McCarthy and "Close Games"

[vince]

So I've been reading about how McCarthy can't win the close games. He's 5-16 in games decided by 4 points or less. Pretty bad.

It got me thinking about why this stat even came about. Why the 4 point threshold? What about close games that were decided by 1 score or less? So I want back and checked his record in games decided by 7 or less.

His record is 15-18.

That doesn't paint quite the bleak picture that those showcasing the "close games" stat want it to I guess.

[Joemailman]

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

[pbmax]

Nice find Vince. You would think that kind of dichotomy would point to something. Other than some long Crosby misses (a number certainly less than 16), I am not sure what it is.

[mmmdk]

Try 15-21 record including playoffs.

Try another; substract the games decided by 7 point and it's a 10-18 record. Besides, 7 points only ties for OT...lastly, Stubby record in OT is a 1-6 record.

Go Stubster!

[Bretsky]

All these close games are troubling; but on the other hand it just seems like a big bunch of these are attributed to horrid special teams performances.

I keep thinking he's an average coach; not bad enough to get fired but not good enough to me thinking he's top tier.

[vince]

Good catch mm on the playoffs. I went to wikipedia and the playoffs weren't included for some reason. I believe it would be 15-20 though including playoffs. 1 blowout win and 1 close loss in '07 and a close loss in '09...

Even with that the point still stands. Take the rest of the stats you and others who are hand-selecting to support their preconceived notions and throw them out the window. Good teams blow other teams out more than they get blown out and when they lose, the games tend to be close. Imagine that.

McCarthy has been a winner with the youngest team in the league and has his team - that has much room to grow - on the rise. Injuries have taken a toll this year, but the team has outperformed your and just about everyone else's expectations thus far this year.

I understand the criticism of McCarthy. He still has a lot to prove, but he's done pretty well thus far, producing top 10 offenses pretty much every year - and he's not done yet.

Slocum is a problem for sure. It's impossible to argue otherwise, but I'm not prepared to draw the hard conclusions you are regarding McCarthy yet, and I doubt Thompson is either. He's done well so far. Now he has to get to the next level. I doubt it will be this year with all the injuries, but he'll get the time and opportunity to prove himself one way or another.

[Bretsky]

This may be Captan Obvious, but if MM doesn't fire Slocum this offseason he deserves to be torn to shreds all offseason

Several would argue the same for Campen but IMO that is not as glaringly obvious

[vince]

I think it's pretty fruitless to nitpick individual decisions. The coach (and GM) are charged with winning. Whetehr they make the individual decisions I would is irrelevant.

I'm not saying they're above discussion by any means. It's the judgment based on hand-selected individual decisions that is pointless.

[mraynrand]

Bretsky want's to fire Slocum. Others point out the 'failure' in close games but not in 'kinda close' games. Perhaps Slocum 'sucks' because he has back ups to back ups to back ups playing on teams. Perhaps McCarthy 'fails' in close games because he coaches so well that his team is in most games, even when they shouldn't be - like when they are starting the fry cook at OLB, are missing an entire platoon of D linemen, and a guy with no starts at QB. Let's see, you play at the hottest team in the NFL, without your starting TE, RB, and QB and you lose a close game - must be the coach can't win close games cuz he sucks. Fire 'em.

[Farley Face]

Bretsky want's to fire Slocum. Others point out the 'failure' in close games but not in 'kinda close' games. Perhaps Slocum 'sucks' because he has back ups to back ups to back ups playing on teams. Perhaps McCarthy 'fails' in close games because he coaches so well that his team is in most games, even when they shouldn't be - like when they are starting the fry cook at OLB, are missing an entire platoon of D linemen, and a guy with no starts at QB. Let's see, you play at the hottest team in the NFL, without your starting TE, RB, and QB and you lose a close game - must be the coach can't win close games cuz he sucks. Fire 'em.

Any idea how many of these games the Pack was favored to win? That would seem to bring another level of certainty to this debate.

[Bretsky]

Slocum sucked before the backups to backups were playing ST; he sucked last year as well. The head ST coach sucked and we hired his backup as well. Clearly the backup strategy on ST sucks

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bottom line is his wins and losses. You can fault him for some things, but the Packers have rarely not been up to play games. It seems the Packers get blown out far less than any other team, and you have to give McCarthy a lot of credit for that.

[channtheman]

Any idea how many of these games the Pack was favored to win? That would seem to bring another level of certainty to this debate.

I would imagine this year we were favored to beat the Bears, Redskins, Dolphins, and Lions. This team plays up and down to their competition. Lets hope they can get to the playoffs because even if they lose, at least they'll make it a close game.

[packerbacker1234]

Good catch mm on the playoffs. I went to wikipedia and the playoffs weren't included for some reason. I believe it would be 15-20 though including playoffs. 1 blowout win and 1 close loss in '07 and a close loss in '09...

Even with that the point still stands. Take the rest of the stats you and others who are hand-selecting to support their preconceived notions and throw them out the window. Good teams blow other teams out more than they get blown out and when they lose, the games tend to be close. Imagine that.

McCarthy has been a winner with the youngest team in the league and has his team - that has much room to grow - on the rise. Injuries have taken a toll this year, but the team has outperformed your and just about everyone else's expectations thus far this year.

I understand the criticism of McCarthy. He still has a lot to prove, but he's done pretty well thus far, producing top 10 offenses pretty much every year - and he's not done yet.

Slocum is a problem for sure. It's impossible to argue otherwise, but I'm not prepared to draw the hard conclusions you are regarding McCarthy yet, and I doubt Thompson is either. He's done well so far. Now he has to get to the next level. I doubt it will be this year with all the injuries, but he'll get the time and opportunity to prove himself one way or another.

We had more injuries, and worse injuries, than we did in what.... 2006 or was it 2005, when we had our first losing season in forever. Yet, we can't finish below .500 now, and we control, with 2 weeks to go, if we make the playoffs or not. Win out and were in. This team never gave up, and hasn't been throughly dominated by anyone. While it seems all our losses are extremely close, it's also a testament to just how good we are, and how good we would of been had we not had the injuries. Injuries don't happen... we still ahve grant... finely... Chillar... Jones... etc: Wer etalking about completely dominating the NFL.

All things considered, were still a team to be reckoned with. Just ask NE how good we are when we take you to the wire with our probowl QB on the sidelines. Ask the Jets how good this defense of ours is. We are a good team that, really, is held from being great not really due to our coach, but due to our circumstances with key injuries.

ALl that being said, and there is not one game right now, one team we could face in any environment, and not have a chance to win. After what we did at NE without AR, you have to think this team beleives it can win anywhere against anyone. Giants? The team that gave up a 21 point lead with 7 minutes left? THey must be scared shitless with what were bringing. The bears? Hell, can they even compete with us?

We are practically a lock to make the playoffs. We wont get blown out by anyone. Sure, we suck at winning games by 3 or less, and our special teams, while better this year, still has some glaring problems that have only gotten worse as the injuries have piled up. Still, we could make the playoffs with what, 14 guys on AR and Rodgers having to miss a game?

Impressive. I cannot do anything but commend MM for his coaching job this year on offense, and of course, praise capers for his defensive gameplans. If this was 2005/2006, were talking 1 - 16 instead of 6-10.

[bobblehead]

After what we did at NE without AR, you have to think this team beleives it can win anywhere against anyone. Giants? The team that gave up a 21 point lead with 7 minutes left? THey must be scared shitless with what were bringing. The bears? Hell, can they even compete with us?

.

I remember Burt Sugar saying something like "beware of declaring a guy great because of HOW he LOST to mike tyson. He still lost." Razor Ruddok never did amount to much despite putting up a lively fight against tyson (twice I think). I was proud of our defense and offense against the patriots, but the ST failed us again, and with a lead MM abandon the successful running game late. Until we commit to the run, and have success I'm not declaring us anything. We should have won that game despite everything that went wrong. If you want to point to one thing you can count on being better, its that Rodgers is less likely to throw that pick 6....but not impossible. I want to beat the giants before I start feeling too good about losing valiantly.

[rbaloha1]

This is old stuff that was mentioned much earlier. Only now it is becoming an issue since the Packers may not make the playoffs.

Try no fourth quarter wins this season. MM chokes in crucial situations.

Its Harbaugh time!

[rbaloha1]

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

[Gunakor]

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

Maybe. We'd have no way to verify that though, would we?

Though there may be solid statistical evidence that proves the opposite is true.

On one of these threads someone did a nice breakdown of our offense since MM took over as HC. There it clearly illustrates how much MM's screw ups have hamstrung this offense both in yards gained and points scored.

[mmmdk]

This may be Captan Obvious, but if MM doesn't fire Slocum this offseason he deserves to be torn to shreds all offseason

Several would argue the same for Campen but IMO that is not as glaringly obvious

We're so much on the same page here, B :tup: Slocum out and Campen is iffy but no real scape goat 'cos we all know that the OL Packer talent pool ain't that deep. TT has truely retooled Packers but ST & OL are lacking championship talent. We're so freckin' close.

Lastly, McCarthy is average but the above might be bigger issues for Packers to get over the hump.

This offseason is huge for Packers!

[mraynrand]

Slocum sucked before the backups to backups were playing ST; he sucked last year as well. The head ST coach sucked and we hired his backup as well. Clearly the backup strategy on ST sucks

Probably just more bad personnel moves by Slocum - ya know, like only being able to field a marginal punter, younger guys across the roster, a long-strider for a return man, guys who fumble, etc, etc.

[mraynrand]

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

Nah, just reality. Harv has it right, especially after all this time to evaluate McCarthy. He is what his record says he is: An above average coach who might never be able to win it all.

[mmmdk]

Coughlin might be on the hot seat if no playoffs for G-Men...why isn't McCarthy in the same boat as Coughlin?

Throw the injury card and I'll go Nero on ya :lol:

[packerbacker1234]

I remember Burt Sugar saying something like "beware of declaring a guy great because of HOW he LOST to mike tyson. He still lost." Razor Ruddok never did amount to much despite putting up a lively fight against tyson (twice I think). I was proud of our defense and offense against the patriots, but the ST failed us again, and with a lead MM abandon the successful running game late. Until we commit to the run, and have success I'm not declaring us anything. We should have won that game despite everything that went wrong. If you want to point to one thing you can count on being better, its that Rodgers is less likely to throw that pick 6....but not impossible. I want to beat the giants before I start feeling too good about losing valiantly.

Difference is, unlike that boxer, we actually had big wins this season going into the NE game. 9-0 Shut out win on the road against the Jets. We also beat the Eagles on the road, who are looking to be division winners.

The rest of our wins, admittedly, aren't really that impressive coming against teams who are bad. And, in facing bad teams, we even lost two we should of won (detroit, redskins). We lost our two biggest games against Atlanta and the Patriots, but neither by more than 4 points. If anything, we can "compete" with any team in the NFL. Just something needs to happen late in the 4th for us to finally hold onto, or complete, a victory. Be it Matt Flynn/Rodgers driving us for a TD at the end of hte game, james jones not fumblinmg away our game winning drive against chicago, ST not letting an offensive linemen return it 71 yards, or not abandoning the run game too early.

Whatever the case may be, we are "this close" to being a top tier team. The question now is: Two weeks left, playoffs on the line... have we learned anything? I hope so.

[rbaloha1]

Maybe. We'd have no way to verify that though, would we?

Though there may be solid statistical evidence that proves the opposite is true.

On one of these threads someone did a nice breakdown of our offense since MM took over as HC. There it clearly illustrates how much MM's screw ups have hamstrung this offense both in yards gained and points scored.

Without a doubt, MM offense can put up great stats -- even Sherman wit the U71 also put up great stats. Its the intangibles MM lacks that hurts down the stretch.

MM's loyalty to assistant coaches is also hurting the team.

[Fritz]

I found it humorous that in a Bears thread (about how they've been facing lots of second and third string QB's), somebody pointed out that many of the Bears' wins this season have been by only a few points...and used that fact to conclude that the Bears are "lucky."


So MM loses close games and he's a shitty coach; Lovie wins close games and he's lucky. Geez.

[rbaloha1]

IMO Zero 4th quarter wins says it all. How can you lead a team during crucial games when the players know they have failed to win a close game this season?

[Smidgeon]

Slocum sucked before the backups to backups were playing ST; he sucked last year as well. The head ST coach sucked and we hired his backup as well. Clearly the backup strategy on ST sucks

I'm not a huge fan of Slocum myself, but maybe he's not all that bad. The Special Teams penalties have got to be way down this year. I remember reading somewhere that he changed the scheme this offseason to a different kind of blocking (straight ahead instead of on one side). The results in that department has been noticeable. There has been a drastic improvement in the one area this year. Maybe it takes a couple years to fix something as horrendous as the GB STs have been. Maybe Slocum isn't the guy. But he got results on fixing the penalties...

[sharpe1027]

I remember a lot of posters complaining about Shottenheimer because of the terrible job he seemed to be doing with the secondary. He was fired and the glaring mistakes were eliminated and overall play was much improved. I see the same things being said about with Slocum here and I would not be surprised if history repeats itself.

[Fritz]

I think we can blame this year's mess on Kurt Schottenheimer and the the weightlifting coach who screwed up Justin Harrell's back. It's all on them.

[pbmax]

This is old stuff that was mentioned much earlier. Only now it is becoming an issue since the Packers may not make the playoffs.

Try no fourth quarter wins this season. MM chokes in crucial situations.

Its Harbaugh time!

If the Packers hire Jim Harbaugh, I will start to watch soccer instead.

[pbmax]

IMO Zero 4th quarter wins says it all. How can you lead a team during crucial games when the players know they have failed to win a close game this season?

Same thing you say to them when you win in the first, second and third quarter.

[vince]

There's no chance of the Packers firing Mike McCarthy, who's done an outstanding job getting this cobbled together team iin playoff contention this year and has put together some of the most prolific offenses in the league in his tenure, all while turning over and putting together an outstaning defensive staff - much less hiring Jim Harbaugh or anyone else.

McCarthy has work to do with regard to special teams and he, like all coaches is far from perfect, but the notion that he should be or is going to be fired is ridiculous at this point. They all get fired sooner or later, so hang in there mm and rb - you'll be proven right eventually, but the talk of McCarthy getting fired is grossly misplaced right now.

[Fritz]

Thank you, Vince. A voice of sanity.

[rbaloha1]

Same thing you say to them when you win in the first, second and third quarter.

Close games are won in the 4th quarter -- MM has zero cred.

[rbaloha1]

There's no chance of the Packers firing Mike McCarthy, who's done an outstanding job getting this cobbled together team iin playoff contention this year and has put together some of the most prolific offenses in the league in his tenure, all while turning over and putting together an outstaning defensive staff - much less hiring Jim Harbaugh or anyone else.

McCarthy has work to do with regard to special teams and he, like all coaches is far from perfect, but the notion that he should be or is going to be fired is ridiculous at this point. They all get fired sooner or later, so hang in there mm and rb - you'll be proven right eventually, but the talk of McCarthy getting fired is grossly misplaced right now.

Lets wait until the end of the season. Should the trend continue the 0-line and st coaches could be gone.

[rbaloha1]

If the Packers hire Jim Harbaugh, I will start to watch soccer instead.

Do you have the soccer channel yet?

[rbaloha1]

Thank you, Vince. A voice of sanity.

Voice of sanity for Packer fans denying reality.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What happens if we beat the Giants and Bears in the final two weeks and then beat the Bears in the first round of the playoffs?

[Joemailman]

What happens if we beat the Giants and Bears in the final two weeks and then beat the Bears in the first round of the playoffs?

It only counts if we beat them by 4 or less.

[Gunakor]

Without a doubt, MM offense can put up great stats -- even Sherman wit the U71 also put up great stats.

My point in referencing the stats over the years was to point out an anomaly this season. Our offense has been top 5, top 10 in both points and yards in each of the last 3 seasons. This year they are not. I contend this is very specifically due to the loss of Ryan Grant. Without a legitimate workhorse at RB half the playbook gets thrown out the window. Not only the run game struggles, but play action doesn't work either. Then you lose your threat at TE and become even more constricted in your playcalling. At the same time, opposing defenses have less to plan against, making it that much more difficult to move the ball against them.

My post was, after all, in response to your contention that even without injuries MM will and has always screwed it up. I just wanted to illustrate that he hasn't screwed up as much as you'd like to believe during his time here, and that perhaps injuries at key positions have indeed played a very significant role in our offensive struggles this season.

[Gunakor]

Close games are won in the 4th quarter -- MM has zero cred.

Then let's not make games close. I'd much rather blow out the competition by halftime anyway.

Which really speaks to the big concern I do have with McCarthy, that being his tendency to take his foot off the gas as soon as he gets a comfortable lead.

[packrulz]

Bottom line: you have to be able to run the ball in close games, the Packers running game doesn't scare anyone, defenses usually get away with rushing only 3 or 4 down lineman, and have the luxury of dropping everyone into coverage. Even more than special teams, the Packers offensive line has to run block better, open some holes! Otherwise, they're not going very far even if they do make the playoffs.

[th87]

I was watching SoundFX with Mike Holmgren, and he said to the victorious Packers, "You guys just wanted it more." Usually, I dismiss such statements as cliches, but it got me thinking. That 96 team had some real ruthless players on it - Reggie White, Wayne Simmons, Sean Jones, Frank Winters, the QB, etc. Players who would run through a brick wall to win.

This team is very talented, but it doesn't appear to have the ruthlessness of the 96 squad. The players are nice people, and excellent players, but they don't seem to have the extra gear to really want to break their opponents. This may be a cause of close losses as well.

