McCarthy and "Close Games"

[bobblehead]

PS...after the horrendous situation Mike Smith put his team in with 10 seconds to go in the first half, does anyone wish to update their ranking of coaches?

As I said earlier, and in all seriousness. Players win games, not coaches. ARod was sick yesterday, and TWill deserves co-MVP for the game. Clay was disruptive, JJ was almost as good as he thinks he is, and Jennings picked his sack up after the fumble. And oh, don't forget the Jordy love either.

PPS...even though starks was unremarkable running it, anyone notice the fantastic blocking he did on ARod's TD run? Against a lineman no less.

[pbmax]

Jim Caldwell, Mike Smith, I warned everyone but no one listened. Even Mike Tomlin tried to give that game away with poor challenge decisions in the first half. Coaching houses of straw I tell you. :)

They are giving coaches named Mike a bad name.

[mmmdk]

bobblehead is on a crusade...ban the f@cker. What did you ever predict?

[bobblehead]

bobblehead is on a crusade...ban the f@cker. What did you ever predict?

I predicted that Alan Babre would beat out College for the LG spot in camp this year. I own that shame. You also owned up to crackin' on MM in the other tread, I respect that. I think that I told you so's is part of a good forum, I can eat my mistakes, but i like to toss around things as well. Mainly I just like to rub it in to the over react to everything crowd.

Many people think that the packers should win every game by 3 scores and if they don't MM and TT suck. People seem to not understand that other guys get paid to. I never mind addressing a good honest tough question, but i just lose patience for "Sarah Palin is a Joke" or "MM can't win a close game" with no evidence other than raw emotion. I can't stand "TT should trade a 3rd for Lynch" when no other GM in the entire NFL would....that makes TT a moron. I hate "MM called a horrible play on the last play...no way Flynn can make that throw" because they think it would be smarter to run into the 9 guys in the box than attack single coverage downfield. Yea, I'm enjoying the win :P

[RashanGary]

I'd take Kampman in his prime over Allen. Allen was probably a little better as a pass rusher, but Kampman was much better run defender. I think AK74 was a tad underrated and Allen is a tad overrated.

And AK74u is my favorite gun on Black Ops

[mmmdk]

I predicted that Alan Babre would beat out College for the LG spot in camp this year. I own that shame. You also owned up to crackin' on MM in the other tread, I respect that. I think that I told you so's is part of a good forum, I can eat my mistakes, but i like to toss around things as well. Mainly I just like to rub it in to the over react to everything crowd.

Many people think that the packers should win every game by 3 scores and if they don't MM and TT suck. People seem to not understand that other guys get paid to. I never mind addressing a good honest tough question, but i just lose patience for "Sarah Palin is a Joke" or "MM can't win a close game" with no evidence other than raw emotion. I can't stand "TT should trade a 3rd for Lynch" when no other GM in the entire NFL would....that makes TT a moron. I hate "MM called a horrible play on the last play...no way Flynn can make that throw" because they think it would be smarter to run into the 9 guys in the box than attack single coverage downfield. Yea, I'm enjoying the win :P

Thanx bobble! Good post. I read it and I respect this response. Your [other] remarks made me "online" mad and I in "real" life this never happens.

I look forward to visiting Lameau in '11 or '12 - the world is just greater face-to-face.

Thanx again, bobble.

[vince]

bobblehead is on a crusade...ban the f@cker. What did you ever predict?
I'd call it a good roll more than a crusade, but whatever...:D

[mmmdk]

I'd call it a good roll more than a crusade, but whatever...:D

Yeah, Ok! :smile:

[retailguy]

I can't stand "TT should trade a 3rd for Lynch" when no other GM in the entire NFL would....that makes TT a moron. I hate "MM called a horrible play on the last play...no way Flynn can make that throw" because they think it would be smarter to run into the 9 guys in the box than attack single coverage downfield. Yea, I'm enjoying the win :P


Actually, I saw multiple news commentaries last weekend that New Orleans was willing to give up a 3rd, otherwise I agree largely with your rant.

As to McCarthy? Some of the criticism remains valid if you ask me. He called a phenomenal game yesterday, kept Atlanta off their toes for the entire game. His last 4 have been quite good actually. But those good games, don't make the Miami game, or the Washington game better. They still sucked. (I can give a mulligan for Detroit because of what happened to Rodgers).

I actually find myself agreeing with Justin Harrell that McCarthy has "grown up" in the last few games. (Imagine me agreeing with Harrell? lol) We'll see if it sticks. If it does, we've got a great head coach for years to come, if it doesn't, I suspect I'll still read denial after denial after denial that he "isn't that bad".

PS - I am enjoying the win today also. 'Tis a good day in Packerland...

PSS - I've predicted plenty that turned out not true, and also have no issue admitting it and moving on... But, I've predicted some things that have come to pass also, funny how those things get forgotten... ;)

[mraynrand]

Thanx bobble! Good post. I read it and I respect this response. Your [other] remarks made me "online" mad and I in "real" life this never happens.

I look forward to visiting Lameau in '11 or '12 - the world is just greater face-to-face.

Thanx again, bobble.

Say "Hi" to Mario for me.

[Fritz]

This will be a great test of MM's game planning abilities. I believe his offensive line is not very good compared to the Bears' defensive line, and MM is going to have to figure out how to work around that problem.

[MJZiggy]

This will be a great test of MM's game planning abilities. I believe his offensive line is not very good compared to the Bears' defensive line, and MM is going to have to figure out how to work around that problem.

Not to be a smartass, but won't he do that the same way as he did two weeks ago? I'm just sayin'

[bobblehead]

Oh yea, I'm going there.

