PDA

View Full Version : Bob McGinn: Decision to cut Carroll was definitely premature



the_idle_threat
10-09-2006, 10:47 AM
Decision to cut Carroll was definitely premature

Posted: Oct. 7, 2006

http://www.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/art/mugs/1bobmcginn.jpg
Bob McGinn

Green Bay - From Hudson on the Minnesota border, where a restaurant owner put up a billboard reading "Ahmad Carroll Unemployment Benefit Tonight," to the contemptuous comments on talk radio and in chat rooms, thousands of Packers fans bid a not-so-fond farewell last week to the defrocked cornerback in their own special way.

The world is well. Carroll is gone. Another unworthy first-round draft choice bites the dust.

Fun while it lasted, wasn't it? But starting this afternoon, you get to watch somebody named Patrick Dendy and maybe somebody else named Jarrett Bush fill Carroll's old job as the No. 3 cornerback. General manager Ted Thompson will be watching right along with you today and for the final 11 games.

When you throw someone under the bus, which Thompson did when he cut Carroll on Tuesday, you better have somebody in mind that can do the job as well if not better. Otherwise, you're not acting in the best interests of the organization, as decision-makers in the National Football League like to put it.

Personally, I'd take my chances with Carroll over what Thompson has scrounged up to take his place.

I know, I know. Carroll played just about the worst second half a cornerback could play Monday night in Philadelphia. He allowed three plays of 20 yards or more and was penalized twice. The key to the Eagles' comeback came when Andy Reid targeted Carroll.

Then the ax fell about 12 hours later.

"Well, we just felt it was time for a change," Thompson said Friday. "I think he busted his tail. I like the kid. I wanted to make a player out of him. I felt like maybe give these other guys a shot and see if they can do it."

Football is no different than life. Final impressions leave an indelible mark. But to suggest that the second half in Philly was an accurate measure of Carroll is ridiculous.

Carroll played 35 games in Green Bay, counting playoffs, and started 28. This was the only game in which he allowed three 20-plus plays. In three other games, he gave up two. In the other 31 games, he yielded one or fewer.

He played better than any of the defensive backs the week before in Detroit. He did some very good things against New Orleans with the glaring exception of biting on a double-move for a touchdown. And one coach for a recent Packers' opponent had him ranked as an above-average core player on special teams.

Moreover, if you take the time to break it down, he played better in 2005 than he did this season.

So, no, it wasn't time to give up on a player who just turned 23 in August. A three-year veteran, Carroll still was younger than 43 players on the current roster that constitutes the youngest team in the National Football League.

No matter what they say, it wasn't hard for Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy to dump Carroll. He wasn't their guy. He had a horrible game. The defense has been awful. The club probably isn't going anywhere.

Plus, they knew the transaction would be well-received by most fans and reporters. Carroll always had been a lightning rod for criticism, much of which he brought upon himself by his shameless on-field strutting.

But pandering to the public doesn't carry long-term gains. It was unfair to Carroll to be cast as responsible when he was doing his job better than perhaps half of his teammates.

Carroll didn't make himself available for interviews last week. He didn't pop off. He never ripped his coaches. He didn't blame teammates.

After a rocky first year when he had no clue about what it took to be a professional, Carroll started to see the light. He didn't talk quite as much and began practicing harder.

He stopped attempting those feeble block-down tackles and began to wrap up. He wasn't a good kickoff returner but he ran it up inside harder than many others. He was not afraid.

His level of enthusiasm was rare. During the dog days of August, he'd be the only player sprinting from drill to drill. Sure, he tended to be a little over the top, but coaches had nothing but good things to say about his work habits in the last 1 1/2 years.

Unfortunately for Carroll, he never should have been a first-round pick. When Mike Sherman used the 25th choice in 2004 to select Carroll, he was banking that 4.35-second speed in the 40-yard dash, a 41-inch vertical jump and very good upper-body strength could be turned into a far better player than he had for three years at Arkansas.

"He was horrific in college," one personnel director said at mid-week. "He had so many interference calls. You wanted to say he was overaggressive. Because he came out early, you said in time you'd be able to hone that down a little bit. Refine his technique. He was very, very, very raw."

Besides standing just 5 feet 9 5/8 inches tall, Carroll also wasn't an instinctive player at Arkansas. But because Carroll had skipped spring football to run track, the Packers were among the teams that hoped his special gifts might blossom given special coaching.

Much of Carroll's time in his rookie year was spent with assistant secondary coach Lionel Washington, who played cornerback for 15 years in the NFL. His players have praised Washington for his ability to teach technique and to serve as a liaison between them and the head coach, the defensive coordinator and the secondary coach. And Carroll learned a lot from Washington.

Still, it isn't Washington's nature to get up in a player's face and demand that it be done right. Dick Jauron did that, at least behind closed doors. Ray Rhodes did that. Bob Valesente did that. Fritz Shurmur did that. Tough coaching never is out of style, perhaps surprisingly in the NFL.

Sherman's choice of Kurt Schottenheimer to serve as secondary coach during Carroll's rookie year was a mistake. A staunch advocate for choosing Carroll, Schottenheimer didn't have the level of expertise or the force of personality to blend well with Washington.