[Patler]

I was watching SoundFX with Mike Holmgren, and he said to the victorious Packers, "You guys just wanted it more." Usually, I dismiss such statements as cliches, but it got me thinking. That 96 team had some real ruthless players on it - Reggie White, Wayne Simmons, Sean Jones, Frank Winters, the QB, etc. Players who would run through a brick wall to win.

This team is very talented, but it doesn't appear to have the ruthlessness of the 96 squad. The players are nice people, and excellent players, but they don't seem to have the extra gear to really want to break their opponents. This may be a cause of close losses as well. TT's Seattle teams seemed to have a similar personality, so I'd be curious to see their records in close games.

For a lot of successful NFL teams there is an aura of "nastiness". Watch the Steelers play. There are a lot of players on the Steelers who hit as hard as they can always, whether blocking, tackling or running with the ball. There is an overriding demeanor of toughness in their style of play. I think it tends to wear down opponents. The Packers have a few of those players, like Mathews and Bishop. Woodson has it for the position he plays. Offensively, the Packers show very little of that, which is what makes Kuhn a refreshing change when he carries the ball. Some writers have suggested that Sitton has an edginess to his game, but I don't think it comes out well in the Packers offensive scheme, which tends to be more finesse.

I think you can succeed either way, but "nastier" teams may have a mental edge against some players.

[mraynrand]

What happens if we beat the Giants and Bears in the final two weeks and then beat the Bears in the first round of the playoffs?

We play in the Divisional round

[denverYooper]

Bottom line: you have to be able to run the ball in close games, the Packers running game doesn't scare anyone, defenses usually get away with rushing only 3 or 4 down lineman, and have the luxury of dropping everyone into coverage. Even more than special teams, the Packers offensive line has to run block better, open some holes! Otherwise, they're not going very far even if they do make the playoffs.

They ran the ball too well at the end of the last game...

[rbaloha1]

My point in referencing the stats over the years was to point out an anomaly this season. Our offense has been top 5, top 10 in both points and yards in each of the last 3 seasons. This year they are not. I contend this is very specifically due to the loss of Ryan Grant. Without a legitimate workhorse at RB half the playbook gets thrown out the window. Not only the run game struggles, but play action doesn't work either. Then you lose your threat at TE and become even more constricted in your playcalling. At the same time, opposing defenses have less to plan against, making it that much more difficult to move the ball against them.

My post was, after all, in response to your contention that even without injuries MM will and has always screwed it up. I just wanted to illustrate that he hasn't screwed up as much as you'd like to believe during his time here, and that perhaps injuries at key positions have indeed played a very significant role in our offensive struggles this season.

True. The defense has also suffered numerous injuries but is still playing at a level which allows the offense to win games. Its MM screw-ups costing games.

[rbaloha1]

Then let's not make games close. I'd much rather blow out the competition by halftime anyway.

Which really speaks to the big concern I do have with McCarthy, that being his tendency to take his foot off the gas as soon as he gets a comfortable lead.

Generally playoff games are close.

[rbaloha1]

What happens if we beat the Giants and Bears in the final two weeks and then beat the Bears in the first round of the playoffs?

What happens if they do not?

[mraynrand]

What happens if they do not?

http://pukkaheadwear.com/images/uploads/masoncrosby.jpg

[Smidgeon]

True. The defense has also suffered numerous injuries but is still playing at a level which allows the offense to win games. Its MM screw-ups costing games.

What's your problem with McCarthy? Where did this all come from? (And yes, those are honest questions. I'm curious.)

[denverYooper]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/21551/context-for-mccarthys-close-game-record

McCarthy is 2nd worst (.250) among active coaches behind Chan Gailey (.208) and ahead of John Harbaugh (.308), Ken Whisenhunt (.385), and Norv Tuner(.422)

[mmmdk]

Try 15-21 record including playoffs.

Try another; substract the games decided by 7 point and it's a 10-18 record. Besides, 7 points only ties for OT...lastly, Stubby record in OT is a 1-6 record.

Go Stubster!

It's 15-21 record for Stubby (games decided by 7 or less) - I just went through games [again]. It's like counting sheep...:lol:

[rbaloha1]

What's your problem with McCarthy? Where did this all come from? (And yes, those are honest questions. I'm curious.)

Supported the hire. Liked the direction of the team from 06-08 seasons. Somewhat controlled Favre and handled the transition superbly. Impressed with Rodgers development.

During the 09 season the alarm bells sounded -- beat up bad teams and lost to good teams. Still made the playoffs.

This season it was the Miami game. MM failed to help BB against Wake which cost the game. The continual losing of close games and now the chance of not making the playoffs is not what the Packers are about.

Green Bay is titletown for a reason -- imo MM shall not add to titles by continuing to choke in close games. The numbers are hideous and not championship caliber coaching.

[MJZiggy]

What happens if we beat the Giants and Bears in the final two weeks and then beat the Bears in the first round of the playoffs?

Then they stop posting for a couple months and continue their ravings around draft time when they think we've all forgotten about it. Joe, if we beat them by four or less, it just means we're lucky like Lovie. We have to beat them in the fourth quarter only and the first three quarters and overall performance of the team mean nothing so there will be no praising anyone for outstanding performance unless it was in the last 2 minutes of the game.

I've been reading the game thread and it occurs to me that some of you girls need a midol and a tampon. Truly insane that with all that's gone on this season with the position that this team is in, that you could even think at the end of that game that the coach needed to be fired. I have never had PMS-related insanity quite that bad. For godssakes, people!

[Charles Woodson]

What's your problem with McCarthy? Where did this all come from? (And yes, those are honest questions. I'm curious.)

I assume this isnt a personal question, so let me answer for him. The problem with MM is the stat listed in DenverYoopers post. MM is 5-15 all time in games decided by 4 points. Im really tired of the argument, "Yea we lost but we played really good! We'll beat them when it matters. blah blah blah." I want to be able to win close games vs good teams. MM just doesnt know how to run a two minute drill. We should have one that game against the patriots. We lost because MM butchered the last 4 minutes of the game. The reason you get hired as an NFL head coach is because you know how to run the team. This isn't learning on the job.

[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.

[rbaloha1]

Then they stop posting for a couple months and continue their ravings around draft time when they think we've all forgotten about it. Joe, if we beat them by four or less, it just means we're lucky like Lovie. We have to beat them in the fourth quarter only and the first three quarters and overall performance of the team mean nothing so there will be no praising anyone for outstanding performance unless it was in the last 2 minutes of the game.

I've been reading the game thread and it occurs to me that some of you girls need a midol and a tampon. Truly insane that with all that's gone on this season with the position that this team is in, that you could even think at the end of that game that the coach needed to be fired. I have never had PMS-related insanity quite that bad. For godssakes, people!

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.

[MJZiggy]

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.

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...

[rbaloha1]

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...

Please do. Mele Kalekimaka!

[Charles Woodson]

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...

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.

[retailguy]

What happens if we beat the Giants and Bears in the final two weeks and then beat the Bears in the first round of the playoffs?



So, what happens if they DON'T beat the Giants or the Bears and lose their last 4? My guess is nothing.

My guess is also that we address the OL problems with yet another draft pick and we don't bring in anyone who might be available in free agency. In other words, more of the same.

Then, next season, we'll trot out more and more slanted statistics on both sides of the fence, that make McCarthy and Thompson look like both idiots and geniuses.

And, predictably, the Packers are competitive in spite of the OL, and they either finish 8-8 or make the playoffs and lose the 1st game.


Then they stop posting for a couple months and continue their ravings around draft time when they think we've all forgotten about it. Joe, if we beat them by four or less, it just means we're lucky like Lovie. We have to beat them in the fourth quarter only and the first three quarters and overall performance of the team mean nothing so there will be no praising anyone for outstanding performance unless it was in the last 2 minutes of the game.

I've been reading the game thread and it occurs to me that some of you girls need a midol and a tampon. Truly insane that with all that's gone on this season with the position that this team is in, that you could even think at the end of that game that the coach needed to be fired. I have never had PMS-related insanity quite that bad. For godssakes, people!

What a shitty rant. Aren't we supposed to debate? Aren't we supposed to talk about our POV?

FWIW - I don't agree with rbaloha. I don't believe that McCarthy deserves to be fired, and I think this "close games" statistic is blown out of proportion. But, his record is rather crappy with regard to win/loss in the final few minutes, and better stated, loses more close games than he wins.

I sat there watching the Patriots game believing that they would lose in the final minutes. I don't remember believing that since the late 80's, but these days, I have doubt that they'll pull out a win. I was grateful that the game was as close as it was, and firmly believe that this Patriots game was McCarthy's finest coaching of the 2010 season.

But, anyone that believes that this forum likes to debate differing points of view just needs to read Ziggy's post to know that it is NOT true. Neither side respects the other anymore, and that's really very sad commentary. It just degenerates into mindless personal attacks and ignores the well debated issues.

[bobblehead]

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...

Yes, I love people who say something CAN NOT happen. Last year we all got bitchy about finishing 7-1 and making the playoffs. I recall the specific rat who said we CAN'T do it. He disappeared after we did it. I bumped the threads where I articulated very nice arguments as to why I thought we could do it. He is back now. He should be ashamed.

[bobblehead]

So, what happens if they DON'T beat the Giants or the Bears and lose their last 4? My guess is nothing.

My guess is also that we address the OL problems with yet another draft pick and we don't bring in anyone who might be available in free agency. In other words, more of the same.

Then, next season, we'll trot out more and more slanted statistics on both sides of the fence, that make McCarthy and Thompson look like both idiots and geniuses.

And, predictably, the Packers are competitive in spite of the OL, and they either finish 8-8 or make the playoffs and lose the 1st game.



What a shitty rant. Aren't we supposed to debate? Aren't we supposed to talk about our POV?

FWIW - I don't agree with rbaloha. I don't believe that McCarthy deserves to be fired, and I think this "close games" statistic is blown out of proportion. But, his record is rather crappy with regard to win/loss in the final few minutes, and better stated, loses more close games than he wins.

I sat there watching the Patriots game believing that they would lose in the final minutes. I don't remember believing that since the late 80's, but these days, I have doubt that they'll pull out a win. I was grateful that the game was as close as it was, and firmly believe that this Patriots game was McCarthy's finest coaching of the 2010 season.

But, anyone that believes that this forum likes to debate differing points of view just needs to read Ziggy's post to know that it is NOT true. Neither side respects the other anymore, and that's really very sad commentary. It just degenerates into mindless personal attacks and ignores the well debated issues.

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.

[bobblehead]

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.

Cleveland Browns
From 1991 until 1995, Belichick was the head coach of the Cleveland Browns. During his tenure in Cleveland he compiled a 36–44 record, leading the team to the playoffs in 1994. In Belichick's last season in Cleveland the Browns finished 5–11. In November of that year Browns owner Art Modell announced he would move the team to Baltimore after the season. Belichick resigned early in February 1996.[2]

What makes anyone think this clown might someday win a superbowl??

[rbaloha1]

Cleveland Browns
From 1991 until 1995, Belichick was the head coach of the Cleveland Browns. During his tenure in Cleveland he compiled a 36–44 record, leading the team to the playoffs in 1994. In Belichick's last season in Cleveland the Browns finished 5–11. In November of that year Browns owner Art Modell announced he would move the team to Baltimore after the season. Belichick resigned early in February 1996.[2]

What makes anyone think this clown might someday win a superbowl??

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

[retailguy]

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

Probably not, but it'll take another season or so even if he isn't.

[bobblehead]

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

You can't definitively say....but I doubt it. Not likely. Flat out No....you can't know that. That was hardly my point regardless.

The poster said MM has produced "next to nothing" We made an NFCC game. We had the 2nd defense in the NFL last year and 6th offense. We have the NFL's second best point differential this year.

Do I think he is another BB...key word THINK....no, but I think he has shown a lot of things to be positive about. All that being said, if we can't make the playoffs and win some games this year or next then it might be time to move on.

[rbaloha1]

You can't definitively say....but I doubt it. Not likely. Flat out No....you can't know that. That was hardly my point regardless.

The poster said MM has produced "next to nothing" We made an NFCC game. We had the 2nd defense in the NFL last year and 6th offense. We have the NFL's second best point differential this year.

Do I think he is another BB...key word THINK....no, but I think he has shown a lot of things to be positive about. All that being said, if we can't make the playoffs and win some games this year or next then it might be time to move on.


Maybe Sherman was another BB but the Packers screwed up by letting him go too early.

[MJZiggy]

Maybe Sherman was another BB but the Packers screwed up by letting him go too early.

That's why he's had such success since leaving the team.:crazy:

[retailguy]

That's why he's had such success since leaving the team.:crazy:

Hmm - Aggies were 9-3 this season (18th BCS standings) and play LSU in the Cotton Bowl. This is in his 3rd season with his "recruits". And he is Big 12 coach of the year, and a finalist for the Bear Bryant National coach of the year....

Seems successful to me...:?:


http://www.aggieathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/121610aaa.html

Sherman finalist for Annual Bryant National Coach of the Year
Dec. 16, 2010

HOUSTON - In the words of the famed late-great University of Alabama Crimson Tide football coach, Paul “Bear” Bryant, “It’s still a coach's game. Make no mistake. You start at the top. If you don't have a good one at the top, you don't have a cut dog's chance. If you do, the rest falls into place.”

American Heart Association and Marathon Oil proudly recognize the men who have stood behind Bryant’s theory by announcing the extraordinary college football coaches who have led legendary teams to victory by announcing the 2010 Paul “Bear” Bryant Award finalists:

* Chris Ault, University of Nevada
* Bret Bielema, University of Wisconsin
* Gene Chizik, Auburn University
* Mark Dantonio, Michigan State
* Jim Harbaugh, Stanford University
* Chip Kelly, University of Oregon
* Gary Patterson, Texas Christian University
* Bobby Petrino, University of Arkansas
* Mike Sherman, Texas A&M University

The winner will be announced live at an awards dinner benefiting the American Heart Association on Jan. 18, 2011 at the Hilton Americas-Houston Hotel and Convention Center in downtown Houston. Celebrating 25 years at this year’s event, The Marathon Oil Corporation Paul “Bear” Bryant Awards is the only college football coaching award voted on after all bowl games are played. January’s event will also recognize Florida State University’s renowned former coach, Bobby Bowden, as the Bryant Lifetime Achievement Recipient.
“Marathon is honored to once again serve as the title sponsor of the Paul “Bear” Bryant Awards,” said David E. Roberts, Jr., executive vice president of worldwide upstream operations for Marathon Oil Corporation. “The funds raised during this event are invaluable in supporting the American Heart Association's mission to fight heart disease and stroke, and we are pleased to be able to assist in this effort."

The Paul “Bear” Bryant Awards honor excellence in coaching while raising funds to fight heart disease and stroke, the nation’s No. 1 and No. 4 killers. Funds raised benefit research, community education and outreach programs for the American Heart Association. For more information, or to purchase tickets or a table for the event, contact 713-610-5026 or visit www.bryantawards.com.

Texas A&M’s Mike Sherman is also a finalist for the Liberty Mutual National Coach of the Year and he was named the Big 12 Coach of the Year by the San Antonio Express-News.

[denverYooper]

Probably not, but it'll take another season or so even if he isn't.

Agree. I'd like to see what he can do with a healthy Grant and Finley. 46-32 overall (.590) is enough to make me overlook the arbitrary close games record and I'm willing to bet that his record there will improve over time. Just as soon as they get consistently decent ST play.

[mraynrand]

Cleveland Browns
From 1991 until 1995, Belichick was the head coach of the Cleveland Browns. During his tenure in Cleveland he compiled a 36–44 record, leading the team to the playoffs in 1994. In Belichick's last season in Cleveland the Browns finished 5–11. In November of that year Browns owner Art Modell announced he would move the team to Baltimore after the season. Belichick resigned early in February 1996.[2]

What makes anyone think this clown might someday win a superbowl??

Probably the fact that he'd already won two for Parcells

[MJZiggy]

Hmm - Aggies were 9-3 this season (18th BCS standings) and play LSU in the Cotton Bowl. This is in his 3rd season with his "recruits". And he is Big 12 coach of the year, and a finalist for the Bear Bryant National coach of the year....

Seems successful to me...:?:


http://www.aggieathletics.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/121610aaa.html

Sherman finalist for Annual Bryant National Coach of the Year
Dec. 16, 2010

HOUSTON - In the words of the famed late-great University of Alabama Crimson Tide football coach, Paul “Bear” Bryant, “It’s still a coach's game. Make no mistake. You start at the top. If you don't have a good one at the top, you don't have a cut dog's chance. If you do, the rest falls into place.”

American Heart Association and Marathon Oil proudly recognize the men who have stood behind Bryant’s theory by announcing the extraordinary college football coaches who have led legendary teams to victory by announcing the 2010 Paul “Bear” Bryant Award finalists:

* Chris Ault, University of Nevada
* Bret Bielema, University of Wisconsin
* Gene Chizik, Auburn University
* Mark Dantonio, Michigan State
* Jim Harbaugh, Stanford University
* Chip Kelly, University of Oregon
* Gary Patterson, Texas Christian University
* Bobby Petrino, University of Arkansas
* Mike Sherman, Texas A&M University

The winner will be announced live at an awards dinner benefiting the American Heart Association on Jan. 18, 2011 at the Hilton Americas-Houston Hotel and Convention Center in downtown Houston. Celebrating 25 years at this year’s event, The Marathon Oil Corporation Paul “Bear” Bryant Awards is the only college football coaching award voted on after all bowl games are played. January’s event will also recognize Florida State University’s renowned former coach, Bobby Bowden, as the Bryant Lifetime Achievement Recipient.
“Marathon is honored to once again serve as the title sponsor of the Paul “Bear” Bryant Awards,” said David E. Roberts, Jr., executive vice president of worldwide upstream operations for Marathon Oil Corporation. “The funds raised during this event are invaluable in supporting the American Heart Association's mission to fight heart disease and stroke, and we are pleased to be able to assist in this effort."