Fucking MM can't win ONE SINGLE close game in the playoffs. Fucker is likely to win the superbowl by 25 points just to prove he is incompetent.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Oh yea, I'm going there.

Fucking MM can't win ONE SINGLE close game in the playoffs. Fucker is likely to win the superbowl by 25 points just to prove he is incompetent.

Why? McCarthy once again failed to win a close game. (Remember that a close game is arbitrarily defined as a game won by 4 points or fewer.)

[mmmdk]

Oh yea, I'm going there.

Fucking MM can't win ONE SINGLE close game in the playoffs. Fucker is likely to win the superbowl by 25 points just to prove he is incompetent.

Not sure what you're really saying but I add this: Packers, collectively, made it a close game versus Bears yesterday and nearly lost a sure win by fucking their own minds up. Almost happened in Philly twice this season as did the the totally pounding of Patriots and that game was lost. This worries the objective fan!

[LEWCWA]

I think the Pack made the game close yesterday by playing very vanilla all the way around the 2nd half! I think the ultra conservative approach was by design, as they didn't want to get beat by def. or ST play and didn't believe a 3rd stringer could beat them. The Bears just have a knack for muddling up games and it happened again. This is just their style and it works for them. Seems like they aren't doing a damn thing, an wala, there they are driving for a winning or tieing score. It all worked out in the end, but they sure made it alot scarier than it had to be!

[Lurker64]

I think the Pack made the game close yesterday by playing very vanilla all the way around the 2nd half! I think the ultra conservative approach was by design, as they didn't want to get beat by def. or ST play and didn't believe a 3rd stringer could beat them. The Bears just have a knack for muddling up games and it happened again. This is just their style and it works for them. Seems like they aren't doing a damn thing, an wala, there they are driving for a winning or tieing score. It all worked out in the end, but they sure made it alot scarier than it had to be!

You're missing something very important. A game can only be close if the final margin is 4 or fewer points? A 5-point victory, like the one over the Eagles, is not a close game... nobody with the Packers can take any credit for that.

[Joemailman]

Not sure what you're really saying but I add this: Packers, collectively, made it a close game versus Bears yesterday and nearly lost a sure win by fucking their own minds up. Almost happened in Philly twice this season as did the the totally pounding of Patriots and that game was lost. This worries the objective fan!

Maybe fans expect too much. It's hard to put a team away, especially in the playoffs. The Steelers had a 21 point lead at halftime, at home, and were hanging on for dear life at the end.

[mmmdk]

Maybe fans expect too much. It's hard to put a team away, especially in the playoffs. The Steelers had a 21 point lead at halftime, at home, and were hanging on for dear life at the end.

Good point!
Yet what I saw in the Falcons game part 1 versus the Falcons game part 2...I'd want to take the latter approach for the pedigree of my team. But you can coach either way. What do you prefer?

[denverYooper]

Good point!
Yet what I saw in the Falcons game part 1 versus the Falcons game part 2...I'd want to take the latter approach for the pedigree of my team. But you can coach either way. What do you prefer?

They blew a couple of good shots in Bears territory with one freak INT and one bad decision by Rodgers. Either one of those and the Packers would have gone up 3 scores. Also, they took one killshot down the sideline (when Rodgers got his lip blown up). I don't think the game was called much differently once they were up and Mac said that he was trying to get up 3 scores, they just hit everything in the Falcons game where they didn't in the Bears game.

[mmmdk]

They blew a couple of good shots in Bears territory with one freak INT and one bad decision by Rodgers. Either one of those and the Packers would have gone up 3 scores. Also, they took one killshot down the sideline (when Rodgers got his lip blown up). I don't think the game was called much differently once they were up and Mac said that he was trying to get up 3 scores, they just hit everything in the Falcons game where they didn't in the Bears game.

Yup, I think we agree. These days are not for nitpicking.

Packers NFC Champions 2010 - it feels great writing & won't ever get old.

Packers soon to be NFL Champs again!

[pbmax]

Maybe fans expect too much. It's hard to put a team away, especially in the playoffs. The Steelers had a 21 point lead at halftime, at home, and were hanging on for dear life at the end.

Sometimes, the greatest problem with the Packers offense is the ease with which they do things. Score twice early in the game? Well, that should happen for the rest of the game, regardless of the opponent. And if it doesn't, critics blame nothing concrete, just choking, tightness, lack of killer instinct, conservative, fluoride in the water, etc. Its the other side of the same coin that Bear fans were probably decrying after being down by 14 points: "Lovie just doesn't know how to get his team fired up and start fast...."

The Packer O was unconscious for three drives and one bad bounce off Driver in traffic cost them a shot at a three score lead.

After that, a bad decision for an INT, a couple of penalties, a serious shot to the head of a previously concussed player, a couple bad runs and one very poor decision to run out of bounds turns off the offensive spigot and gives the Bears a chance to recover.

[Patler]

Sometimes, the greatest problem with the Packers offense is the ease with which they do things. Score twice early in the game? Well, that should happen for the rest of the game, regardless of the opponent. And if it doesn't, critics blame nothing concrete, just choking, tightness, lack of killer instinct, conservative, fluoride in the water, etc. Its the other side of the same coin that Bear fans were probably decrying after being down by 14 points: "Lovie just doesn't know how to get his team fired up and start fast...."

The Packer O was unconscious for three drives and one bad bounce off Driver in traffic cost them a shot at a three score lead.

After that, a bad decision for an INT, a couple of penalties, a serious shot to the head of a previously concussed player, a couple bad runs and one very poor decision to run out of bounds turns off the offensive spigot and gives the Bears a chance to recover.

