. I think that might be one of the things he has to keep in check. Keep it simple. Keep it simple. Keep it simple. There's no worry of MM oversimplifying it. He's not that type of guy, so keep it simple might be a good moto for him. It scares me if we make it to the SB too. If he has 2 weeks to dream up new plays, we might be looking at a sputtering offense.

We still go vertical a ton. Way more than most teams. Maybe even more than any other team. Rodgers is doing a better job of getting the ball to his checkdowns though.