The Paul “Bear” Bryant Awards honor excellence in coaching while raising funds to fight heart disease and stroke, the nation’s No. 1 and No. 4 killers. Funds raised benefit research, community education and outreach programs for the American Heart Association. For more information, or to purchase tickets or a table for the event, contact 713-610-5026 or visit www.bryantawards.com.

Texas A&M’s Mike Sherman is also a finalist for the Liberty Mutual National Coach of the Year and he was named the Big 12 Coach of the Year by the San Antonio Express-News.

Sounds oddly Steve Spurrierish...Another great NFL coach. Success at the college level does not ensure NFL success.

[mraynrand]

Sounds oddly Steve Spurrierish...Another great NFL coach. Success at the college level does not ensure NFL success.


What the hell are you talking about? Sherman was successful at the pro level and now he is showing promise in college. Maybe the guy is just a decent coach - not a world beater, but a good coach. Like McCarthy, you just look at the record. It tells you almost everything you need to know.

[retailguy]

Agree. I'd like to see what he can do with a healthy Grant and Finley. 46-32 overall (.590) is enough to make me overlook the arbitrary close games record and I'm willing to bet that his record there will improve over time. Just as soon as they get consistently decent ST play.

The only problem that I have with this, is, for the past couple of seasons, what we have heard is "if we just get decent _____, then it'll happen". Honestly, there will always be holes and issues, what McCarthy needs to prove is that he can win in spite of whatever hole or issue pops up. 14 injuries is a bit much (that's his mulligan), but still. Sadly, I think that next year, we'll have another "If we just get consistent ____, then McCarthy can win".

But, we'll see. He surely isn't going anywhere, even if they lose to both the Giants and the Bears.

[retailguy]

What the hell are you talking about? Sherman was successful at the pro level and now he is showing promise in college. Maybe the guy is just a decent coach - not a world beater, but a good coach. Like McCarthy, you just look at the record. It tells you almost everything you need to know.

Well said. No reason to keep dissing the guy. I just don't get it.

[SnakeLH2006]

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.

Well put CWood....You know Snake has bounced back and forth with MM. I dunno if he is a great coach.

MM is good...He wins enough to coach year after year, but those guys can go decades....see Andy Reid (without winning a SB).

I think MM does enough yearly, where he'll be the Packers coach for the next 5 years min. unless he bottoms out (but can't see that with ARod at QB).

I think he has all the talents to be an elite coach (win the SB consistently) except for 3 things:

1) He's shortsighted. His playcalling is bad sometimes, having faith in running the ball with Kuhn in short-yardage game after game (with nil results).....or just saying fuck it and going all pass (that doesn't work either). We were best this year (and any year) with an honest run game...then he benched Starks (MM looks too much at stats with him not ready for ST). Starks is the best pure runner, but MM is bull-headed and BJack had some deece runs last game, but no one gears against BJack. If Starks had played and ran well...it would have helped with play-action, for example.

2) He's a bonehead. He must of had at least 10 plays in the last 4 games alone that should have been challenged, but just savors those timeouts. C'mon man.

3) His Offensive staff is turned over yearly and there is little consistency with the O. The D under Capers is mad good. Points, turnovers, etc. Great stuff. The O is amazing at times, but too many boneheaded plays are called. Yeah, let's pass 18 times in a row, or run with BJack (who sucks as a pure runner) or Kuhn (who is a good FB) on short-yardage. It's amazing to Snake how poor he's gotten (predictable) or dumb (use Swain more as he's a Wes Welker..catches well) but hey we will throw to (use) Quarless who can't catch the ball with ANY consistency. That isn't the QB, that's a drawn up play. Quarless might be great in 2 years, but they use him like Finley......and it's cost us many drives/games. Give it up MM. He tries to act all cute with it, but really needs to look at stats and see what hasn't worked and give it up. His Offensive coaches haven't done much. I like Edgar Bennett and Campen as ex-Packers, but neither does enough to develop the young guys in their 5+ years as RB and OL coaches....but he's so faithful, that they remain.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Waiting for an answer.


What happens if we beat the Giants and Bears in the final two weeks and then beat the Bears in the first round of the playoffs?

[SnakeLH2006]

Waiting for an answer.

What does that mean?

[Gunakor]

2) He's a bonehead. He must of had at least 10 plays in the last 4 games alone that should have been challenged, but just savors those timeouts. C'mon man.

Yet we villify him whenever he does challenge a call because his record in challenges is horrendous. Super terrible. With a record that bad, I'd rather he just not challenge anything. That way at least we get get to keep the timeouts.

[pbmax]

That's why he's had such success since leaving the team.:crazy:

Sherman the coach was handcuffed by his GM. McCarthy has more overall talent and depth. Belicheck had some input into the Browns personnel decisions, but not total control like he has in New England. He is universally reviled there for demoting Kosar for Testaverde, whom he is given credit (such as it is) for acquiring.

The close games argument deserves scrutiny. But I think we have seen numbers from McCarthy against the good teams (above 500 maybe?) that point to success. I think this got covered last year after struggling versus the good vet QBs.

[pbmax]

Yet we villify him whenever he does challenge a call because his record in challenges is horrendous. Super terrible. With a record that bad, I'd rather he just not challenge anything. That way at least we get get to keep the timeouts.

There have been several occasions when TV has failed to produce a relevant replay until after the next play. Gonzalez and Atlanta for instance. On the road, you are at the mercy of the TV coverage because the scoreboard will show nothing.

[mraynrand]

Sherman the coach was handcuffed by his GM.

Yes and no - Wolf's last draft was abysmal, but it was Wolf who made the Ahman Green trade and drafted the O line that Shermy rode to success. Shermy the GM always played to win THIS year. Shoulda worked in 2002, but injuries blew it up. Ultimately the Shermy strategy will lead to the team crashing and burning. But for a Superbowl team to come together, you may just have to make a FA move or two to fill that gap or two that you just can't paper over with raw draft picks. It's that age old riddle that even Oedipus might not answer correctly.

[Bretsky]

That's why he's had such success since leaving the team.:crazy:

Would you not consider what he's done at the college level successful ?

[Bretsky]

Waiting for an answer.


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

[rbaloha1]

What does that mean?

keep waiting. merry christmas.

[Smidgeon]

Yet we villify him whenever he does challenge a call because his record in challenges is horrendous. Super terrible. With a record that bad, I'd rather he just not challenge anything. That way at least we get get to keep the timeouts.

Which is funny, because he has the highest rating of challenge successes in the NFC North. I believe he's at 60% overturned this year. (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/21210/dirty-laundry-illegal-contact-and-the-pocket)

[RashanGary]

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

I'll agree. Philbin and Slocum suck. And the slow starts on offense the last two years. . . . Not good.

[retailguy]

Yes and no - Wolf's last draft was abysmal, but it was Wolf who made the Ahman Green trade and drafted the O line that Shermy rode to success. Shermy the GM always played to win THIS year. Shoulda worked in 2002, but injuries blew it up. Ultimately the Shermy strategy will lead to the team crashing and burning. But for a Superbowl team to come together, you may just have to make a FA move or two to fill that gap or two that you just can't paper over with raw draft picks. It's that age old riddle that even Oedipus might not answer correctly.

I think that is what gets forgotten during the Sherman era. Each year the team was expected to compete, and expected to be in the playoffs and expected to win. He didn't get there in large part because he could never solidify the left side of the DL. Until he got Barnett, MLB was a problem too.

He's got this rep for not liking rookies or valuing draft picks, but when your focus is to win every year, you take risks and sometimes you win, and sometimes you don't. He didn't.

We have the opposite exact same issue right now. Our OL sucks, it is not solid. If they don't get it fixed asap, it will be their undoing just like the DL was Sherman's undoing.

[bobblehead]

Maybe Sherman was another BB but the Packers screwed up by letting him go too early.

Always liked Sherman the coach. He was too tolerant of turnovers, both with Green and Favre, but I liked his coaching....as a GM however, well.

[bobblehead]

Yes and no - Wolf's last draft was abysmal, but it was Wolf who made the Ahman Green trade and drafted the O line that Shermy rode to success. Shermy the GM always played to win THIS year. Shoulda worked in 2002, but injuries blew it up. Ultimately the Shermy strategy will lead to the team crashing and burning. But for a Superbowl team to come together, you may just have to make a FA move or two to fill that gap or two that you just can't paper over with raw draft picks. It's that age old riddle that even Oedipus might not answer correctly.

So, since the Patriots cut all the players that they "made the move" for a couple of years ago and have relied on young drafted players this season they can't win the super bowl?

[bobblehead]

OK, last point. I went through the season looking to see if any "good" teams have problems in close games like the packers do. Problem is that I keep seeing teams like atlanta and the Jets (first two I looked at) who win some close games....and lose others by 14 or even 42 points. I guess we could say they have problems in close games if they would have at least been competitive in games like that, but by getting completely man handled they proved they can win close ones.

EVERYONE on this board (save one or two posters) thought we would lose and lose bad to the patriots. The fact that we were in it to the last play means MM is a bad coach in close games....anyone see a flaw in this logic? And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

[retailguy]

I'll agree. Philbin and Slocum suck. And the slow starts on offense the last two years. . . . Not good.

It's really been 3 of the last 4 years. It's looking more and more like a trend, and yes, it is not good.

[mraynrand]

So, since the Patriots cut all the players that they "made the move" for a couple of years ago and have relied on young drafted players this season they can't win the super bowl?

But for a Superbowl team to come together, you may just have to make a FA move or two to fill that gap or two that you just can't paper over with raw draft picks. It's that age old riddle that even Oedipus might not answer correctly.

[Smidgeon]

OK, last point. I went through the season looking to see if any "good" teams have problems in close games like the packers do. Problem is that I keep seeing teams like atlanta and the Jets (first two I looked at) who win some close games....and lose others by 14 or even 42 points. I guess we could say they have problems in close games if they would have at least been competitive in games like that, but by getting completely man handled they proved they can win close ones.

EVERYONE on this board (save one or two posters) thought we would lose and lose bad to the patriots. The fact that we were in it to the last play means MM is a bad coach in close games....anyone see a flaw in this logic? And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

I wish this site had a "Like" button...

[denverYooper]

OK, last point. I went through the season looking to see if any "good" teams have problems in close games like the packers do. Problem is that I keep seeing teams like atlanta and the Jets (first two I looked at) who win some close games....and lose others by 14 or even 42 points. I guess we could say they have problems in close games if they would have at least been competitive in games like that, but by getting completely man handled they proved they can win close ones.

EVERYONE on this board (save one or two posters) thought we would lose and lose bad to the patriots. The fact that we were in it to the last play means MM is a bad coach in close games....anyone see a flaw in this logic? And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

I agree with this and feel that a good part of what they need to win close games is on the players. After Rodgers's play at the end of the Atlanta game, I felt like he was there. It seems like a circular thing to say they just need to win some close games to win some more close games but I feel that is the case. It's like w/Minnesota and Favre, once they got that out of the way they seemed to have a bit more confidence. Now they need to do the same in close games.

[Patler]

Being close is fine; but, playoff runs usually involving winning close games at the end. With 5 years of history, overall I do not like what MM has shown in the last half of the 4th quarter.

What you do to stay close isn't necessarily what you need to do at the end to win. If you don't know how to win, all you will ever be is a really good team that never seems to win a championship. In football there are a lot of variables regarding possession, clock management, FG vs TDs, punting strategies, etc. etc. SO far, MM does not show particular skill in knowing how to close out games.

[Bretsky]

I'll agree. Philbin and Slocum suck. And the slow starts on offense the last two years. . . . Not good.


You've opened my eyes to wanting to critique Philbin more.

I will say this; I did not like the Philbin hire and I thougt he was a fine OL coach

If we'd have hired another more qualifed OC we might be a heck of a lot better off.........with Philbin still being in charge of the OL as well

I'm not fan of Lovie Smith, but I LOVE what the Bears have done with their assistants lately in hiring very experienced, proven assistant coaches coaches who were once head coaches in Martz, Marinelli, and Tice.

Gotta have a lot of confidence in your own ability to hire guys who might be more knowledeable than the head coach.

[RashanGary]

Capers was a brilliant hire. I didn't know a whole hell of a lot about him when he was first hired, but when I read through the bio, I felt like we lucked into the best defensive coach on the market one of the best in the game.

We have to make that move on ST's NOW and we have to make the move with an OL guy. We're getting there talent wise (outside of the OL). It's time to just sell out for a superbowl. We're there. Coaches, players, everything. We're close enough to go for it and close enough ot pick our hire. Any coach would want to be here.

[Bretsky]

Capers was a brilliant hire. I didn't know a whole hell of a lot about him when he was first hired, but when I read through the bio, I felt like we lucked into the best defensive coach on the market one of the best in the game.

We have to make that move on ST's NOW and we have to make the move with an OL guy. We're getting there talent wise (outside of the OL). It's time to just sell out for a superbowl. We're there. Coaches, players, everything. We're close enough to go for it and close enough ot pick our hire. Any coach would want to be here.

I was listening to Gil Brandt the other day and he was analyzing some fan complaints about certain assistant coaches and inquired as to how to land a top tier assistant coach wth experience.

Brandt offered some nice viewpoints.

Every year there are certain head coaches fired and when that occurs the general rule of thumb is those assistants are probably gone and are open to negotiate with other teams.

So if you want a quality assistant with experience and you intend on making a change your coach/GM should be evaluating the staffs that are likely to be fired and eyeing up their asistant coaches at your position of need.

Then you move fast to fill your coaching void.

So maybe you start looking at the OL/ST coaches of say.......the Bengals (no brainer), Carolina (likely), 49ers (likely), Titans (sounds like Fischer and the owner may clash over Young), Texans (Kubiak is probablygone)..............and try to move fast.

It would be a fun exercise to do this but if MM goes the status quo and takes these guys back because he is comfortable with them or takes his sweet time with the analysis of the coaches it could be too little too late

[denverYooper]

I was listening to Gil Brandt the other day and he was analyzing some fan complaints about certain assistant coaches and inquired as to how to land a top tier assistant coach wth experience.

Brandt offered some nice viewpoints.

Every year there are certain head coaches fired and when that occurs the general rule of thumb is those assistants are probably gone and are open to negotiate with other teams.

So if you want a quality assistant with experience and you intend on making a change your coach/GM should be evaluating the staffs that are likely to be fired and eyeing up their asistant coaches at your position of need.

Then you move fast to fill your coaching void.

So maybe you start looking at the OL/ST coaches of say.......the Bengals (no brainer), Carolina (likely), 49ers (likely), Titans (sounds like Fischer and the owner may clash over Young), Texans (Kubiak is probablygone)..............and try to move fast.

It would be a fun exercise to do this but if MM goes the status quo and takes these guys back because he is comfortable with them or takes his sweet time with the analysis of the coaches it could be too little too late

Might look at Cleveland also. OL has been a strength for them and Mangini is not safe. Plus, I believe that their OL coach worked with MM for a year in San Fran.

[vince]

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.
Except already being an overtime interception away from a Super Bowl. Damn McCarthy has to quit coaching his QB's to throw interceptions at critical times in NFC Championship games. What a loser.

[Charles Woodson]

Except already being an overtime interception away from a Super Bowl. Damn McCarthy has to quit coaching his QB's to throw interceptions at critical times in NFC Championship games. What a loser.

Oh im sorry, is my post false? While i dont pin that loss on him, the fact is we didnt win that game and we havent gotten anywhere near there since. The only reason i said next to nothing is because of that year that we rode brett into the NFC championship. Even still, i feel like your post sums up McCarthy's career this far. "Well we almost won.... blah blah blah" All im asking for is a non disappointing season. I just think that we wont get that with McCarthy.

[pbmax]

I think that is what gets forgotten during the Sherman era. Each year the team was expected to compete, and expected to be in the playoffs and expected to win. He didn't get there in large part because he could never solidify the left side of the DL. Until he got Barnett, MLB was a problem too.

He's got this rep for not liking rookies or valuing draft picks, but when your focus is to win every year, you take risks and sometimes you win, and sometimes you don't. He didn't.

We have the opposite exact same issue right now. Our OL sucks, it is not solid. If they don't get it fixed asap, it will be their undoing just like the DL was Sherman's undoing.

He usually had one focus each offseason. When he realized Free was done and Schroeder wasn't going to morph into a better player, he went out, traded up and got Walker to add to Driver. Same with Barnett. But with so few picks and an aging team, he was turning his roster over to the dregs of the league. Combine that with botched FA maneuvers (signing Diggs back from the Eagles RFA and matching a phantom offer for KGB) he just boxed himself into a corner.

He was the epitome of a smart person doing a job he had no experience with. By his third year, it caught up to him.

[pbmax]

I'll agree. Philbin and Slocum suck. And the slow starts on offense the last two years. . . . Not good.

What's wrong with Philbin?