People forget that, as the saying goes, the guys on the other side get paid to play, too. Sometimes they make the play, not your team. How many times have we seen Urlacher make interceptions like the one he made yesterday? He does it time and time again. I was reminded of a comment I read that someone made about Urlacher, that it is extremely difficult to get passes over him because he is a lot taller than he looks, has long arms, jumps very well for a beat-up old linebacker and has exceptional close area quickness with both his feet and his hands. You think you are throwing over or just past him, but he gets to it.

[Smidgeon]

Sometimes, the greatest problem with the Packers offense is the ease with which they do things. Score twice early in the game? Well, that should happen for the rest of the game, regardless of the opponent. And if it doesn't, critics blame nothing concrete, just choking, tightness, lack of killer instinct, conservative, fluoride in the water, etc. Its the other side of the same coin that Bear fans were probably decrying after being down by 14 points: "Lovie just doesn't know how to get his team fired up and start fast...."

The Packer O was unconscious for three drives and one bad bounce off Driver in traffic cost them a shot at a three score lead.

After that, a bad decision for an INT, a couple of penalties, a serious shot to the head of a previously concussed player, a couple bad runs and one very poor decision to run out of bounds turns off the offensive spigot and gives the Bears a chance to recover.

Plus, that's about as much of a blowout as you can expect between the Bears and Packers...

[mmmdk]

Plus, that's about as much of a blowout as you can expect between the Bears and Packers...

LOL - I guess :smile:

I think I'll put the 2008 blowout game dvd on tonight : Packers 37- Bears 3

[Smidgeon]

LOL - I guess :smile:

I think I'll put the 2008 blowout game dvd on tonight : Packers 37- Bears 3

Okay. So that's almost as big of a blowout as you can expect. :)

[Scott Campbell]

The apologists continue. Even without the injuries MM screws up.


And who's sorry now?

[Scott Campbell]

Voice of sanity for Packer fans denying reality.



Oh really?

[Scott Campbell]

Rant as you want. At the end of the day, MM's record in close and meaningful games is horrible -- zero disputing. MM is good at developing (i.e. Brooks and Rodgers) or enhancing careers (i.e. Gannon, Delhomme and Favre) qbs. MM has proven HE CAN NOT WIN CHAMPIONSHIP(S) IN TITLETOWN, USA.

Keep up the truthiness and see where it leads you.


Just an NFC Championship so far.

[Scott Campbell]

CANNOT and HAS not are two entirely different concepts. You're setting yourself up to look like a complete idiot if he does...I need to start bookmarking some of these threads...


You're welcome. :)

[Scott Campbell]

Cannot and has not are two different concepts but they both will and do apply to MM. He wont win a championship. What gives you any idea that he can? He has had five years and produced next to nothing.


I'd call this season fairly productive.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree, we are supposed to debate. Its fun. Its why we come here to see varying opinions and occassionally learn something. My guess is that MM gets one more season regardless due to serious injury issues this year. Despite a very tough schedule, shafting by the refs in a couple games, and Crosby clanking 2 more HUGE kicks this year we are in control of our own destiny. The overall body of work isn't bad. BUT.....either this year or next we need to make some waves in the playoffs. No less than an NFCC birth will do. I must be one of the few who still believe it can happen this year.

As a matter of fact, I'll go out on a limb. We meet Atlanta in the playoffs. I can't be sure we beat them, but we CAN. They are very good, extremely well coached. Nobody else in the NFC I feel is better than Green Bay. Bump it later and embarrass me, I can disappear for the rest of the year just like said poster from last year.....yea, you know who you are.


I'll bump it for you. Good call!

[Scott Campbell]

Since you are posting this -- yes or no is MM another Belichick? I say, "No."


Bill's watching Mike on TV this weekend.

[bobblehead]

I'm embarrassed :P

[Scott Campbell]

I consider MM an average coach now and I'll consider him average then. Certainly not worth firing. OK...I know you weren't waiting for an answer from me but I figured I'd jump in with an inkling to post.

I think MM is an above average playcaller. I'll list my coaching rankings someday when I have time and I think I'll put MM in the 12-18 range.

If I have a criticism of MM overall it's his hiring of coaches and loyalty to them to a fault. I'll think less of him if he finds the ST play acceptable and I can go either way on the OL


Where does he rank now?

[denverYooper]

I'd call this season fairly productive.

2 appearances in the NFCCG in his first 5 years, a SB appearance in the 5th year. That's not too shabby.

[Freak Out]

He's no Bobby Ross.

[mmmdk]

I'm embarrassed :P

I'm curious...why? [don't have time to read the whole thread :wink:]

[Charles Woodson]

I'd call this season fairly productive.

Ill happily take crap for being wrong.

[Bretsky]

Where does he rank now?


I already answered this question in another thread . I don't need this strategy to admit my views have changed

[bobblehead]

I'm curious...why? [don't have time to read the whole thread :wink:]

Just a joke...if you read my post I Scott quoted I ended it by saying if I was wrong you could bump it and embarrass me...I was right and Scott bumped it so I felt obligated to be embarrassed.

[swede]

The thing with MM is he's like a running back that will get you 200 yards and 3 touchdowns every game and then fumble when the game is on the line. Do you get rid of a guy that good? You wouldn't have been in the game without him. But he always manages to mess up at the end.

MM is the best coach in the league from Tuesday through Sunday morning. I mean this sincerely: he needs to let somebody else handle game day. Find a good new OC this year whose strength is game management and let him handle the job. Stubby can still design the game plan, but he should limit himself to wearing bigger headphones and looking tough for the camera.

Idiot.

[mraynrand]

Idiot.