[pbmax]

Oh im sorry, is my post false? While i dont pin that loss on him, the fact is we didnt win that game and we havent gotten anywhere near there since. The only reason i said next to nothing is because of that year that we rode brett into the NFC championship. Even still, i feel like your post sums up McCarthy's career this far. "Well we almost won.... blah blah blah" All im asking for is a non disappointing season. I just think that we wont get that with McCarthy.

Brett had a great season, but that team also rode its defense in the first half of the year when the offense was sputtering and Grant the second half. Some of Brett's best work was the limited number of turnovers.

[mraynrand]

He usually had one focus each offseason. When he realized Free was done and Schroeder wasn't going to morph into a better player, he went out, traded up and got Walker to add to Driver. Same with Barnett. But with so few picks and an aging team, he was turning his roster over to the dregs of the league. Combine that with botched FA maneuvers (signing Diggs back from the Eagles RFA and matching a phantom offer for KGB) he just boxed himself into a corner.

He was the epitome of a smart person doing a job he had no experience with. By his third year, it caught up to him.

I agree with the boxed in comment, but not the experience comment. Sherman hired Hatley to cover for his inexperience. Effectively, Sherman had a solid NFL GM at his right hand. Did he listen? Did he ignore better advice? Maybe someday we'll know, but one thing is for sure - Hatley isn't going to be the one to spill the beans.

[vince]

Oh im sorry, is my post false? While i dont pin that loss on him, the fact is we didnt win that game and we havent gotten anywhere near there since. The only reason i said next to nothing is because of that year that we rode brett into the NFC championship. Even still, i feel like your post sums up McCarthy's career this far. "Well we almost won.... blah blah blah" All im asking for is a non disappointing season. I just think that we wont get that with McCarthy.
Unless you're blaming McCarthy for that interception, then yes your post is false. McCarthy has already proven that he can take a team to the Super Bowl. The fact that an interception out of his control kept his team from getting there is not an indication of McCarthy's ability to win an NFC Champtionship.

[Smidgeon]

Oh im sorry, is my post false? While i dont pin that loss on him, the fact is we didnt win that game and we havent gotten anywhere near there since. The only reason i said next to nothing is because of that year that we rode brett into the NFC championship. Even still, i feel like your post sums up McCarthy's career this far. "Well we almost won.... blah blah blah" All im asking for is a non disappointing season. I just think that we wont get that with McCarthy.

How is going to the NFC Title game a disappointment? Would the only season that wasn't disappointing be one where the Packers dominated every game and took home the Lombardi trophy at the end of the year?

[RashanGary]

What I miss about the Brett lead teams is that htey had an identity. You kind of knew what you were going to get from Driver, Jennings, Grant, etc. . . It was very similar week after week.

I'm no NFL offensive coordinator, but I'd image if you have an identity like that, it opens up other things and when your identity is the things your team does best, you're kind of on the right path.

I don't know if our offensive line is great at protecting for long periods of time, but we're asking them to be with the inconsistent down the field identity we have now.

Just seems dumb. Go back to the short stuff and mix everything else in from there. That's what our guys do well. OL, AR, WR's, TE's, RB's. . . . I know AR is good deep but his OL isn't and that's a HUGE part of any offense. Gotta play to their strengths and weaknesses too.

[retailguy]

What I miss about the Brett lead teams is that htey had an identity. You kind of knew what you were going to get from Driver, Jennings, Grant, etc. . . It was very similar week after week.

I'm no NFL offensive coordinator, but I'd image if you have an identity like that, it opens up other things and when your identity is the things your team does best, you're kind of on the right path.

I don't know if our offensive line is great at protecting for long periods of time, but we're asking them to be with the inconsistent down the field identity we have now.

Just seems dumb. Go back to the short stuff and mix everything else in from there. That's what our guys do well. OL, AR, WR's, TE's, RB's. . . . I know AR is good deep but his OL isn't and that's a HUGE part of any offense. Gotta play to their strengths and weaknesses too.

Never thought I'd say this, but, I miss the screen pass....

[Smidgeon]

What I miss about the Brett lead teams is that htey had an identity. You kind of knew what you were going to get from Driver, Jennings, Grant, etc. . . It was very similar week after week.

I'm no NFL offensive coordinator, but I'd image if you have an identity like that, it opens up other things and when your identity is the things your team does best, you're kind of on the right path.

I don't know if our offensive line is great at protecting for long periods of time, but we're asking them to be with the inconsistent down the field identity we have now.

Just seems dumb. Go back to the short stuff and mix everything else in from there. That's what our guys do well. OL, AR, WR's, TE's, RB's. . . . I know AR is good deep but his OL isn't and that's a HUGE part of any offense. Gotta play to their strengths and weaknesses too.

I remember another poster (perhaps Patler, perhaps not) saying that not having an identity is the Packers' identity. Opponents can't key in to try to stop one thing because the Packers can burn you nine ways from Sunday (as long as none of the nine are running plays). I don't know how valid that is, but I think it's worth keeping in mind.

[RashanGary]

I don't remember that, Smidg, but it's a great description of our identity.

Our identity is we'll attack your weakness.


In theory, it's a great identity but in practice I don't know if it works quite so well because you can only practice for so many hours and being great comes from repetition. MM and AR are all about theory. If I check into this, we should get that. If we attack this weakness, we should get that.

Problem is, if defenses show one thing presnap and do another post. So you're chcking into a bad play and don't even know it. Problem is, when your identity is doing everything, you never really become great at anything.

Too much theory it seems with these two.

[bobblehead]

Brett had a great season, but that team also rode its defense in the first half of the year when the offense was sputtering and Grant the second half. Some of Brett's best work was the limited number of turnovers.

We were the bears tht year. Take a look at the list of QB's we beat that season. Once upon a time I addressed every game that season. Those that recall us riding Brett's greatness to victories are going to remember what they want. Back when I went over every game they simply came back with things like "it was Bretts veteran leadership that inspired the defense to play great". I realized then that I couldn't convince them.

[Charles Woodson]

Unless you're blaming McCarthy for that interception, then yes your post is false. McCarthy has already proven that he can take a team to the Super Bowl. The fact that an interception out of his control kept his team from getting there is not an indication of McCarthy's ability to win an NFC Championship.

So if Brett doesnt throw that pick, we win? Automatically? I guess i was basing my assumption that we lose that game based on MM's close game record.

[bobblehead]

So if Brett doesnt throw that pick, we win? Automatically? I guess i was basing my assumption that we lose that game based on MM's close game record.

I would base it on the fact we got whooped in that game and the only reason we made OT was the officials. BUT...getting to the conference championship and winning 13 regular season games proves a guy CAN win. Will he? Who knows.

[Fritz]

Well, what's a "non-disappointing season," Ch. Wood? A Super Bowl win?

IF MM gets the Pack a SB win, how much slack will you cut him if the next year is not a SB victory? Or the one after that? Is one SB enough to make you happy? And for how long?

You try to set up your team to compete for the SB every year. You need to have talent, to keep replenishing, know when to ditch guys and when to re-sign them, have a smart, good coach who doesn't lose the players, and good assistants that you can replace when they get hired elsewhere.

People here would agree that NE is the epitome of that franchise - mostly due to Belichick. And they don't even win it every year. Hell, they haven't won a SB for six years. Belichick didn't win a SB in his first six years of coaching. Nor does another class franchise, Pittsburgh, win all the time. And by the way, it took Cowher 14 years to win his first SB. Oh, and his only SB. He had one AFC Championship as well.

If Cowher were coaching in GB would his one Championship title and subsequent SB loss be enough to show you he deserved another ten years to get to the SB again, then win?

So are those two guys disappointments?

[th87]

I don't remember that, Smidg, but it's a great description of our identity.

Our identity is we'll attack your weakness.


In theory, it's a great identity but in practice I don't know if it works quite so well because you can only practice for so many hours and being great comes from repetition. MM and AR are all about theory. If I check into this, we should get that. If we attack this weakness, we should get that.

Problem is, if defenses show one thing presnap and do another post. So you're chcking into a bad play and don't even know it. Problem is, when your identity is doing everything, you never really become great at anything.

Too much theory it seems with these two.

Great post, man. Very thought provoking. They do seem to be on the slippery slope of being mad scientists attempting to reinvent the wheel.

Fritz - great post also. Belichick and Cowher didn't show that much more until many years later. Like players, coaches must grow too.

[swede]

And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

I didn't get to see the last two or three plays in the game...because Stubby gets the sweats and can't think under pressure and wastes the last minute of the game we lost the chanced to run any number of plays that attacked the end-zone.

But yay for getting us to almost win. Yay yay yippee flipping yay!

[bobblehead]

Fucking MM still can't win a close game.

[denverYooper]

Fucking MM still can't win a close game.

:lol:

[mmmdk]

Fucking MM still can't win a close game.

...blame it on the injuries!

[retailguy]

...blame it on the injuries!

I blame it on the damn game plan. That fucker couldn't call a decent game if his life depended on it!

[bobblehead]

I blame it on the damn game plan. That fucker couldn't call a decent game if his life depended on it!

Yep, he needed to go in a shell and let them back in it....but not quite, just within 4.

[vince]

McCarthy is 48-34, but that's unofficial since those are merely the games decided by the final score. He's 43-18 in games that don't count. Fire his ass.

[mraynrand]

He's 43-18 in games that don't count. Fire his ass.

This post is awesome

[Fritz]

McCarthy is 48-34, but that's unofficial since those are merely the games decided by the final score. He's 43-18 in games that don't count. Fire his ass.

I had no idea he'd coached that many preseason games!

[mraynrand]

I guess close only counts in horseshoes and evaluating McCarthy

[Charles Woodson]

Well, what's a "non-disappointing season," Ch. Wood? A Super Bowl win?

IF MM gets the Pack a SB win, how much slack will you cut him if the next year is not a SB victory? Or the one after that? Is one SB enough to make you happy? And for how long?

You try to set up your team to compete for the SB every year. You need to have talent, to keep replenishing, know when to ditch guys and when to re-sign them, have a smart, good coach who doesn't lose the players, and good assistants that you can replace when they get hired elsewhere.

People here would agree that NE is the epitome of that franchise - mostly due to Belichick. And they don't even win it every year. Hell, they haven't won a SB for six years. Belichick didn't win a SB in his first six years of coaching. Nor does another class franchise, Pittsburgh, win all the time. And by the way, it took Cowher 14 years to win his first SB. Oh, and his only SB. He had one AFC Championship as well.

If Cowher were coaching in GB would his one Championship title and subsequent SB loss be enough to show you he deserved another ten years to get to the SB again, then win?

So are those two guys disappointments?

I see the comparison, but would you really put MM in the conversation with cowher and cheat? All i want is a super bowl, is that so much to ask? (: but yea ill give MM some more credit after yesterdays game. Ill take a little bit of crap because i may have been posting under emotions. But still, my point is that MM needs to get control of close games.

[mmmdk]

Either y'all got balls or you're just plainly a bunch of silly gophers; Pandora's box will blow open. Yihaa!! :lol:

With that said; it's way more important to me that Packers will win Super Bowls with this team than being "right or not" about Stubster.

Packers super bowl champs > Stubby failing

Just win baby!

[rbaloha1]

MM had a good game plan. Execution was exceptional. Still MM is unproven in close games.

Lets hope the Bears game is close -- maybe MM has learned from previous close game mistakes.

[Cheesehead Craig]

MM had a good game plan. Execution was exceptional. Still MM is unproven in close games.

Lets hope the Bears game is close -- maybe MM has learned from previous close game mistakes.

Screw that, beat them by 20.

[sharpe1027]

Another way to look at is is that most all of MM's loses have been close games. He either keeps the Packers in the game or blows out the other team. Is that such a terrible thing?

[mmmdk]

Another way to look at is is that most all of MM's loses have been close games. He either keeps the Packers in the game or blows out the other team. Is that such a terrible thing?

Patriot won 3 super bowls by a total of 9 points...so yeah, it ain't pretty. (Waiting for someone to bring up the 90'ties Cowboys) :lol:

[rbaloha1]

Another way to look at is is that most all of MM's loses have been close games. He either keeps the Packers in the game or blows out the other team. Is that such a terrible thing?

Yes. Generally playoff games are close. 0-6 in close games is not a good stat.

[vince]

That's funny. Not only do we only count the games decided by 4 or less, but we only count the games that the Packers lose. That makes perfect sense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

McCarthy in games decided by one score

2006 4-2
2007 5-2
2008 1-7
2009 3-3
2010 2-6

Total = 15-20. Take out 2008, and the record is 14-13 (Rodgers first year and the defensive collapses). Apparently, McCarthy was a great coach in 2006 and 2007, an average coach in 2009, and a bad coach in 2008 and 2010.

[Bretsky]

McCarthy in games decided by one score

2006 4-2
2007 5-2
2008 1-7
2009 3-3
2010 2-6

Total = 15-20. Take out 2008, and the record is 14-13 (Rodgers first year and the defensive collapses). Apparently, McCarthy was a great coach in 2006 and 2007, an average coach in 2009, and a bad coach in 2008 and 2010.

Take out 2007 and he is 10-18 ;)

Most of this just backs my feeling that MM is average.

[vince]

McCarthy's record is 48-34. Regardless of your feelings Bretsky, the facts show that he's done better than average while Thompson has rebuilt the roster from the gound up and he's done it with the youngest teams in the league year in and year out. He's developed the team into one of the most competitive in the league that now looks an awful lot like a perennial contender. That's a bit better than average I'd say.

[retailguy]

McCarthy in games decided by one score

2006 4-2
2007 5-2
2008 1-7
2009 3-3
2010 2-6

Total = 15-20. Take out 2008, and the record is 14-13 (Rodgers first year and the defensive collapses). Apparently, McCarthy was a great coach in 2006 and 2007, an average coach in 2009, and a bad coach in 2008 and 2010.

Look, I understand what you guys are saying, and to an extent, I agree with you.

But ask yourself (looking into the bathroom mirror, all alone where no one can see you and you don't have to admit it to anyone), if you can go into a close 4th quarter battle with a division foe, and you can only take ONE coach, do you take McCarthy?

Me neither.

And that's OK. He is what he is, and we've got him indefinitely.

(And I disagree with the sentiment that he's better than Sherman. I see them as equivalent coaches in different ways.)

[vince]

McCarthy has some proving to do yet, but the fascination with this year's record in games decided by 4 or less is hand-picking stats to support preconceived opinion.

Going into yesterday's huge game with playoff implications against a team most thought was custom-built for just such a situation, McCarthy's team kicked the living shit out of its opponent.

Yeah, I'll take that.

[retailguy]

McCarthy has some proving to do yet, but the fascination with this year's record in games decided by 4 or less is hand-picking stats to support preconceived opinion. Going into yesterday's huge game with playoff implications against a team most thought was custom-built for just such a situation, McCarthy kicked the shit out of his opponent.

Yeah, I'll take that.

Well Vince, there are some who continually harp on the 4 pts statistic, and it is what it is. Other things are just as important, if not more. At the end of the day, I'm in the Bretsky camp, McCarthy is average, to slightly above. Just like Sherman. Time will tell if he can improve on that.

I happen to believe that McCarthy puts too much value on "creativity and outsmarting" his opponents instead of just going out and flawlessly executing the things that your team does well and making the opponent stop you. Both have a place, and both are critical parts of a coaches job, but I'd like to see more of #2 and less of #1. I believe that makes #1 more effective, and more of an effective #2 makes for longer, sustained drives.

I just think, at the end of the day, these very vocal defenses of an average coach dilute your point. Honestly you guys are making McCarthy appear to be the second coming of Christ, when in reality, I'm not so sure that McCarthy makes an average John the Baptist. What you guys are doing is no different than what the "4pt crowd" is doing. You're just on the other extreme.

[vince]

McCarthy is what he is. 14 games over .500 with a young ascending team and an unproven playoff record. There's a lot ahead to be determined here. So far, he's on the right path in the big picture. Those bashing him and wanting him gone based on an overly small sample size and hand-picked data at this point are grossly premature in my opinion. I can't speak for others, but any other interpretation of my position on McCarthy is an inaccurate projection by those making it.

[retailguy]

McCarthy is what he is. 14 games over .500 with a young ascending team and an unproven playoff record. There's a lot ahead to be determined here. So far, he's on the right path in the big picture. Those bashing him and wanting him gone based on an overly small sample size and hand-picked data at this point are grossly premature in my opinion. I can't speak for others, but any other interpretation of my position on McCarthy is an inaccurate projection by those making it.

I'd agree with you, but I'd also say that you've got an inaccurate projection too.

When I said McCarthy is average, I think you nailed it when you said "he is what he is". Occasionally he'll strike lightning in a bottle and we'll look like world beaters. But can we build on that? I'm not so sure.

I'm watching pre game warm ups for the Falcons right now. What we'll see out of them tonight are plays that they do well consistently. We'll see 25 carries out of turner, most likely. We'll see a fair share of TE dumpoffs to Gonzalez, and we'll see some passes out there for Roddy White to take away from the defense. In short, we'll see a few creative plays, but the bulk will be "this is who we are, and this is what we do". It's been successful to the tune of 2 losses, vs our 6. (Yes, injuries explain some of that, stick with me for a minute more.)

I'm just not convinced that "a team" can build on McCarthy's creativity. A team can build around plays they do well. They can execute them better and better over time (ala U71). They can improve and extend them and change looks and just flat out execute them. McCarthy's way? Not so sure. Too much change and finesse, and less repetition.

I believe I see too much "what's next coach?", out of the players, and less "I can do that again, just get me the ball".

I think it's tougher for McCarthy's team to build off the 45-17 drubbing, than it would be for the Falcons. Guess we'll see next year, huh? In the meantime, we'll see which Packers show up next week. Will it be the week 3 version, or the week 16 version? With McCarthy, you never know. With the Falcons? I think the difference is clear, guess I'll find out in the next hour or so.

[bobblehead]

McCarthy in games decided by one score

2006 4-2
2007 5-2
2008 1-7
2009 3-3
2010 2-6

Total = 15-20. Take out 2008, and the record is 14-13 (Rodgers first year and the defensive collapses). Apparently, McCarthy was a great coach in 2006 and 2007, an average coach in 2009, and a bad coach in 2008 and 2010.

He was riding Favre's greatness in '06.....before anyone says something so stupid, he rode it to an 8-8 record if i recall.

[bobblehead]

Look, I understand what you guys are saying, and to an extent, I agree with you.

But ask yourself (looking into the bathroom mirror, all alone where no one can see you and you don't have to admit it to anyone), if you can go into a close 4th quarter battle with a division foe, and you can only take ONE coach, do you take McCarthy?

Me neither.

And that's OK. He is what he is, and we've got him indefinitely.

(And I disagree with the sentiment that he's better than Sherman. I see them as equivalent coaches in different ways.)

Agree with the shermy comparison...his failure was as a GM and inability to get Favre to stop throwing late over the middle. You asked who I would take as my ONE coach....depends on who the players are. They win and lose games. Coaches put them in position to win or lose....MM consistently has them in position to win. He is fine. He CAN win the big one. Will he?? Depends on the players.

[Bretsky]

McCarthy's record is 48-34. Regardless of your feelings Bretsky, the facts show that he's done better than average while Thompson has rebuilt the roster from the gound up and he's done it with the youngest teams in the league year in and year out. He's developed the team into one of the most competitive in the league that now looks an awful lot like a perennial contender. That's a bit better than average I'd say.


Gosh I didn't think was part of the extremist group some are in here who are calling MM a bad playcaller and calling for him to be fired; I think I defend him way more than criticizing him n game threads and there is nothing wrong with being average as an NFL coach

I think I"ve noted he'd probably be in the 14-18 group of coaches in my book; you can twist stats either way. I'm not going to say he's above average due to 48-34 and I'm not going to say he's below average or shoud be fired due to the record in close games.

[Bretsky]

Agree with the shermy comparison...his failure was as a GM and inability to get Favre to stop throwing late over the middle. You asked who I would take as my ONE coach....depends on who the players are. They win and lose games. Coaches put them in position to win or lose....MM consistently has them in position to win. He is fine. He CAN win the big one. Will he?? Depends on the players.


completely agree

[mraynrand]

Gosh I didn't think was part of the extremist group some are in here who are calling MM a bad playcaller and calling for him to be fired; I think I defend him way more than criticizing him n game threads and there is nothing wrong with being average as an NFL coach

I think I"ve noted he'd probably be in the 14-18 group of coaches in my book; you can twist stats either way. I'm not going to say he's above average due to 48-34 and I'm not going to say he's below average or shoud be fired due to the record in close games.


There are 13 coaches better than Stubby?

[Bossman641]

I'd be interested in seeing how some of you rank the coaches. I might take a stab at it later.

[Joemailman]

Gosh I didn't think was part of the extremist group some are in here who are calling MM a bad playcaller and calling for him to be fired; I think I defend him way more than criticizing him n game threads and there is nothing wrong with being average as an NFL coach

I think I"ve noted he'd probably be in the 14-18 group of coaches in my book; you can twist stats either way. I'm not going to say he's above average due to 48-34 and I'm not going to say he's below average or shoud be fired due to the record in close games.

The fact that he has been good enough to last for 5 seasons makes him by itself above average. Perhaps it can be said he is average among those coaches who have been good enough to make it.

[Bretsky]

I'd be interested in seeing how some of you rank the coaches. I might take a stab at it later.


I'll give it a stab at another date........but.......here are guys off the top of my head I'd take over Stubby

Some will be more proven and some less proven

From the AFC

Hoody Genius--Best of the Best
Mike Tomlin-----No Brainer
Jeff Fischer-----Perhaps I overrate this guy but I've always put him in the top tier of coaches
Jim Caldwell----Gotta give him his due for keeping the truck rolling
John Harbaugh--Excellent coach
Rey Ryan----------------debateable whether I'd take him or MM

From the NFC

Sean Payton--No Brainer
Mike Smith--No Brainer
Andy Reid--No Brainer
Ken Whisenhunt---Not sure about this one either


OK, so by my own admission since there are 32 teams I have to consider MM above average and perhaps a top 8-10 NFL Coach right now.
Certainly not a guy I'd ponder firing

For those who think less of him I'd challenge you to list the coaches you'd take over MM; when you look at the list there are a lot of really raw and unproven coaches out there

[HarveyWallbangers]

To me, Caldwell, Smith, Ryan, and Harbaugh are a wash. What have they done that McCarthy hasn't? I have a feeling that Ryan won't last that long in New York. Caldwell inherited a Super Bowl caliber team and Peyton Manning. I think Peyton would make a lot of coaches look good. Harbaugh has been to one Championship Game. Smith hasn't even won a playoff game. Personally, I'd give Harbaugh the nod and I'd call the rest pretty even.

To me, no brainers are Billy B, Tomlin, Fisher (even though I might be overrating him also), Payton, and Reid. Perhaps Harbaugh. Honestly, those are the only guys that I'd fire McCarthy for right now.

I wouldn't put Whisenhunt up there, but I think John Fox is actually a good coach who is in a terrible situation in Carolina because of the QB situation.

[Bossman641]

I'll give it a stab at another date........but.......here are guys off the top of my head I'd take over Stubby

Some will be more proven and some less proven

From the AFC

Hoody Genius--Best of the Best
Mike Tomlin-----No Brainer
Jeff Fischer-----Perhaps I overrate this guy but I've always put him in the top tier of coaches
Jim Caldwell----Gotta give him his due for keeping the truck rolling
John Harbaugh--Excellent coach
Rey Ryan----------------debateable whether I'd take him or MM

From the NFC

Sean Payton--No Brainer
Mike Smith--No Brainer
Andy Reid--No Brainer
Ken Whisenhunt---Not sure about this one either


OK, so by my own admission since there are 32 teams I have to consider MM above average and perhaps a top 8-10 NFL Coach right now.
Certainly not a guy I'd ponder firing

For those who think less of him I'd challenge you to list the coaches you'd take over MM; when you look at the list there are a lot of really raw and unproven coaches out there

Only one I really disagree with is Fisher, especially with his record as of late. Titans haven't been to a championship game since 2002 and have made the playoffs only 2 times in the past 7 years. Add in his handling of VY and he is a definite no for me.

Caldwell is also a no. Between Tom Moore and Manning, I don't think he has much to do at all with the running of that team.

A couple of the younger coaches I like are Spagnuolo and Haley. They have turned those teams around much quicker than anticipated.

[Bretsky]

To be honest with younger coaches I tried to veer away from unless they've had extreme success. I would not argue against Haley or Spagnuolo myself.....but once you put out a list it often gets butchered and I figured that would be the case if I put any young guys out there who have yet to be successful

[mraynrand]

To be honest with younger coaches I tried to veer away from unless they've had extreme success. I would not argue against Haley or Spagnuolo myself.....but once you put out a list it often gets butchered and I figured that would be the case if I put any young guys out there who have yet to be successful


That's the rub. Once you start naming names and looking at coaches' accomplishments, you realize that Stubby really is up there between 5-10. Like Harv, I too think Fox is high quality, but the deal with McCarthy, like Holmgren and Reid, is that they are so good at coaching offense...you get the defensive guru in there at D coor and you can really start piling up wins. What makes Belichick so good, other than cheating, is that he's awesome at defense, and has a O-coordinator out there on the field at QB, much like Manning. Rodgers is getting there...

But the question remains: can Stubby push all the right buttons to get a Packer team the Lombardi trophy. The talent (with a reasonable number of injuries, unlike this year) is clearly there.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm not completely sold on McCarthy, but I like a lot of what he brings. I think the close losses mostly come down to dumb luck.

Last year, the Packers trailed the Bears 15-13 with 2 minutes left. Rodgers threw the game winner. Packers won 21-15. Later in the year, the Packers trailed the Bears 14-13 heading into the 4th quarter. They scored the game winning TD in the 4th quarter and won 21-14. Apparently, McCarthy doesn't get credit for a close win for either of them--using the strange and arbitrary "4 points = close win" stat.

This year, they lost in the final minute--partly due to some questionable calls. I think it's just the way the ball bounces some times and some years. He has had only one losing season out of five. If he wins this week, he'll have three playoff appearances. He has an NFC Championship appearance. Not bad. Not great. I'm not convinced that he can get it done, but I'm also not convinced that he can't. I'm willing to give him at least another year, and I hope that the team can stay healthy in 2011.

[bobblehead]

To be honest with younger coaches I tried to veer away from unless they've had extreme success. I would not argue against Haley or Spagnuolo myself.....but once you put out a list it often gets butchered and I figured that would be the case if I put any young guys out there who have yet to be successful

I go back to what I said about the players. Belicheck is pretty good except I have never seen him win without Tom Brady (ok, one season of Cassell after the winning tradition of the team was set). What you say about younger coaches and extreme success....Mike Smith has never won his division. That is extreme success??

I'll give you reid and hoody...and Parcells when he returns to the field next year. After that its open to debate.

[vince]

I agree 100% Harv, except to say taht I have no doubt that McCarthy can get to the Super Bowl. It remains to be seen if he will. When it only takes one loss, we've seen how this team can sometimes find ways to lose regardless of who their coach is. I think McCarthy does a good job of focusing on ball security for example, but guys - particularly inexperienced guys - still manage to fumble at inopportune times.

[get louder at lambeau]

I'd agree with you, but I'd also say that you've got an inaccurate projection too.

When I said McCarthy is average, I think you nailed it when you said "he is what he is". Occasionally he'll strike lightning in a bottle and we'll look like world beaters. But can we build on that? I'm not so sure.

I'm watching pre game warm ups for the Falcons right now. What we'll see out of them tonight are plays that they do well consistently. We'll see 25 carries out of turner, most likely. We'll see a fair share of TE dumpoffs to Gonzalez, and we'll see some passes out there for Roddy White to take away from the defense. In short, we'll see a few creative plays, but the bulk will be "this is who we are, and this is what we do". It's been successful to the tune of 2 losses, vs our 6. (Yes, injuries explain some of that, stick with me for a minute more.)

I'm just not convinced that "a team" can build on McCarthy's creativity. A team can build around plays they do well. They can execute them better and better over time (ala U71). They can improve and extend them and change looks and just flat out execute them. McCarthy's way? Not so sure. Too much change and finesse, and less repetition.

I believe I see too much "what's next coach?", out of the players, and less "I can do that again, just get me the ball".

I think it's tougher for McCarthy's team to build off the 45-17 drubbing, than it would be for the Falcons. Guess we'll see next year, huh? In the meantime, we'll see which Packers show up next week. Will it be the week 3 version, or the week 16 version? With McCarthy, you never know. With the Falcons? I think the difference is clear, guess I'll find out in the next hour or so.

So you babbled on for a while, but you never said why Vince was "inaccurate".

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm watching pre game warm ups for the Falcons right now. What we'll see out of them tonight are plays that they do well consistently. We'll see 25 carries out of turner, most likely. We'll see a fair share of TE dumpoffs to Gonzalez, and we'll see some passes out there for Roddy White to take away from the defense. In short, we'll see a few creative plays, but the bulk will be "this is who we are, and this is what we do". It's been successful to the tune of 2 losses, vs our 6. (Yes, injuries explain some of that, stick with me for a minute more.)

Now, what if Atlanta lost Turner and Gonzalez in the first few weeks do to injury? It's much easier to give it to Turner (or Grant) 25 times/game. It's much easier to ensure that Gonzo (or Finley) gets it 6 times/game. It's a lot different when you have exactly one star offensive weapon (Jennings). Driver has been hurt and ineffective much of the year. Jones and Nelson are who they are. You never know what you'll get out of Jackson. McCarthy has had to be creative.


I'm just not convinced that "a team" can build on McCarthy's creativity. A team can build around plays they do well. They can execute them better and better over time (ala U71). They can improve and extend them and change looks and just flat out execute them. McCarthy's way? Not so sure. Too much change and finesse, and less repetition.

I don't think there's a right way or a wrong way. I actually think McCarthy's approach is similar to Hoody's approach. Some games Brady will dink and dunk. Other games he'll throw the deep ball. Other games they'll run BenJarvis 25 times. Hoody's offense is multiple and he exploits the other team's weakness.

[Bossman641]

I agree with HW and here is my reasoning.

Today, the most important position on the field is QB. It's hard to argue with the results MM has gotten from that position since being here. He appears to be one of the best teachers of QB's in the league. The offensive statistics speak for themselves since MM's arrival as well:

2010 - 8th in PPG
2009 - 3rd in PPG
2008 - 5th in PPG
2007 - 4th in PPG
2006 - 22nd in PPG

I have my criticisms of him (abandons the run too easily, gets too cute with playcalls sometimes, clock management, sticks with assistants too long) but it's hard to argue with the overall body of work. The defense had the one year in 2008 where they blew leads repeatedly, which has since been rectified with Capers.

Everyone complains about the offense not having a go-to play while leaving out the fact the offense is missing a top 5 TE and top 15 (or so) RB. The money play in the red zone last year was fade to Finley. It was unstoppable. Another one of the money plays was play-action bootleg and toss it short to Finley in the flat. For better or worse, MM is a tinkerer when it comes to the offense. Ya, it would be nice to have a play we could hang out hat on but I think that's more than made up by the number of sub-packages MM utilizes. I'd imagine that as a defensive coordinator it has to be an absolute bitch to try and game plan for this offense (when healthy).

Special teams has no doubt been the weak spot and we will see what happens with that this offseason. While I understand that Slocum has been dealt a tough hand with the revolving door of ST players, I still think he needs to go. In MM and Capers I think we have top 10 coaches on both sides of the ball. Two pieces of the puzzle are complete.

[denverYooper]

Now, what if Atlanta lost Turner and Gonzalez in the first few weeks do to injury? It's much easier to give it to Turner (or Grant) 25 times/game. It's much easier to ensure that Gonzo (or Finley) gets it 6 times/game. It's a lot different when you have exactly one star offensive weapon (Jennings). Driver has been hurt and ineffective much of the year. Jones and Nelson are who they are. You never know what you'll get out of Jackson. McCarthy has had to be creative.

I don't think there's a right way or a wrong way. I actually think McCarthy's approach is similar to Hoody's approach. Some games Brady will dink and dunk. Other games he'll throw the deep ball. Other games they'll run BenJarvis 25 times. Hoody's offense is multiple and he exploits the other team's weakness.

Turner missed 5 games last year, Matty Ice missed 2 games, and the Falcons were 9-7. I don't think Turner missing 5 games is the whole difference btw last year and this but Atlanta's offense sure seems to struggle when they can't get production in the running game (like last night).

[mraynrand]

I go back to what I said about the players. Belicheck is pretty good except I have never seen him win without Tom Brady (ok, one season of Cassell after the winning tradition of the team was set). What you say about younger coaches and extreme success....Mike Smith has never won his division. That is extreme success??

I'll give you reid and hoody...and Parcells when he returns to the field next year. After that its open to debate.

Isn't it interesting that Parcells really didn't do much without Hoodie?

[RashanGary]

I'm watching pre game warm ups for the Falcons right now. What we'll see out of them tonight are plays that they do well consistently. We'll see 25 carries out of turner, most likely. We'll see a fair share of TE dumpoffs to Gonzalez, and we'll see some passes out there for Roddy White to take away from the defense. In short, we'll see a few creative plays, but the bulk will be "this is who we are, and this is what we do". It's been successful to the tune of 2 losses, vs our 6. (Yes, injuries explain some of that, stick with me for a minute more.)



Good point!


I see the points the others are making. MM has done a great job working with the team. The players respect him. They talk to him. He's great at working with the super-ego's in the NFL. He's done an amazing job with Rodgers and it looks like Flynn too. He's incredibly flexible, creative and innovative. He'll find ways to attack defenses weaknesses that are just awesome. Overall, I like him in the top 6-10 range of coaches and I still think he has a chance to be a SB winner. He has enough strengths that I like our chances with him better than anyone but the very proven elite.

But just because i like his overall job, it doesn't mean I can't dislike parts of it. I agree with you completely. MM is so flexible and so creative that they don't have an identity at all. They don't really hang their hat on anything. I think that makes for wildly inconsistent offnese. Sacks, throw aways, negative carries. . . .I think all of those go up when you're team is running plays they're not as comfortable with. He leans more toward outcoaching the other team than he does outplaying them. Like you, I don't want to take away his strengths, but I would like to see them develop some form of identity while keeping some of the flexibility and creativity too. He's so good at it, I think it's worked so well for him that he ended up taking it too far.

If we start out next season again stumbling and bumbling around new plays only to find out 8 games in taht we have to go back to basics but be behind the 8ball because our offense was so wildly inconsistent for the first half of the season, there is NO EXCUSE. He's getting to the point in his coaching career where he has to correct these reoccuring problems or his teams won't win championships. It's not the talent in weeks 1-6 or 1-8. They take off after teh offense decides to go back to what they do best. It's the coaching. I'm fairly certain of that. If it happens again next year, I give up hope on him. This is my single biggest issue with McCarthy and because it' costs so many games, all of his talent goes to waste. He has to run the plays we're good at and mix in the otherstuff more slowly throughout the season so we don't stumble three years in a row.