Don't be too hard on yourself - you essentially described Tiki Barber before he cleaned up the fumbling problem. Stubby has mostly cleaned up the 'Stubby' problem - it wasn't that big of a problem to begin with, anyway. McGinn had an interesting article on the change in Stubby's attitude and talk towards his players. The team is definitely drinking Stubby Kool Aid...

[HarveyWallbangers]

Don't be too hard on yourself - you essentially described Tiki Barber before he cleaned up the fumbling problem. Stubby has mostly cleaned up the 'Stubby' problem - it wasn't that big of a problem to begin with, anyway. McGinn had an interesting article on the change in Stubby's attitude and talk towards his players. The team is definitely drinking Stubby Kool Aid...

Or Adrian Peterson. Stubby is the Adrian Peterson of coaches. :)

Where is the article?

[mmmdk]

Just a joke...if you read my post I Scott quoted I ended it by saying if I was wrong you could bump it and embarrass me...I was right and Scott bumped it so I felt obligated to be embarrassed.

Ah! :smile:

[rbaloha1]

IMO still unproven. Who cares right now? Shall worry if the Super Bowl is under 3 points with 2 minutes remaining.

[get louder at lambeau]

IMO still unproven. Who cares right now? Shall worry if the Super Bowl is under 3 points with 2 minutes remaining.

Wow. Never say die, huh rb?

[bobblehead]

Wow. Never say die, huh rb?


give him credit...last year he took his monitor and went home for 9 weeks straight.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I have openly expressed my dislike for MM in the past and most of this year. I will say this, the guy is a good play caller overall, but he really has done nothing to change my opinion of him in close games. The close games we have won down the stretch have not required strategic thinking but rather solid defense at the end of games. But as I type this there is one more game left. I still hate Mason Crosby and I still like MM more as a play caller than a head coach. We win the superbowl and I think I would like MM more just b/c he accomplished what I have been waiting my whole life as a packer fan to enjoy and thats a superbowl WIN. I only remember a couple plays of the 96 superbowl and wasn't really a fan then. Funny thing I really became a fan and started watching every game the 98 season.

Also, if Dom capers gets the defense to show up for the biggest game ever in my time as a fan I will give him big props. Anything short of a win Sunday and its just another year for me. I really want Driver, Woodson, etc to be celebrating Sunday night. God willing the pack beat the Steelers Sunday! Go pack Go!

[Scott Campbell]

Anything short of a win Sunday and its just another year for me.



It's been a great ride win or lose. A loss doesn't take away from what they've accomplished. Though a win would add to it.

[mraynrand]

Anything short of a win Sunday and its just another year for me

I agree. It would really feel just the same as 2008 if they lose.

[ThunderDan]

I agree. It would really feel just the same as 2008 if they lose.

How about 2005?

[mraynrand]

How about 2005?


They're all exactly the same if you don't win the Superbowl

[ThunderDan]

They're all exactly the same if you don't win the Superbowl

See, but that isn't the truth. I can buy all this fancy NFC Championship gear this year. Not so in 2005 and 2008. Jesus were we terrible 5 short years ago.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

They're all exactly the same if you don't win the Superbowl

Yep that is what I have been saying the past week. We really haven’t done anything yet. The Bears made the superbowl in 06 and lost.........you’re probably thinking so what? And you’re exactly right.....so what. THEY LOST. No one cares the eagles went to four NFCC games and one superbowl b/c they never WON anything. Winning the superbowl is all that matters. You are the best, the undisputed champ, and will always be remembered as the best team that year in history. For me at least, the further the packers get in the playoffs the more I want them to win the next game and the more it would hurt if they lost. When we didn't make the playoffs the 08 season I was already thinking about the draft and free agency. But losing the NFCC the year before in lambeau hurt really bad.

Everyone knows the Steelers had a dynasty in the 70s and won four superbowls. Without looking it up, do you know all four of their opponents? I don't and I really don't care.

I really am surprise by the number of people who are just whatever about the game. People talk about the packers and there 12 titles……but if the Steelers get 7 superbowls to me that is more impressive and they deserve to be called title town not us. If I’m not mistaken wasn’t there only like 12 teams or less when we won a lot of our championships? And wasn’t the championship given out by just finishing with the best record? Wouldn’t that make the pats champs this year in that type of system? For me personally, winning superbowl titles is the more impressive feat and if the Steelers get 7 they should be called title town. This game as a big game in packers history. This could be the start of something special and I really hope we will Sunday. And if we play a great game I believe we can!

[denverYooper]

Yep that is what I have been saying the past week. We really haven’t done anything yet. The Bears made the superbowl in 06 and lost.........you’re probably thinking so what? And you’re exactly right.....so what. THEY LOST. No one cares the eagles went to four NFCC games and one superbowl b/c they never WON anything. Winning the superbowl is all that matters. You are the best, the undisputed champ, and will always be remembered as the best team that year in history. For me at least, the further the packers get in the playoffs the more I want them to win the next game and the more it would hurt if they lost. When we didn't make the playoffs the 08 season I was already thinking about the draft and free agency. But losing the NFCC the year before in lambeau hurt really bad.

Everyone knows the Steelers had a dynasty in the 70s and won four superbowls. Without looking it up, do you know all four of their opponents? I don't and I really don't care.

I really am surprise by the number of people who are just whatever about the game. People talk about the packers and there 12 titles……but if the Steelers get 7 superbowls to me that is more impressive and they deserve to be called title town not us. If I’m not mistaken wasn’t there only like 12 teams or less when we won a lot of our championships? And wasn’t the championship given out by just finishing with the best record? Wouldn’t that make the pats champs this year in that type of system? For me personally, winning superbowl titles is the more impressive feat and if the Steelers get 7 they should be called title town. This game as a big game in packers history. This could be the start of something special and I really hope we will Sunday. And if we play a great game I believe we can!

Without looking it up, can you name any other Superbowl winners from the 70's besides the Steelers?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I really am surprise by the number of people who are just whatever about the game. People talk about the packers and there 12 titles……but if the Steelers get 7 superbowls to me that is more impressive and they deserve to be called title town not us. If I’m not mistaken wasn’t there only like 12 teams or less when we won a lot of our championships?

The Steelers are the 5th oldest team in the NFL. They started in 1933. We only won 3 of our 12 titles before they joined the league. Thus, we are ahead of them 9 titles to 6 since they joined the league. I keep thinking that I like the Steelers, and then somebody posts this garbage. The Steelers are a historic team with a great fan base, but they had one dominant decade. Up until 2005, they had 4 titles in one decade and 0 titles in the other 7 decades they have been in the NFL. Now, favorable officiating in two close Super Bowl wins over middling opponents (Seattle, Arizona) has people talking them up like they have just dominated the NFL.

[mraynrand]

I was being a cynical dick about 2005 and 2008. I'll love this year forever even if the Packers lose the Superbowl

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

The Steelers are the 5th oldest team in the NFL. They started in 1933. We only won 3 of our 12 titles before they joined the league. Thus, we are ahead of them 9 titles to 6 since they joined the league. I keep thinking that I like the Steelers, and then somebody posts this garbage. The Steelers are a historic team with a great fan base, but they had one dominant decade. Up until 2005, they had 4 titles in one decade and 0 titles in the other 7 decades they have been in the NFL. Now, favorable officiating in two close Super Bowl wins over middling opponents (Seattle, Arizona) has people talking them up like they have just dominated the NFL.

Thats the whole point of it, to motivate garbage fans like you. But we won a lot of titles back in the 30's so who cares if we win now. You got me there.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Without looking it up, can you name any other Superbowl winners from the 70's besides the Steelers?

Actually I have a pretty good idea of how many superbowls each team has. I might not be able to go year by year, but if you ask me how many superbowls X team has I could tell you.

[mmmdk]

I was being a cynical dick about 2005 and 2008. I'll love this year forever even if the Packers lose the Superbowl

I guess we'll always have Chicago (pretty big win) yet I would totally "forget" Packers from week 1 through week 7, when (some say if :smile:) we win the super bowl but those same weeks would be etched in stone if Packers, totally hypothetically, lost the super bowl. I'm pretty sure history writers agree; winners write history!

[mraynrand]

Actually I have a pretty good idea of how many superbowls each team has. I might not be able to go year by year, but if you ask me how many superbowls X team has I could tell you.

For some reason, I remember KC, Miami, Pittsburgh and Oakland the best. I wonder why?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Thats the whole point of it, to motivate garbage fans like you. But we won a lot of titles back in the 30's so who cares if we win now. You got me there.

The Steelers 4 titles in the 70s are about as pertinent to me as the Packers 5 titles in the 60s. I started watching football after the Steelers dynasty. Since then, the Steelers have 3 Super Bowl appearances and 2 titles and the Packers have 2 Super Bowl appearances and 1 title. Before now.

Garbage fan? WTF. Is this tank reincarnated?

[Fritz]

For some reason, I remember KC, Miami, Pittsburgh and Oakland the best. I wonder why?

Because you've repressed Dallas. And with good reason. The Cowpukes!

[pbmax]

Chiefs, Cowboys, Dolphins, Dolphins, Steelers, Steelers, Raiders, Cowboys, Steelers, Steelers

--no wikipedia

edit; DAMMIT!

One off.

Colts, not Chiefs, won the first Supers Bowl after the 1970 season.

[denverYooper]

The Onion weighs in: (http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/mike-mccarthy,19050/)

COACHING PHILOSOPHY: Balances offense with mix of brilliant plays and boneheaded calls

[easy cheesy]

Just win the fucking game... that is all....

[mraynrand]

For some reason, I remember KC, Miami, Pittsburgh and Oakland the best. I wonder why?


Because you've repressed Dallas. And with good reason. The Cowpukes!

Guess Again!

[mraynrand]

The Steelers 4 titles in the 70s are about as pertinent to me as the Packers 5 titles in the 60s. I started watching football after the Steelers dynasty. Since then, the Steelers have 3 Super Bowl appearances and 2 titles and the Packers have 2 Super Bowl appearances and 1 title. Before now.

Well put. This game is for blue collar, lunch box totin' bragging rights!

[swede]

Well put. This game is for blue collar, lunch box totin' bragging rights!

And, after seven straight years of losing to the Packers in the Chunky Soup Bowl, the Steelers are glad to get a shot at the Packers in a setting where the Packer fans can't bitch slap them.

[mraynrand]

And, after seven straight years of losing to the Packers in the Chunky Soup Bowl, the Steelers are glad to get a shot at the Packers in a setting where the Packer fans can't bitch slap them.


Ben Roethlisberger is so thick you can stab him with a fork!

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/037z6L58Wm54l/610x.jpg

[ThunderDan]

Rant as you want. At the end of the day, MM's record in close and meaningful games is horrible -- zero disputing. MM is good at developing (i.e. Brooks and Rodgers) or enhancing careers (i.e. Gannon, Delhomme and Favre) qbs. MM has proven HE CAN NOT WIN CHAMPIONSHIP(S) IN TITLETOWN, USA.

Keep up the truthiness and see where it leads you.

Too good not to bump!