[Guiness]

I really don't pay much attention to coaching in the league, other than the teams we play against, and stuff that makes headlines, so here's my viewpoint.

I don't like a lot of what McCarthy does, and agree with many that he gets too cute at times. BUT (and that's a big butt) I look around our division, and we've got the best coaching situation - Childress was a mess, don't know what their new guy will be like. Schwartz - who knows so far, seems to be pulling that team along. Development wise, he's probably where McCarthy was 5 years ago. I don't want to step back five years. Lovie - well, by all accounts he's done a good job this year, but overall his body of work is not great. He certainly couldn't do anything with Cutler last year, and his QB seem to still have brain farts (4 INT's to Hall?). So McCarthy is, IMO, the top coach in our division.

Then looking around the league at some of the collosol screw-ups, I'm just happy to have some continuity. Steve Spurrier, anyone? What about Mangini? Want to dust off an old, out of touch guy like Joe Gibbs or Art Shell? The mess that Wade Phillips made?

Comments were made about Parcells - I'm not so sure I'd want him around. Seems like he's left without completing his contract from everywhere since his days with the Giants. Left NE after a disagreement with Kraft. Not sure what happened with the Jets. 'Retired' instead of coaching his last year in Dallas...only to show up in Miami the next year. He signed a four year contract with Miami, but I think he was only there for 2.

[vince]

I agree with damn near everything Harvey, Bobble and Boss said.

JH, I think you're mischaracterizing the start of this season by grouping it with last year's early struggles. This year's team started out 3-1 and averaged damn near 30 pts./game until Finley went down. What they did well was use Jermichael Finley when they had 3rd downs and needed a reception, among other things. When he went down (and Rodgers was concussed) the offense suffered for 2 or 3 games. You can blame McCarthy for this if you wish - and I agree that part of the blame lies with him, but there were clearly other dynamics involved. The offense has ultimately rebounded better than I feared they would without Finley. Jennings has stepped up big and the team is finding ways to keep him from being doubled and taken out of the game, to McCarthy and Rodgers' credit. And Rodgers has really been throwing the ball well and distributing it all over the field the second half of the season.

[mmmdk]

Not even McCarthy uses the injury card as an excuse; that leaves his followers/apologists in a rather pathetic light. Sorry for the harsh remark but I just don't believe present injuries to second tier Packer players are significant enough. Ok - Finley is truely missed and Grant is good too but lack of depth at RB and a below average OL is the true culprit. This is on TT; yet I back TT 100% . It's not like AR, Clay, Tramon or Chuck were put on IR. Being knicked is part of the game and happens to all NFL teams.

Someone here on PR said that McCarthy is one of the best NFL coaches from monday till saturday; Sundays (or game days) he's more average. Brilliantly said btw (who was it?)
Stubby has called 2 good games straight...yet blew it (again) with clock management in NE & thankfully the NY game wasn't close. Bears should keep it close sunday....

[mission]

Someone here on PR said that McCarthy is one of the best NFL coaches from monday till saturday; Sundays (or game days) he's more average. Brilliantly said btw (who was it?).

Me. :)

[mmmdk]

Me. :)

Well said!

McCarthy just needs to "fix" those sundays!

[sharpe1027]

Not even McCarthy uses the injury card as an excuse; that leaves his followers/apologists in a rather pathetic light. .

As far as I know MM doesn't post at Packerat$, does that paint you in rather a pathetic light?

[vince]

The "McCarthy as a Poor Playcaller" myth has been thoroughly debunked on numerous occassions. He has consistently controlled time of possession and produced elite offenses in both yards and points. Try again mm.

[Bossman641]

Not even McCarthy uses the injury card as an excuse; that leaves his followers/apologists in a rather pathetic light. Sorry for the harsh remark but I just don't believe present injuries to second tier Packer players are significant enough. Ok - Finley is truely missed and Grant is good too but lack of depth at RB and a below average OL is the true culprit. This is on TT; yet I back TT 100% . It's not like AR, Clay, Tramon or Chuck were put on IR. Being knicked is part of the game and happens to all NFL teams.


The fact MM doesn't use the injury card is to his credit, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Coaches rarely publicly criticize players, GM's give coaches votes of confidence and then fire them the next day. Hard to believe that what coaches is what they actually feel.

Sorry for the harsh words, but anyone that believes the number of Packer injuries is in any way "normal" has no clue what they are talking about. Look who is lining up opposite CM3, the 5th stringer. Look at the DL, the regular rotation includes the 5th, 6th, and 7th stringers.

The defense has been hit with a greater number of injuries, the offense has been hit with the bigger impact players. Bring back even 5 of the guys on IR (Finley, Grant, Neal, Chillar, and Jones) and there is no doubt in my mind the team has at least 3 more wins.

[mmmdk]

The fact MM doesn't use the injury card is to his credit, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Coaches rarely publicly criticize players, GM's give coaches votes of confidence and then fire them the next day. Hard to believe that what coaches is what they actually feel.

Sorry for the harsh words, but anyone that believes the number of Packer injuries is in any way "normal" has no clue what they are talking about. Look who is lining up opposite CM3, the 5th stringer. Look at the DL, the regular rotation includes the 5th, 6th, and 7th stringers.

The defense has been hit with a greater number of injuries, the offense has been hit with the bigger impact players. Bring back even 5 of the guys on IR (Finley, Grant, Neal, Chillar, and Jones) and there is no doubt in my mind the team has at least 3 more wins.

Defense has gotten better as reserves have excelled; I've stated this numerous times! So you miss Barnett & Bernett? Jones? What has he ever done? Chillar is missed though. Defense has been fantastic and offense has sputtered as Finley & Grant went to IR...the 2 none pro bowlers. Remove some big names and we can talk. BTW, McCarthy truely isn't a dick about injuries, many coaches throw the injury card...just like the spineless thrown post you presented.

No harsh words from me anymore - you're an idiot, Boss(worth)!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Defense has gotten better as reserves have excelled; I've stated this numerous times! So you miss Barnett & Bernett? Jones? What has he ever done? Chillar is missed though. Defense has been fantastic and offense has sputtered as Finley & Grant went to IR...the 2 none pro bowlers. Remove some big names and we can talk. BTW, McCarthy truely isn't a dick about injuries, many coaches throw the injury card...just like the spineless thrown post you presented.

Barnett wasn't a big loss. Who knows with Burnett--since we don't know how good he would have gotten. Jones was a loss because I think he's better than Zombo, but something you can overcome. Chillar was a loss. Losing Matthews for the time we lost him hurt. Losing Jenkins has hurt a lot. Losing Pickett for a few games hurt a lot. I think Mike Neal was a big loss. I think without the injuries, the defense could have been better than just good. They could have been dominant. You put the pass defense with a healthy DL that dominated against the run last year (while adding Neal), and you could have had something special.

Losing Finley and Grant were big losses. We've lost all 6 games by 4 points or less, and I think you could argue that if we were mostly healthy in those games, we would have won. Bears game was just our ineptitude. No injuries to blame. We were hurt a great deal in the Miami and Washington losses with the loss of Finley and Matthews. We were hurt a great deal in the Detroit and New England losses with the loss of Rodgers. I think Grant and Finley would have been a big help in the Atlanta loss. Oh well! It is what it is. Let's finish this season on a high note and then hope for better health next year.

[swede]

Special teams has no doubt been the weak spot and we will see what happens with that this offseason. While I understand that Slocum has been dealt a tough hand with the revolving door of ST players, I still think he needs to go.

Especially in light of the fact that his coaching pedigree is laughable--he is basically of friend of McCarthy's with more experience running a construction business than running an NFL team's ST squad.

MM is a great head coach with two glaring flaws: he is a bedwetter late in the game when the pressure is on, and he hires and hangs on to some pretty bad assistant coaches.

[Smidgeon]

Barnett wasn't a big loss. Who knows with Burnett--since we don't know how good he would have gotten. Jones was a loss because I think he's better than Zombo, but something you can overcome. Chillar was a loss. Losing Matthews for the time we lost him hurt. Losing Jenkins has hurt a lot. Losing Pickett for a few games hurt a lot. I think Mike Neal was a big loss. I think without the injuries, the defense could have been better than just good. They could have been dominant. You put the pass defense with a healthy DL that dominated against the run last year (while adding Neal), and you could have had something special.

Losing Finley and Grant were big losses. We've lost all 6 games by 4 points or less, and I think you could argue that if we were mostly healthy in those games, we would have won. Bears game was just our ineptitude. No injuries to blame. We were hurt a great deal in the Miami and Washington losses with the loss of Finley and Matthews. We were hurt a great deal in the Detroit and New England losses with the loss of Rodgers. I think Grant and Finley would have been a big help in the Atlanta loss. Oh well! It is what it is. Let's finish this season on a high note and then hope for better health next year.

I think Jones was a better run defender than Zombo (and probably pass defense--at least, that's what I've heard), but probably a wash in pass rush.

And remember when they played the Redskins and Shanahan (or their O-line--can't recall) said that the Packer D-line was the hardest to play against in the NFL? And they play the Giants twice per year.

[Bossman641]

Defense has gotten better as reserves have excelled; I've stated this numerous times! So you miss Barnett & Bernett? Jones? What has he ever done? Chillar is missed though. Defense has been fantastic and offense has sputtered as Finley & Grant went to IR...the 2 none pro bowlers. Remove some big names and we can talk. BTW, McCarthy truely isn't a dick about injuries, many coaches throw the injury card...just like the spineless thrown post you presented.

No harsh words from me anymore - you're an idiot, Boss(worth)!

The biggest losses on the defensive side of the ball have been along the DL and OLB.

Burnett - who knows what he could have grown into. He started the year tentative and overall I've been ha[[y with Peprah. Little if any loss of performance.

Barnett/Chillar - little to no loss in base package. Definite effect in sub packages, which Capers plays extensively. There's a reason GB is one of the poorer teams against TE's.

Poppinga - no loss IMO

Jones - small loss of performance going to Zombo. Definite loss going to Walden and Francois.

CM3 missing 1.5 and slowed in others - huge

Neal - big loss

Harrell - no loss since he has never contributed anyways

Jenkins and Pickett missing games and being slowed - huge loss

Defesively, the losses have moved the defense from being able to dominate games to being very very good instead.

Offensively, Tasucher has been little to no loss. But Finley and Grant aren't big enough names for you? Are you kidding me? From listening to Rodgers and MM talk during the offseason, it sounded like they designed the entire offense around Finley. When Finley was still healthy, I thought Rodgers was forcing it to him too much. The blessing to Finley could have been a blessing in disguise if it had only been for a few weeks IMO, as it forced Rodgers to look at other guys again.

I could care less what you think about me. I know you hate McCarthy. It's just funny that you act like losing Grant and Finley should have no effect on an offense.

Tell me which teams would be able to lose their starting RB and TE and have no dropoff.

[vince]

he is a bedwetter late in the game when the pressure is on
I think the notion that McCarthy somehow chokes and doesn't know what to do late in the game is completely preposterous.

He is a risk-taker and sometimes goes for the homerun when his gut tells him its time. If his confidence in his players is justified, the call is forgotten. If the players don't execute, McCarthy sucks. The players in the game at the time haven't always executed, but that's a whole lot different than the characterization that he chokes up in crunch time.

The facts show that his team has been good at crunch time in certain years at and not good other years. Overall the results have been a bit below average (15-20 unless of course you're one who only counts the games the Packers lose this year by 4 or less). Doesn't mean he chokes by any means.

As the QB and surrounding cast (including the defense and ST) continues to mature, I suspect the results in close games will trend toward the mean again.

Hopefully, his stellar record in games decided by more than a score remains as well.

[pbmax]

I'll give it a stab at another date........but.......here are guys off the top of my head I'd take over Stubby

Some will be more proven and some less proven

From the AFC

Hoody Genius--Best of the Best
Mike Tomlin-----No Brainer
Jeff Fischer-----Perhaps I overrate this guy but I've always put him in the top tier of coaches
Jim Caldwell----Gotta give him his due for keeping the truck rolling
John Harbaugh--Excellent coach
Rey Ryan----------------debateable whether I'd take him or MM

From the NFC

Sean Payton--No Brainer
Mike Smith--No Brainer
Andy Reid--No Brainer
Ken Whisenhunt---Not sure about this one either


OK, so by my own admission since there are 32 teams I have to consider MM above average and perhaps a top 8-10 NFL Coach right now.
Certainly not a guy I'd ponder firing

For those who think less of him I'd challenge you to list the coaches you'd take over MM; when you look at the list there are a lot of really raw and unproven coaches out there

Let me just point out that this list leaves McCarthy presumably at 11th. Higher than the 14-18 rank estimated by someone earlier.

Also let's point out that Mike Smith hasn't won squat and has the healthiest team in the league. And he just lost at home to the Patriots on a questionable call in the 4th Quarter.

John Harbaugh has his name and a win in Foxboro over the Patriots in the payoffs to his credit plus a 9-7 season in his first year that would not qualify for the playoffs this year.

Wisenhunt had the end of last year plus the entire offseason to find a replacement for Warner. He waived his first choice and selected Derek Andersen as his second. That decision has sunk his season.

Tomlin is winning with his team approved assistants and defense (LeBeau and Arians) not his own staff. Its still Cowher's team except at WR.

Caldwell has done nothing of note. I might have taken Fisher at one point, but after this many years, he may be done. Rex Ryan has gotten more credit for playing 500 football than any other man alive, his record this year is better but I am not convinced.

That puts McCarthy knocking on the top five.

[Smidgeon]

Neal - big loss

Harrell - no loss since he has never contributed anyways

How are these different, besides on a potential basis? I know Neal did more this year, but Harrell's still done more overall. In fact, he lasted longer his rookie year.

I know people can get frustrated with him not being on the field, but let's not say he's never done anything.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think it's more that we would have been foolish to count on Harrell, considering his injury history. If he had contributed, it would have been a bonus. On the other hand, I think they were counting on their second round pick (Neal). He looked like the real deal too.

[bobblehead]

Isn't it interesting that Parcells really didn't do much without Hoodie?

Was hoodie with the cowboys when Parcells took a perennial 5-11 team to the playoffs?

billy has gotten a bit worse each step as age has caught up with him. Very few coaches have the mental toughness to be successful in more than one place. I give hoodie some credit for that, but remember, he chose to stick with bill all those years with the Giants, pats and jets. Did he learn a lot, or carry Parcells?? chicken or egg?? I think they are both great coaches.

I also agree with Guiness as far as not wanting Parcells or any other retread Head Coach. The mental wear and tear is so bad that these guys get one good run at it in general. Its part of the reason I said I wasn't happy when MM got marries and knocked the girl up. too much to think about...incidently he followed it up with the 6-10 season if I recall.

[Smidgeon]

I think it's more that we would have been foolish to count on Harrell, considering his injury history. If he had contributed, it would have been a bonus. On the other hand, I think they were counting on their second round pick (Neal). He looked like the real deal too.

I don't quite disagree. Except the Packers kept him on final countdowns and therefore were counting on him to contribute. In fact, if I remember correctly, he was ahead of Neal on the DL rotation to start the year. That's why I think he was a bigger loss to the Packers. To the fan, many people can say they saw this coming because of his injury history, but an ACL isn't related to his back issues...

[mraynrand]

Was hoodie with the cowboys when Parcells took a perennial 5-11 team to the playoffs? I give hoodie some credit for that, but remember, he chose to stick with bill all those years with the Giants, pats and jets. Did he learn a lot, or carry Parcells?? chicken or egg?? I think they are both great coaches.

The Cowboys were perennial 5-11? Did Parcells win a playoff game as a Cowboy coach? even Stubby has won a playoff game...

Belichick was successful everywhere he went. If not for Modell's bizarre, self-centered departure, it's likely that he would have brought Cleveland a championship(s) as well.

I like this from Wiki: "His defensive game plan from the New York Giants' 20-19 upset of the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV is now in the Pro Football Hall of Fame."

Belichick made Parcells. The evidence is overwhelming.

[Joemailman]

The Cowboys were perennial 5-11? Did Parcells win a playoff game as a Cowboy coach? even Stubby has won a playoff game...

Belichick was successful everywhere he went. If not for Modell's bizarre, self-centered departure, it's likely that he would have brought Cleveland a championship(s) as well.

I like this from Wiki: "His defensive game plan from the New York Giants' 20-19 upset of the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV is now in the Pro Football Hall of Fame."

Belichick made Parcells. The evidence is overwhelming.

Well, the Cowboys were 5-11 in the 3 previous seasons before Parcells was hired. I agree with the rest of your post though. Parcells without Belichick = Ditka without Buddy Ryan

[Bretsky]

Let me just point out that this list leaves McCarthy presumably at 11th. Higher than the 14-18 rank estimated by someone earlier.

Also let's point out that Mike Smith hasn't won squat and has the healthiest team in the league. And he just lost at home to the Patriots on a questionable call in the 4th Quarter.

John Harbaugh has his name and a win in Foxboro over the Patriots in the payoffs to his credit plus a 9-7 season in his first year that would not qualify for the playoffs this year.

Wisenhunt had the end of last year plus the entire offseason to find a replacement for Warner. He waived his first choice and selected Derek Andersen as his second. That decision has sunk his season.

Tomlin is winning with his team approved assistants and defense (LeBeau and Arians) not his own staff. Its still Cowher's team except at WR.