[ThunderDan]

CANNOT and HAS not are two entirely different concepts. You're setting yourself up to look like a complete idiot if he does...I need to start bookmarking some of these threads...

Bump

[ThunderDan]

Please do. Mele Kalekimaka!

Bump

[Lurker64]

Since the final margin of the superbowl was 6 points, rather than 4 or less, the Packers still can't win close games.

[denverYooper]

Since the final margin of the superbowl was 6 points, rather than 4 or less, the Packers still can't win close games.

They'll look at the film and get it fixed.

[denverYooper]

Rant as you want. At the end of the day, MM's record in close and meaningful games is horrible -- zero disputing. MM is good at developing (i.e. Brooks and Rodgers) or enhancing careers (i.e. Gannon, Delhomme and Favre) qbs. MM has proven HE CAN NOT WIN CHAMPIONSHIP(S) IN TITLETOWN, USA.

Keep up the truthiness and see where it leads you.


Too good not to bump!


:lol: :lol: :lol:

pwned like Polamalu

[pbmax]

They'll look at the film and get it fixed.

Good pad level with keep those games close.

[rbaloha1]

Too good not to bump!


Good Bump. MM has proven he can win a championship. Expect multiple.

Winning close games is currently moot since winning a super bowl cancels out all possible weaknesses for the moment.

At the end of the day imo winning games by less than 3 is still a question.

[ThunderDan]

Good Bump. MM has proven he can win a championship. Expect multiple.

Winning close games is currently moot since winning a super bowl cancels out all possible weaknesses for the moment.

At the end of the day imo winning games by less than 3 is still a question.

Are you truely serious in the last line? Like I posted some where else you are probably going to be disappointed again next year. I think their will be a lot of 35-13 games. Watches us go 13-3 and lose the 3 games by a total of 9 points and the MM "shit" will continue.

[rbaloha1]

Are you truely serious in the last line? Like I posted some where else you are probably going to be disappointed again next year. I think their will be a lot of 35-13 games. Watches us go 13-3 and lose the 3 games by a total of 9 points and the MM "shit" will continue.


Hope you are right. Its all about winning super bowls.

[bobblehead]

I was kinda hoping we would go for it and miss at the end so the D could hold a 3 point lead in the superbowl. Just saying.

Quick question though. We won in chicago, Philly and the big game with the other team driving for a winning score....wouldn't those be considered "close and meaningful" games?

[channtheman]

Here's the type of close game that I have yet to see MM and Rodgers win (sans Bears game 2009). Back and forth teams scoring and the Packers have the ball with 2 minutes less and are down by 3-4. Have they driven down the field and scored the game winning TD much at all? I don't recall any other than that one Bears game.

What I have seen is the defense has held on much more and much better all throughout games this year. Most people call the first Lions game this year a close win (we won by 2), but man if it isn't for the defense holding the Lions to field goals AND also scoring the only TD in the second half we lose that game.

[Joemailman]

Sure wish Crosby would have missed that Field Goal so we could have won the Super Bowl by 4 or less.

[Zool]

I'm confused. Is it the offense keeping other teams in the games or the defense? Are all other NFL teams so shitty that they should be blown out by the Packers every single game? Makes no sense. It's the NFL not Wisconsin against local community college.

[ThunderDan]

Here's the type of close game that I have yet to see MM and Rodgers win (sans Bears game 2009). Back and forth teams scoring and the Packers have the ball with 2 minutes less and are down by 3-4. Have they driven down the field and scored the game winning TD much at all? I don't recall any other than that one Bears game.

What I have seen is the defense has held on much more and much better all throughout games this year. Most people call the first Lions game this year a close win (we won by 2), but man if it isn't for the defense holding the Lions to field goals AND also scoring the only TD in the second half we lose that game.

Go look at any 2008 game that we lost.

A-Rod tied or gaves us the lead in the 4th quarter I think in 9 of the losses only to have the D or ST give up TD before the end of the game. There should be some good threads to bump regarding the inability of ARod first to be a winning QB and second to lead a comeback win.

[Smidgeon]

Here's the type of close game that I have yet to see MM and Rodgers win (sans Bears game 2009). Back and forth teams scoring and the Packers have the ball with 2 minutes less and are down by 3-4. Have they driven down the field and scored the game winning TD much at all? I don't recall any other than that one Bears game.

What I have seen is the defense has held on much more and much better all throughout games this year. Most people call the first Lions game this year a close win (we won by 2), but man if it isn't for the defense holding the Lions to field goals AND also scoring the only TD in the second half we lose that game.

The Packers just score too quickly making the defense work for their checks too. ;)

[channtheman]

Go look at any 2008 game that we lost.

A-Rod tied or gaves us the lead in the 4th quarter I think in 9 of the losses only to have the D or ST give up TD before the end of the game. There should be some good threads to bump regarding the inability of ARod first to be a winning QB and second to lead a comeback win.

I know. I'm talking about 2 minutes to go, we score the last time and their team has no shot at winning it. This year the defense stepped up and won those games for us, but we have rarely won a game with Rodgers where we had the ball last and scored without giving the other team a shot to win it.

[vince]

Unbelievable.

[Fritz]

This thread should be taken out back and shot.

[pbmax]

This thread should be taken out back and shot.

But you only get 4 bullets, to increase the degree of difficulty.

[Lurker64]

But you only get 4 bullets, to increase the degree of difficulty.

I could easily fatally wound this thread in four bullets or less... unlike Mike McCarthy.

[denverYooper]

I could easily fatally wound this thread in four bullets or less... unlike Mike McCarthy.

He'd probably try some ridiculous headshot from between the legs from 80 yards off instead of methodically pumping them in at close range.

[ThunderDan]

Bump.

MM still can't win close games. Stop the other team on the last play of the game from the 1 and IT'S NOT A CLOSE GAME!!!!

So if NO scores the TD but doesn't make the 2 pointer its close but because we stop them on the TD attempt it isn't. :crazy:

[pbmax]

Do you have the soccer channel yet?

Nope. :D

[pbmax]

3) His Offensive staff is turned over yearly and there is little consistency with the O.

Always got the feeling that Snake was never really paying attention. Might have been his girlfriend distracting him.

[pbmax]

Harv answered about Tomlin so I will take Caldwell. He took over a Super Bowl caliber team (including Super Bowl caliber offensive assistants Moore and Howard Mudd) and took it to the Super Bowl. He went 14-2 (impressive under any condition) while playing in a bad AFC South Division. In three years, this might indicate that Caldwell is under-appreciated currently and is indeed a top ten coach. But right now, to me, he seems closer to Barry Switzer or Brian Billick.

Judging the Colts this year is tough as like the Packers they have had extensive injuries. However, unlike Tomlin, Caldwell had the clout to remake his defensive staffand hired Larry Coyer to replace Ron Meeks. Meeks' last two years with Dungy produced points allowed rankings of 1st and 7th. Coyer has notched 8th and 23rd. As I said, injuries make conclusions about this year tough. But Caldwell is a cipher compared to McCarthy. M3 has done more with less for longer.

But let's face facts: McCarthy's credentials can be argued back and forth for eternity. There is material for each side of the debate. If he makes another deep playoff run or wins a Super Bowl, then all questions will fade and his near-genius will be proclaimed far and wide. But until that point, no one will have the guts to comment that this guy is good and that its a good bet that when replaced, the next guy will be worse.

All coaches have holes and weaknesses. No one thought Holmgren could win in Green Bay with a passing attack that couldn't run until he did it (I always thought it odd that the Dickey years didn't provide more confidence about a passing attack in Green Bay-must have been Infante; or Gregg's overall record). But when he made the championship game and then won a Super Bowl, all questions were left in the dust. He didn't transform into a genius and he had the same weaknesses, people just couldn't claim those weaknesses were fatal.

McCarthy has the tools and the smarts. The outstanding questions (special teams, O line inconsistency, penalties, being overly fond of 50 FG attempts(ie. passive late game strategy)) will stay the same. But if he can hold two of those together for a string of six games (ST and penalties) late in the season, then I think he wins one very soon.

Finally a bump that makes me look prescient, not hopeless. :)

[Lurker64]

It's worth noting that the game last night was not "close" by the media's strictly defined metric, so McCarthy still can't win close games in the regular season.

[pbmax]

It's worth noting that the game last night was not "close" by the media's strictly defined Network, so McCarthy still can't win close games in the regular season.

Well, they wouldn't bother to mention it unless it was a rock solid conclusion.

[HarveyWallbangers]

So he's 10-2 in games decided by 5-7 points. Awesome!

This was a good one.

[ThunderDan]

Bump.

We have now won our last 10 games in a row and still haven't won a close game. We have outscored the other team by 131 points in that stretch. Blowouts of Denver, ATL and NYG included.

[rbaloha1]

IMO this thread is moot -- score aside the packers won a close super bowl.

[gbgary]

IMO this thread is moot -- score aside the packers won a close super bowl.

yep...i'd call the sb a close game too.

[ThunderDan]

http://packerrats.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by rbaloha http://packerrats.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?p=559411#post559411)
Rant as you want. At the end of the day, MM's record in close and meaningful games is horrible -- zero disputing. MM is good at developing (i.e. Brooks and Rodgers) or enhancing careers (i.e. Gannon, Delhomme and Favre) qbs. MM has proven HE CAN NOT WIN CHAMPIONSHIP(S) IN TITLETOWN, USA.

Keep up the truthiness and see where it leads you.


Says the guy who posted this!

[ThunderDan]

IMO this thread is moot -- score aside the packers won a close super bowl.

See above.

[channtheman]

I don't understand why a "close" game isn't defined as 8 points or less (i.e. one possession). Makes the most sense to me.

[bobblehead]

I don't understand why a "close" game isn't defined as 8 points or less (i.e. one possession). Makes the most sense to me.

Because they couldn't make the point that MM is a choke artist shitty coach with that metric so they found one that worked with the predefined conclusion. If you study statistics you will find that kind of logic often.

[rbaloha1]

Because they couldn't make the point that MM is a choke artist shitty coach with that metric so they found one that worked with the predefined conclusion. If you study statistics you will find that kind of logic often.

After the Loins debacle last season, thought MM fit in this category (Peter King reported MM was slightly in trouble if he failed to make the playoffs.) Also placed MM in the Sherman category (btw anyone notice MS choking 2 weeks in a row at TAMU?) As my friend ThunderDan points-out I was completely wrong.

Winning a superbowl should cancel this type of thought. The packers have issues but losing close game is not one of them.

[pbmax]

Because they couldn't make the point that MM is a choke artist shitty coach with that metric so they found one that worked with the predefined conclusion. If you study statistics you will find that kind of logic often.

It NFL geekdom (elsewhere in geekdom as well) this is known as multiple endpoints.

From Advanced NFL Stats in their dissent about the Curse of 370 Carries: (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/07/drunkards-light-posts-and-myth-of-370.html)
Statistical Trickery

Why did Football Outsiders pick 370 as the cutoff? I'll show you why in a moment, but for now I'm going to illustrate a common statistical trick sometimes known as multiple endpoints by proving a statistically significant relationship between two completely unrelated things. I picked an NFL stat as obscure and random as I could think of--% of punts out of bounds (%OOB).