Caldwell has done nothing of note. I might have taken Fisher at one point, but after this many years, he may be done. Rex Ryan has gotten more credit for playing 500 football than any other man alive, his record this year is better but I am not convinced.

That puts McCarthy knocking on the top five.



I would not ponder MM as one of the top 5 coaches in the NFL; I more than conceded at a later post he's above average and in the top 10. I would not take Mike Smith or Harbaugh off the list myself; both have well disciplined teams who seem to show consistency and improvement. If Caldwell has none nothing of note you can replace MM into that sentence as well and then you can take MM out of your top 5. Tomlin, seriously......he's well above MM in results so far and it's not my fault if MM has hired some shitty coaches while Tomlin's excel. Coaches deserve some credit or blame for the quality of assistants they fly with. Fischer was one I was debating some. I could certainly add a couple who I personally might like over MM but I don't think there is justification yet.
.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'd put Tomlin higher, but I believe pbmax is correct. These weren't assistants that he hired. These were assistants that were forced upon him by the Steelers when he was hired.

Technically, McCarthy's team is more disciplined than Smith and Harbaugh's teams this year--despite the 18 penalty game.

[MJZiggy]

I would not ponder MM as one of the top 5 coaches in the NFL; I more than conceded at a later post he's above average and in the top 10. I would not take Mike Smith or Harbaugh off the list myself; both have well disciplined teams who seem to show consistency and improvement. If Caldwell has none nothing of note you can replace MM into that sentence as well and then you can take MM out of your top 5. Tomlin, seriously......he's well above MM in results so far and it's not my fault if MM has hired some shitty coaches while Tomlin's excel. Coaches deserve some credit or blame for the quality of assistants they fly with. Fischer was one I was debating some. I could certainly add a couple who I personally might like over MM but I don't think there is justification yet.
.

How can you say M3's done nothing of note when he took the team to a hair's breath of the SuperBowl. When did Caldwell make the title game?

[Joemailman]

Um... Pretty sure Caldwell took the Colts to the Super Bowl last year.

[bobblehead]

Well, the Cowboys were 5-11 in the 3 previous seasons before Parcells was hired. I agree with the rest of your post though. Parcells without Belichick = Ditka without Buddy Ryan

Wow, I am completely stunned. The coaching tree off of Parcells trumps the one off Bellichek. Off the top of my head I can't think of ANY coach that took 2 teams to the superbowl, and a third to a conference championship, and yet people want to give his assisstant the credit. As I said, he burned out a bit faster each step of the way, but he still made the playoffs with 4 seperate franchises who all were sucking tail when he took over. I guess its feasible that it was all the genius of his coordinator, but that just seems like quite a stretch....the least possible of all reasonable explanations.

To take it a step further, Rand says "Belichick was successful everywhere he went." True, but Parcells was his boss everywhere he went. I simply find it far more plausible that he learned from Parcells, not carried him. Not to take anything away from BB (except the cheating thing), he did learn and has been awesome.

[MJZiggy]

Um... Pretty sure Caldwell took the Colts to the Super Bowl last year. Oops read Caldwell thought Carroll...But what was B talking about?

[Deputy Nutz]

I'll give it a stab at another date........but.......here are guys off the top of my head I'd take over Stubby

Some will be more proven and some less proven

From the AFC

Hoody Genius--Best of the Best
Mike Tomlin-----No Brainer
Jeff Fischer-----Perhaps I overrate this guy but I've always put him in the top tier of coaches
Jim Caldwell----Gotta give him his due for keeping the truck rolling
John Harbaugh--Excellent coach
Rey Ryan----------------debateable whether I'd take him or MM

From the NFC

Sean Payton--No Brainer
Mike Smith--No Brainer
Andy Reid--No Brainer
Ken Whisenhunt---Not sure about this one either


OK, so by my own admission since there are 32 teams I have to consider MM above average and perhaps a top 8-10 NFL Coach right now.
Certainly not a guy I'd ponder firing

For those who think less of him I'd challenge you to list the coaches you'd take over MM; when you look at the list there are a lot of really raw and unproven coaches out there

You forgot Wade Phillips.

Seriously, after the loss to the Lions I turned on the local sports talk and I had to laugh once again at the moronic Packer fan out there. At least every other call was for McCarthy to be fired. I then got a call from one of my buddies who absolutely hates the Packers and he asked me if there were in other coach in the North Divison that Packer fans would want over McCarthy? He said he wouldn't take any of them over McCarthy and I agreed at the complete insanity of Packer fan.

In reality I rank McCarthy in the top ten of coaches in the NFL. If I was pressed I would say that "The Hoodie", Jeff Fischer, Andy Reid and Sean Payton would be the four that I would take over McCarthy. Tomlin won a Super Bowl and he has done a good job continuing the success of the Pittsburgh coaching tree, but I don't know if I would trust him to take over a franchise that had to be rebuilt.

[swede]

I think the notion that McCarthy somehow chokes and doesn't know what to do late in the game is completely preposterous.

He is a risk-taker and sometimes goes for the homerun when his gut tells him its time. If his confidence in his players is justified, the call is forgotten. If the players don't execute, McCarthy sucks. The players in the game at the time haven't always executed, but that's a whole lot different than the characterization that he chokes up in crunch time.

The facts show that his team has been good at crunch time in certain years at and not good other years. Overall the results have been a bit below average (15-20 unless of course you're one who only counts the games the Packers lose this year by 4 or less). Doesn't mean he chokes by any means.

As the QB and surrounding cast (including the defense and ST) continues to mature, I suspect the results in close games will trend toward the mean again.

Hopefully, his stellar record in games decided by more than a score remains as well.

I give the guy his due in many ways, and I'm rooting for him to grow and get better. I hope your rosy take is the correct one.

[Bretsky]

How are these different, besides on a potential basis? I know Neal did more this year, but Harrell's still done more overall. In fact, he lasted longer his rookie year.

I know people can get frustrated with him not being on the field, but let's not say he's never done anything.


Honestly, in the limited time I saw Neal I was more impressed with him than Harrell in the decade or so he's been injured with us

Neal showed some real burst, some power to collapse a pocket and physically dominate an OL. He's also said to be a workout warrior in the weightroom and incredibly strong....which makes sense based on what he's shown. Overall from my perspective Justine has been a J.A.G. most of the time he's actually made it to the stripes

[Bretsky]

How can you say M3's done nothing of note when he took the team to a hair's breath of the SuperBowl. When did Caldwell make the title game?



You realy want me to answer this for you ???

[Smidgeon]

Honestly, in the limited time I saw Neal I was more impressed with him than Harrell in the decade or so he's been injured with us

Neal showed some real burst, some power to collapse a pocket and physically dominate an OL. He's also said to be a workout warrior in the weightroom and incredibly strong....which makes sense based on what he's shown. Overall from my perspective Justine has been a J.A.G. most of the time he's actually made it to the stripes

My impression was a little different. True, he offered absolutely nothing as a pass rusher, but I think he could have been an elite run blocker (a la Pickett). A couple years ago (I think it was), when I was learning specifically about the D-line, I read a post of Waldo's that convinced me that Harrell had what it took to be great as a run stuffer. Granted, that hasn't worked out at all, but I think it was there. But you're right that Neal "flashed" more. I personally think that's more because he was/is the better pass rusher.

[vince]

...your rosy take...

The facts show that his team has been good at crunch time in certain years at and not good other years. Overall the results have been a bit below average (15-20 unless of course you're one who only counts the games the Packers lose this year by 4 or less).
This is the NFL. There's pressure on coaches from the time they wake up until the time they go to bed every day of the year. During the game, there's pressure from the opening kickoff through the final seconds.

The idea that McCarthy tightens up or "can't stand the heat" at the end of the game or can't win the big game is just ridiculous in my opinion. How much experience do you suppose he has calling plays at the end of games? Did he have a boost of confidence in '06 and '07 in close games? Wouldn't such a defiency manifest itself in other ways too? How about when his response when the team lost to the winless Bucs last year? I'd say the heat was on then. Last week, the Giants came back quickly to tie the game after a Nelson turnover. Total change in momentum in a huge game. Why didn't he fold his tent then?

Perhaps any perceived problem has something to do with certain players or the quality of defense and/or special teams? Perhaps he's too confident in his kicker or QB or DB? Too much confidence is probably more likely than not enough. Perhaps his confidence is justified and they just are unlucky in some cases with balls doinking off uprights or balls being ever so slightly overthrown or stupid fumbles and penalties? Maybe wore-down offensive linemen have made mistakes at critical times on ocassion? Maybe McCarthy has expected his players to execute in situations where he shouldn't have?

He's not blameless by any means whenever the team loses, but I highly doubt any "problem" is due to the coach's nerves. Not sure that's necessarily a "rosy take" - just a realistic one based on an assessment of all the facts as opposed to an emotional reaction based on some of them IMO. Objectively speaking, 15-20 doesn't even signify a trend, much less portend a response of overly simplistic emotional causation to something that probably doesn't exist in the first place.

[Bretsky]

My impression was a little different. True, he offered absolutely nothing as a pass rusher, but I think he could have been an elite run blocker (a la Pickett). A couple years ago (I think it was), when I was learning specifically about the D-line, I read a post of Waldo's that convinced me that Harrell had what it took to be great as a run stuffer. Granted, that hasn't worked out at all, but I think it was there. But you're right that Neal "flashed" more. I personally think that's more because he was/is the better pass rusher.

Waldo was a great poster............one of the top I miss
But he as still wrong plenty of times as well..as most ar
He noted Jeremy Thompson was the idea fit for our OLB but he didn't make it
I think Harrell would have been ok as a run stuffer but I still feel I saw a lot more upside in his play than Harrell

[Bossman641]

I find it interesting that many of the "top" coaches lost this weekend.

Reid's Eagles looked absolutely terrible against the Vikings and Smith's Falcons lost a home game that they probably should have won.

Fire them!!! They are terrible coaches and don't know how to get their teams ready to play!! Didn't you see them both standing on the sidelines looking like deer in headlights. [sarcasm off]

[denverYooper]

I find it interesting that many of the "top" coaches lost this weekend.

Reid's Eagles looked absolutely terrible against the Vikings and Smith's Falcons lost a home game that they probably should have won.

Fire them!!! They are terrible coaches and don't know how to get their teams ready to play!! Didn't you see them both standing on the sidelines looking like deer in headlights. [sarcasm off]

Smith punted on 4th and 6th with ~3 minutes left, after which NO ran out the clock. He was questioned about it the next day and said that he would do the exact same thing again.

Andy Reid has been known to throw down some real clunkers from time to time.

[Fritz]

I was watching that game, and I couldn't believe he punted. I dunno. But I guess you make them win the game that way.

[RashanGary]

Honestly, in the limited time I saw Neal I was more impressed with him than Harrell in the decade or so he's been injured with us

Neal showed some real burst, some power to collapse a pocket and physically dominate an OL. He's also said to be a workout warrior in the weightroom and incredibly strong....which makes sense based on what he's shown. Overall from my perspective Justine has been a J.A.G. most of the time he's actually made it to the stripes

This is what I saw too. Harrell, when he was at his best for 5 minutes of a preseason game, wasn't embarrassing. Neal showed flashes of greatness, especially considering he's only a rookie.

Jolly and Neal were big-time losses this year.

[RashanGary]

If I had to take 5 players back from IR, it would go like this:

Grant
Finley
Jolly
Neal


And if we had these four players we would be nasty.

[esoxx]

I find it interesting that many of the "top" coaches lost this weekend.

Reid's Eagles looked absolutely terrible against the Vikings and Smith's Falcons lost a home game that they probably should have won.

Fire them!!! They are terrible coaches and don't know how to get their teams ready to play!! Didn't you see them both standing on the sidelines looking like deer in headlights. [sarcasm off]

Word on the street is that both Leslie Fraizer and Eric Studesville both shed their interim coaching tags and earned contract extensions b/c their teams won last week.

Of course, this is pending this week's results.

[mraynrand]

If I had to take 5 players back from IR, it would go like this:

Grant
Finley
Jolly
Neal


And if we had these four players we would be nasty.

Jolly got injured on suspension?

[mraynrand]

If I had to take 5 players back from IR, it would go like this:

Grant
Finley
Jolly
Neal


And if we had these four players we would be nasty.

Seriously, though - you would take Grant over Finley. Really? Did you notice other teams were game planning for Finley and not so much for Grant?

[Bretsky]

WANT TO PONDER A SICK THOUGHT

If we beat Detroit a few weeks ago, this Sunday we'd be playing for the #2 seed in the NFC

[vince]

Why so negative on Jennings Bretsky? Sure he had that TD gift-wrapped and ended up giving the ball away, but he's had a pretty damn good year overall.

[bobblehead]

Waldo was a great poster............one of the top I miss
But he as still wrong plenty of times as well..as most ar
He noted Jeremy Thompson was the idea fit for our OLB but he didn't make it
I think Harrell would have been ok as a run stuffer but I still feel I saw a lot more upside in his play than Harrell

Waldo also proclaimed that Kampman was never anywhere near the player Mathews is after 3 games this season. One of the dumbest posts I ever read regarding jumping the gun. When Mathews finally gets a 16 sack season as the main guy to block then I'll put him EQUAL with Kampman. Kamp was perhaps the least respected guy I've ever seen.

[mraynrand]

Waldo also proclaimed that Kampman was never anywhere near the player Mathews is after 3 games this season.

I agree with Waldo. Never saw any teams scheme for Kampman the way they scheme for Matthews

[get louder at lambeau]

Waldo also proclaimed that Kampman was never anywhere near the player Mathews is after 3 games this season. One of the dumbest posts I ever read regarding jumping the gun. When Mathews finally gets a 16 sack season as the main guy to block then I'll put him EQUAL with Kampman. Kamp was perhaps the least respected guy I've ever seen.

Clay has 13 sacks, 3 turnovers caused, 4 passes defensed and a TD in 13.5 games as the main guy to block, and he's not even pass rushing all the time. Kampy's best year was 15.5 sacks in 16 games with 3 turnovers caused, no passes defensed and no TDs.

Clay also has as many 10+ sack seasons after 2 years as Kampy has in 9. The kid is outstanding.

[Bretsky]

Why so negative on Jennings Bretsky? Sure he had that TD gift-wrapped and ended up giving the ball away, but he's had a pretty damn good year overall.

I'm not negative on Jennings; he's had a stellar year and proven to be very reliable after Finley went down. He's legit top 10 in the NFL

[RashanGary]

Seriously, though - you would take Grant over Finley. Really? Did you notice other teams were game planning for Finley and not so much for Grant?


I don't know. Losing Grant destroyed our run game. I know Finley is a better player. Jennings picked up the slack. Nobody picked up the slack left by Grant.

[get louder at lambeau]

I don't know. Losing Grant destroyed our run game. I know Finley is a better player. Jennings picked up the slack. Nobody picked up the slack left by Grant.

It hurt, but it didn't destroy anything. The 2010 Packers are rushing for 14 less yards per game than the 2009 Packers with Grant.

[Smidgeon]

It hurt, but it didn't destroy anything. The 2010 Packers are rushing for 14 less yards per game than the 2009 Packers with Grant.

Really?? Wow.

[pbmax]

I would not ponder MM as one of the top 5 coaches in the NFL; I more than conceded at a later post he's above average and in the top 10. I would not take Mike Smith or Harbaugh off the list myself; both have well disciplined teams who seem to show consistency and improvement. If Caldwell has none nothing of note you can replace MM into that sentence as well and then you can take MM out of your top 5. Tomlin, seriously......he's well above MM in results so far and it's not my fault if MM has hired some shitty coaches while Tomlin's excel. Coaches deserve some credit or blame for the quality of assistants they fly with. Fischer was one I was debating some. I could certainly add a couple who I personally might like over MM but I don't think there is justification yet.
.

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.

[pbmax]

Really?? Wow.

He is messing with your head. 14 yards per game is more than you think. The 2009 version of the Packers had 230 more yards after 15 games. It averaged 4.3 yards per carry versus 2010's 3.9. And Rodgers has also had more attempts and yards per game this year. Its a bad thing when the QB has to make up for some of the run game.

And 14 additional yards per game would move the Packers from 22nd this year to 13th in yards per game.

[channtheman]

WANT TO PONDER A SICK THOUGHT

If we beat Detroit a few weeks ago, this Sunday we'd be playing for the #2 seed in the NFC

I thought about this earlier today. Unfuckingbelievable that we lost that game.

[pbmax]

WANT TO PONDER A SICK THOUGHT

If we beat Detroit a few weeks ago, this Sunday we'd be playing for the #2 seed in the NFC

You know how to hurt someone B. Also, now please understand the awesome power of Daryn Colledge.

[Gunakor]

It hurt, but it didn't destroy anything. The 2010 Packers are rushing for 14 less yards per game than the 2009 Packers with Grant.

A better comparison to last year would be the frequency of the run game. What percentage of plays were runs vs. passes last year. How about this year?

Or even better, how often are we able to use play action this year compared to last?

Losing Grant was teh bigger loss because without a run game half the playbook is irrelevant since you can't use it anyway. Finley's strength was attacking the safeties. He'd be a real asset Sunday against the Bears Tampa-2 defense. He's a bigger playmaker than Grant, but not quite as important to the efficiency of our offense. We'd like to be a passing team, but that's not as easy without a complementary run game. A steady run game is the catalyst for this offense. Losing Grant is the far bigger blow IMO.

[mraynrand]

A better comparison to last year would be the frequency of the run game. What percentage of plays were runs vs. passes last year. How about this year?

Or even better, how often are we able to use play action this year compared to last?