Let's say I want to show how alphabetical order is directly related to this stat. I'll call my theory the "Curse of A through C" because punters whose first names start with an A, B, or C tend to kick the ball out of bounds far more often than other punters. In 2007 the A - C punters averaged 15% of their kicks out of bounds compared to only 10% for D - Z punters. In fact, the relationship is statistically significant (at p=0.02) despite the small sample size. So alphabetical order is clearly related to punting out of bounds!

Actually, what I did was sort the list of punters in alphabetical order, and then scanned down the column of %OOB. I picked the spot on the list that was most favorable to my argument, then divided the sample there. This trick is called multiple endpoints because there are any number of places where I could draw the dividing line (endpoints), but chose the most favorable one after looking at the data. Football Outsiders used this very same trick, and I'll show exactly how and why.

As many posters noticed, if Silverstein had chosen any other scoring gap, it would have defeated his premise. He saw a blip in the data and made a guess as to its cause, without having any evidence to back it up.

[Guiness]

Lies, damn lies and statistics. 4 out of 5 dentists recommend...not spreading shit on your toothbrush!

[bobblehead]

It NFL geekdom (elsewhere in geekdom as well) this is known as multiple endpoints.

From Advanced NFL Stats in their dissent about the Curse of 370 Carries: (http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/07/drunkards-light-posts-and-myth-of-370.html)

As many posters noticed, if Silverstein had chosen any other scoring gap, it would have defeated his premise. He saw a blip in the data and made a guess as to its cause, without having any evidence to back it up.

Also known as a favorable subset. Take a look at man made global warming statistics....oh shit, I just got the thread booted to FYI.

[Upnorth]

Lies, damn lies and statistics. 4 out of 5 dentists recommend...not spreading shit on your toothbrush!

Wow I do not want that fifth dentist. How would he polish your teeth??? Two girls - One dentist.

[ThunderDan]

Good Bump. MM has proven he can win a championship. Expect multiple.

Winning close games is currently moot since winning a super bowl cancels out all possible weaknesses for the moment.

At the end of the day imo winning games by less than 3 is still a question.


Are you truely serious in the last line? Like I posted some where else you are probably going to be disappointed again next year. I think their will be a lot of 35-13 games. Watches us go 13-3 and lose the 3 games by a total of 9 points and the MM "shit" will continue.

Bump because it's pretty accurate so far.

[MJZiggy]

Bump because it's pretty accurate so far.

No it's not. We're not on pace to go 13-3. :mrgreen:

[Joemailman]

Too bad the Packers had to score that last touchdown today. A 2 point win would have been better.

[pbmax]

Stupid offensive touchdowns.

[vince]

Don't have a link, as I'm not a CHFF Insider, but Mike McCarthy entered Week 11 with the best winning percentage in the history of football against the spread (.635) and is one of five coaches in history with winning records both straight up and ATS.

But he still can't win any close ones.

[Upnorth]

Also of interest on chff is a list of longest win streaks. The pack just got in the top ten. It examines point spreads, comebacks and turnovers as well as other interesting stuff. We are a very unique team.

www.coldhardfootballfacts.com

Great read, take the time and don't nag vince for the lack of a link.

[Fosco33]

Another close win for M3 :wink:

[ThunderDan]

Another close win for M3 :wink:

Took him 18 damn wins in a row to get one!!! :lol:

[Upnorth]

Now that we have seen he can win the close one can we go back to having it pretty much sewed up by the start of the fourth? My dr recommends it for my heart.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Pretty amazing stat posted on ESPN.


During its 19-game winning streak that spans 1,140 total minutes and 570 second-half minutes, Green Bay has trailed for only 46 minutes in the first quarter, 61 minutes in the second quarter, 27 minutes in the third quarter and not a single minute in the fourth quarter.

[Smidgeon]

Pretty amazing stat posted on ESPN.

And that's why no close wins occur in Green Bay. :D

[vince]

During its 19-game winning streak that spans 1,140 total minutes and 570 second-half minutes, Green Bay has trailed for only 46 minutes in the first quarter, 61 minutes in the second quarter, 27 minutes in the third quarter and not a single minute in the fourth quarter.
It's a good thing, since they suck so bad at finishing games when they're close.

[bobblehead]

Tebow is a superior QB to Aaron because he wins close games.

[Upnorth]

Tebow can will his team to victory unlike Arod so he must be a better qb, just as Fox is a better hc than MM from all the close wins recently. I think Camden has will the oline to victory through clever shoe tying skills and should get the hc job.

[pbmax]

Chase Stuart
fbgchase Chase Stuart
Blasphemous to compare Aaron Rodgers to Steve Young. Young completed 70% of his passes as a LEFTY. Doubt Rodgers could even complete one.
16 Dec Favorite Retweet Reply
Retweeted by jasonjwilde


Chase Stuart
fbgchase Chase Stuart
Overrated? In seven seasons, Aaron Rodgers has NEVER won a home playoff game. Favre won five home playoff games at that point in his career.
16 Dec
Retweeted by jasonjwilde


Chase Stuart
fbgchase Chase Stuart
Aaron Rodgers pads his stats in a lot of ways. For example, last 19 Packers games, Rodgers has thrown 0 TDs in 4Q with GB trailing
16 Dec
Retweeted by jasonjwilde

[Upnorth]

So Arod is the problem, not MM. Who would have thought!

[pbmax]

I really do think he would struggle throwing left-handed, all kidding aside.

[denverYooper]

I really do think he would struggle throwing left-handed, all kidding aside.

You know how he loves to prove critics wrong though. Expect left-handed Rodgers greatness next season.