Losing Grant was teh bigger loss because without a run game half the playbook is irrelevant since you can't use it anyway. Finley's strength was attacking the safeties. He'd be a real asset Sunday against the Bears Tampa-2 defense. He's a bigger playmaker than Grant, but not quite as important to the efficiency of our offense. We'd like to be a passing team, but that's not as easy without a complementary run game. A steady run game is the catalyst for this offense. Losing Grant is the far bigger blow IMO.


How about comparing the number of sacks - doesn't the run game prevent sacks? Finley was being game-planned for - a guy dedicated over the top and underneath help. he was a mismatch for both LBs, Corners, and Safeties. If Grant were some world-beater running back, I'd say losing him was a big deal. If the Packers had an O-line that could efficiently run block, I'd also say it was a big deal. Look who the Patriots trot out there to run the ball and how often they run it. Just enough to keep the defense honest. Also, with Finley in there, the Packers would likely have
huge gaps in the run game simple due to Finley being able to clear out a LB and Safety. I'd much rather have Finley back than Grant. Much more dangerous weapon, teams have to gameplan, he alters the entire defensive scheme. All that, versus Grant, who can run downhill a little bit. If you notice in 2008, with Grant, but not an up-to-speed Finley, a lot of teams were only playing 7 in the box, defending the pass, daring the Packers to run. Not as though they feared the running of Grant, eh?

[Gunakor]

You're looking at individual talent, I'm looking at team impact. MM has already said that over half of his playbook is reliant on a running game. We haven't had a running game since Grant went down. It's not Grant's individual talent that's the huge loss but rather the benefits of a consistent threat in the run game. Suffice it to say, half of MM's playbook has been useless all season. I doubt the loss of Finley had a similar impact. As I said, Finley is certainly the better playmaker. He's a mismatch wherever he lines up because he's a superior athelete and there's no argument he's a guy you have to gameplan around. But his being in the game doesn't improve our offense as a whole the way a consistent run game does, and his loss hasn't restricted the offense nearly as much as the loss of Grant has.

[vince]

You're looking at individual talent, I'm looking at team impact. MM has already said that over half of his playbook is reliant on a running game. We haven't had a running game since Grant went down. It's not Grant's individual talent that's the huge loss but rather the benefits of a consistent threat in the run game. Suffice it to say, half of MM's playbook has been useless all season. I doubt the loss of Finley had a similar impact. As I said, Finley is certainly the better playmaker. He's a mismatch wherever he lines up because he's a superior athelete and there's no argument he's a guy you have to gameplan around. But his being in the game doesn't improve our offense as a whole the way a consistent run game does, and his loss hasn't restricted the offense nearly as much as the loss of Grant has.
They both hurt no doubt. I'm of the opinion that the loss of Finley hurts more. Although the pass attack has rebounded after a few games of adjustment quite nicely - better than I feared. Jennings has really stepped up. Losing Finley also hurts the running game though, as backers and safeties would have to pay a lot more attention to him when he's in there, which can be just enough to create seams when they are not as aggressive in run support.

[bobblehead]

I agree with Waldo. Never saw any teams scheme for Kampman the way they scheme for Matthews

I did. A certain NO game a few years ago comes to mind where Kamp got 2 sacks in the first quarter and the team had to keep a TE in to double him the entire rest of the game. He was constantly double teamed.

[bobblehead]

Clay has 13 sacks, 3 turnovers caused, 4 passes defensed and a TD in 13.5 games as the main guy to block, and he's not even pass rushing all the time. Kampy's best year was 15.5 sacks in 16 games with 3 turnovers caused, no passes defensed and no TDs.

Clay also has as many 10+ sack seasons after 2 years as Kampy has in 9. The kid is outstanding.

He is outstanding. So was Kampman. This season I have seen many tackles stonewall Mathews. I never saw that with Kampman. They were different players. Clay is more explosive for sure. Kamp had a variety of moves and would NEVER get stonewalled. Even when a guy controlled him he would collapse the pocket (which was the scheme he played in. 15.5 sacks given that scheme was a monster year.)

As for passes defended and such, again, product of the scheme. Mathews benefits from moving around, surprising teams and keeping them off balance. Kamp lined up across from a tackle and beat him with no surprises. He also never had BJ Raji flushing the QB to him.

Don't get me wrong, when its said and done, I think Mathews will definatly have a better career. But to say Kamp was never anywhere near him after about 12 games as a starter....that is almost as foolish as proclaiming Ryan Grant as superior to Dickerson after 8 games.

PS...still waiting for Clay to get 16 sacks. He was spotted 9 this season. Again, not disputing your last point "the kid is outstanding." Just saying that getting all goofy over a player after a very short run is often wrong, and never smart.

[bobblehead]

, a lot of teams were only playing 7 in the box, defending the pass, daring the Packers to run. Not as though they feared the running of Grant, eh?

It was easy to do that early in the season since we would line up in shotgun, empty backfield, half the time.

[mraynrand]

It was easy to do that early in the season since we would line up in shotgun, empty backfield, half the time.

Except that I wasn't referring to empty backfield situations, since that makes no sense as the defense would know a run from a RB wasn't possible.

[mraynrand]

I did. A certain NO game a few years ago comes to mind where Kamp got 2 sacks in the first quarter and the team had to keep a TE in to double him the entire rest of the game. He was constantly double teamed.

This proves my point. The Saints didn't game plan at all for Kampman. They adjusted on the fly. I've observed multiple games where Matthews has clearly been double-teamed and schemed against from the first play on. Not so for Kampman.

[mraynrand]

They both hurt no doubt. I'm of the opinion that the loss of Finley hurts more. Although the pass attack has rebounded after a few games of adjustment quite nicely - better than I feared. Jennings has really stepped up. Losing Finley also hurts the running game though, as backers and safeties would have to pay a lot more attention to him when he's in there, which can be just enough to create seams when they are not as aggressive in run support.

I appreciate Gunakor's perspective (better play-action would certainly help the O) but I'm mostly on this side of the argument. Interesting 'chicken and egg' question with pass setting up run setting up pass controversy at the heart of it... To me though, the key will always be great players forcing other teams into situations they don't want. Having to game plan for Finley or Matthews will free up other to make plays...

[bobblehead]

This proves my point. The Saints didn't game plan at all for Kampman. They adjusted on the fly. I've observed multiple games where Matthews has clearly been double-teamed and schemed against from the first play on. Not so for Kampman.

YOur nitpicking. Teams certainly did gameplan for kampman in passing sets. To assert otherwise is crazy. That NO game came early in the 15.5 sack season if I recall, and teams started gameplanning for him the rest of the season.

[mraynrand]

YOur nitpicking. Teams certainly did gameplan for kampman in passing sets. To assert otherwise is crazy. That NO game came early in the 15.5 sack season if I recall, and teams started gameplanning for him the rest of the season.


I didn't see much of that. But, if I'm really bored, I'll go back and look to see how often he was doubled, chipped, etc. I still see Matthews as having far more impact than Kampman. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[vince]

Just saying that getting all goofy over a player after a very short run is often wrong, and never smart.
I disagree with this. Of course early speculation is often wrong, but that's what GM's are paid to do and I appreciate people stepping out with their opinions. Being wrong about predicting the future based on what you see and your experiences is far different than being dumb.

I suspect Waldo would stand by his assertions. You can't deny that Matthews has absolutely elite skills and the potential to be nothing short of the best ever at his position. That's according to Kevin Greene, one of the all-time greats. Not sure you could ever say that about Kampman, who I'm a big fan of...

[bobblehead]

I disagree with this. Of course early speculation is often wrong, but that's what GM's are paid to do and I appreciate people stepping out with their opinions. Being wrong about predicting the future based on what you see and your experiences is far different than being dumb.

I suspect Waldo would stand by his assertions. You can't deny that Matthews has absolutely elite skills and the potential to be nothing short of the best ever at his position. Not sure you could ever say that about Kampman, who I'm a big fan of...

He can feel free to stand by his Mathews assertion, and will likely be right. He can stand by his dissing of Kampman and will never ever be right. When its all over Mathews will likely have a great career. A lot of things have kept kampman from maxing out his career, but to basically say he is a JAG the way Waldo did (many times) was just foolish.

Remember, Waldo often backed his arguments with brilliance like saying LT and Reggie White always lined up against the left tackle and beat the best....then had to backpeddle a lot. I'm just a person who believes in letting the jury decide before asserting things not yet proven, then basically being dismissive to anyone who disagrees.

I have said that I think Finley is as dominant as Gates when healthy. I would never be foolish enough to say he is as good of a player as Gates...not yet anyway. To say that Mathews IS TWICE THE PLAYER KAMPMAN EVER WAS is just asinine in my book.

[vince]

He can feel free to stand by his Mathews assertion, and will likely be right. He can stand by his dissing of Kampman and will never ever be right. When its all over Mathews will likely have a great career. A lot of things have kept kampman from maxing out his career, but to basically say he is a JAG the way Waldo did (many times) was just foolish.

Remember, Waldo often backed his arguments with brilliance like saying LT and Reggie White always lined up against the left tackle and beat the best....then had to backpeddle a lot. I'm just a person who believes in letting the jury decide before asserting things not yet proven, then basically being dismissive to anyone who disagrees.

I have said that I think Finley is as dominant as Gates when healthy. I would never be foolish enough to say he is as good of a player as Gates...not yet anyway. To say that Mathews IS TWICE THE PLAYER KAMPMAN EVER WAS is just asinine in my book.
Agree with all of that. I wasn't remembering his statements about Kampman. Now that you bring them up, I do recall them and would also disagree with them.

[bobblehead]

PS...he also said the same thing comparing Jared Allen to Kampman. They are very similar players. Similar stats when healthy. Allen has had the beneifit of playing with a better front 7 than Kampman did. He never had to switch to a 3-4. He has had a more consistent career overall, but again, in Waldo's view you shouldn't even mention Kampman with Allen.

Allen has been slightly better due to health and the teams he played on. He is by no means significantly better than Kampman.

[mraynrand]

PS...he also said the same thing comparing Jared Allen to Kampman. They are very similar players. Similar stats when healthy. Allen has had the beneifit of playing with a better front 7 than Kampman did. He never had to switch to a 3-4. He has had a more consistent career overall, but again, in Waldo's view you shouldn't even mention Kampman with Allen.

Allen has been slightly better due to health and the teams he played on. He is by no means significantly better than Kampman.

I think Allen is better than Kampman (Significantly, probably not). More explosive, quicker. Not a better technician. About the same slightly worse than Kamp against the run. But the factors around them that make their careers distinct can't be ignored. Clifton manhandled Allen at KC in 2007 at the height of Allen's career, but got schooled in the Dome (but was dinged up). Kampman is solid; Allen flashy and streaky. Kampman is a great guy, Allen is a tool. That counts for something too.

[get louder at lambeau]

He is outstanding. So was Kampman. This season I have seen many tackles stonewall Mathews. I never saw that with Kampman. They were different players. Clay is more explosive for sure. Kamp had a variety of moves and would NEVER get stonewalled. Even when a guy controlled him he would collapse the pocket (which was the scheme he played in. 15.5 sacks given that scheme was a monster year.)

As for passes defended and such, again, product of the scheme. Mathews benefits from moving around, surprising teams and keeping them off balance. Kamp lined up across from a tackle and beat him with no surprises. He also never had BJ Raji flushing the QB to him.

Don't get me wrong, when its said and done, I think Mathews will definatly have a better career. But to say Kamp was never anywhere near him after about 12 games as a starter....that is almost as foolish as proclaiming Ryan Grant as superior to Dickerson after 8 games.

PS...still waiting for Clay to get 16 sacks. He was spotted 9 this season. Again, not disputing your last point "the kid is outstanding." Just saying that getting all goofy over a player after a very short run is often wrong, and never smart.

Still waiting for Kampy to get 16 sacks too. Clay "was spotted 9"? Come on, now. He had 10 as a rook, and everyone was complaining that we didn't have any other pass rushers. Teams knew damn well what was coming, and they couldn't stop him.

"Never had B.J. Raji"? Kampy had KGB (6 sacks), Cullen Jenkins (6.5), and Corey Williams (7) out there with him in the season he got 15.5.

Let's not forget how good KGB was back in the day. He got 16.5 more sacks than Kampy in the same number of seasons. He kept a LOT of pressure off Kampy, and flushed a LOT of QBs into him.

Matthews has had guys like Erik Walden and Jarius Wynn rushing opposite him for much of the year, he missed a game and a half, he doesn't even rush the QB all the time, and he still has production that rivals Kampy's best year and is superior to Kampy's second best year.

I appreciate you keeping the memory of a great Packer alive, but you're just as biased as you are claiming Waldo to be, only in the other direction. I think it's fair to say that Clay right now is every bit the player Kampy was at his peak. Maybe not significantly better, but every bit as good.

[Smidgeon]

Still waiting for Kampy to get 16 sacks too. Clay "was spotted 9"? Come on, now. He had 10 as a rook, and everyone was complaining that we didn't have any other pass rushers. Teams knew damn well what was coming, and they couldn't stop him.

"Never had B.J. Raji"? Kampy had KGB (6 sacks), Cullen Jenkins (6.5), and Corey Williams (7) out there with him in the season he got 15.5.

Let's not forget how good KGB was back in the day. He got 16.5 more sacks than Kampy in the same number of seasons. He kept a LOT of pressure off Kampy, and flushed a LOT of QBs into him.

Matthews has had guys like Erik Walden and Jarius Wynn rushing opposite him for much of the year, he missed a game and a half, he doesn't even rush the QB all the time, and he still has production that rivals Kampy's best year and is superior to Kampy's second best year.

I appreciate you keeping the memory of a great Packer alive, but you're just as biased as you are claiming Waldo to be, only in the other direction. I think it's fair to say that Clay right now is every bit the player Kampy was at his peak. Maybe not significantly better, but every bit as good.

And Kampman and Matthews are different players. Kampman in coverage was not a sight anybody wanted to see. Kampman as a pass rusher and run defender on the left side of the line, however, that was okay with me. He definitely mastered that LDE spot.

But Matthews is a different type of players. Despite the fact that they were both primarly pass rush and edge setters in run-defense, they went about it in completely different ways.

[HarveyWallbangers]

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.

[denverYooper]

Serious thread drift :lol:

[Bossman641]

He is outstanding. So was Kampman. This season I have seen many tackles stonewall Mathews. I never saw that with Kampman. They were different players. Clay is more explosive for sure. Kamp had a variety of moves and would NEVER get stonewalled. Even when a guy controlled him he would collapse the pocket (which was the scheme he played in. 15.5 sacks given that scheme was a monster year.)

As for passes defended and such, again, product of the scheme. Mathews benefits from moving around, surprising teams and keeping them off balance. Kamp lined up across from a tackle and beat him with no surprises. He also never had BJ Raji flushing the QB to him.

Don't get me wrong, when its said and done, I think Mathews will definatly have a better career. But to say Kamp was never anywhere near him after about 12 games as a starter....that is almost as foolish as proclaiming Ryan Grant as superior to Dickerson after 8 games.

PS...still waiting for Clay to get 16 sacks. He was spotted 9 this season. Again, not disputing your last point "the kid is outstanding." Just saying that getting all goofy over a player after a very short run is often wrong, and never smart.

I'll continue taking this thread off track. I have noticed lately that Capers hasn't been moving Matthews around much at all lately whereas earlier in the year he was rushing from all over the place. Has anybody heard any reasons for this? Lack of practice time for CM3? Not enough trust with the rest of the front 7?

[Smidgeon]

I'll continue taking this thread off track. I have noticed lately that Capers hasn't been moving Matthews around much at all lately whereas earlier in the year he was rushing from all over the place. Has anybody heard any reasons for this? Lack of practice time for CM3? Not enough trust with the rest of the front 7?

Didn't he do that some in the Giants game? I saw him on the right side for one snap and got a little excited...for one snap.

[Fritz]

I'm thinking that when your other outside linebacker is Brad Jones - no, wait, Frank Zombo - no, wait, Erik Walden - no, wait, Robert Francois - well, you get my point. Kinda hard to move him all over when the guy on the other side is new every week.

[pbmax]

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.

Perhaps, and given that AK played on the left and Allen plays on the right, their coaches might have thought the same thing. But I always thought Kampman was blockable in the run game. He did not get out of position, but he was often retreating to make the hit.

[pbmax]

I'll continue taking this thread off track. I have noticed lately that Capers hasn't been moving Matthews around much at all lately whereas earlier in the year he was rushing from all over the place. Has anybody heard any reasons for this? Lack of practice time for CM3? Not enough trust with the rest of the front 7?

Lack of practice time. Capers said the Giants game was the first in a while where he had enough practice time to absorb playing from a different spot.

[bobblehead]

Time to put this thread back on track:

MM should be ashamed. He STILL can't win close games. That fool is 0-6 this year in games decided by 4 or less. Doesn't he know that doubling up the #1 seed is the mark of a BAD COACH? He absolutely MUST start letting teams compete with us if he ever wants to be cosidered great.

[Gunakor]

Agreed. If I have to stomach another 27 point victory in the playoffs I'm gonna have to stop by McCarthy's house with a carton of eggs.

[bobblehead]

MM had a good game plan. Execution was exceptional. Still MM is unproven in close games.

Lets hope the Bears game is close -- maybe MM has learned from previous close game mistakes.

You have no shame dude. You should really just quit posting. After last season you did a nice disappearing act. I would have expected the same after you get proven wrong over and over again with your chicken little act, but apparently you have the memory of Trevor Hoffman.