Carroll improved under hard-charging defensive coordinator Jim Bates, secondary coach Joe Baker and Washington last season. When McCarthy replaced Sherman, and subsequently selected the mild-mannered Bob Sanders as coordinator, his first thought for the secondary job should have been landing a hard-nosed taskmaster to make sure Carroll's improvement continued.

In an inexplicable decision, McCarthy decided to bring back Schottenheimer and Washington, the precise pairing that had done the coaching when Carroll flopped so badly as a rookie.

It was a classic illustration of a player being set up for failure.

If Carroll finds better coaching with his next team, could he become a solid starter?

No. He will never play to the ceiling as indicated by his speed and athleticism because his instincts are almost nil. He can't track the deep ball. He has inherent problems against big wide receivers. He's highly susceptible to double-moves. He can't keep his hands off receivers. He struggles to flip his hips and adjust to routes. He comes across as cocky but his play suggests lack of confidence. He neither trusts his speed nor plays to it.

But as Carroll ages, he likely will come to grips with his shortcomings and find ways to survive. He has a good enough floor. He isn't a bust.

Carroll and Terrell Buckley are much alike in that both thought they were better than they were.

Buckley wasn't nearly as tough as Carroll but did have far better ball skills, which enabled him to intercept 40 passes for five different teams from 1995-2005 after being dumped by the Packers after three seasons. But Buckley didn't have great instincts, either. He was just a guesser.

Carroll really does want to succeed, and my guess is he will play for many more years. Maybe, like Buckley, he'll never be more than a part-time starter and nickel back. But he can be competent in that role, just as the numbers suggest he was in Green Bay.

In 2 1/4 seasons, Carroll allowed 20 1/2 plays of 20-plus yards, 11 1/2 touchdown passes, had 20 defensive penalties against him accepted and missed 17 tackles. In that same period, Al Harris allowed 26 plays of 20-plus yards, 10 1/2 TD passes, had 19 accepted defensive penalties and missed 18 tackles. Harris made six turnover-producing plays compared to Carroll's five.

From 2004-'05, Harris played more snaps (1,998) than Carroll (1,701); snap totals weren't available for '06. But their playing time is close enough that it's mildly meaningful to see Harris with a higher total (73 1/2) in the above four negative categories than Carroll (69).

In Carroll's one full season as a starter, he allowed three TD passes. In their full seasons as starters, Craig Newsome averaged 6.2, Harris has averaged 4.5, Mike McKenzie averaged 3.6 and Tyrone Williams averaged 3.1.

Also in 2005, Carroll allowed nine 20-plus plays. In their full seasons as starters, Harris has averaged 12, Newsome averaged 10, Williams averaged 8.8 and McKenzie averaged 6.2.

This isn't to suggest that Carroll is anywhere near as good as Harris or those other cornerbacks of recent Packers' vintage. But it is to suggest that the last place he should be is on the street.

Carroll failed in Green Bay, just as the Packers failed him. His best, modest though it might be, is yet to come. It just should have taken place for the Packers.

Harlan Huckleby
10-09-2006, 10:58 AM
Thanks for posting. McGinn is probably correct in his analysis. Except Green Bay probably isn't the best place for Carroll because of the fans' hard feelings.

KYPack
10-09-2006, 11:08 AM
Thanks, threat.

I was breaking my fingers trying to sneak that thing off of PI, using HH's trick that don't work no mo!

I agree with this article basically 100%

Yeah, the guy had a nightmare game. You can't have a worse game than the debacle in Philly.

But we need nickle and dime guys. Dendy and Bush probably will never play in the league aft this year. We should'v beaten on Carroll with a crow bar until we pounded cover into his thick head.

Now with any injuries, we'll be back on the scrap heap looking for another nickle back. This thing is starting to look like a turnstyle.

HarveyWallbangers
10-09-2006, 11:15 AM
Personally, I don't agree with the article.

the_idle_threat
10-09-2006, 11:16 AM
My comments on the article: McGinn's logic is very inconsistent and I disagree with his conclusion wholeheartedly.

He admits that Carroll has been bad and does not possess the ability to be more than passable in the future, and then concludes we should have kept him. WTF? Sounds like the Michael Hawthorne mentality to me.

McGinn seems to dog on the replacement guys, but could they possibly play any worse? Not much ... and perhaps they do have the higher ceilings that Carroll lacks. We'll never know so long as they remain buried on the bench behind a severe underacheiver. We need to develop some guys who have higher ceilings than 3rd-down back and better-than-average special teamer, because Harris seems to be slipping.

Patler
10-09-2006, 11:22 AM
How many first round draft choices have long, productive careers as backups or spot players on the team that drafted them in the first round? None that I can think of. They do not meet the expectations of the organization that drafted them in the first round, so they leave, go to where less is expected of them, where their play justifies their pay, which is usually much lower.

McGinn gives a whole laundry list of reasons why Carroll will never play up to what was expected of him when he was drafted, why he is nothing more than a spot player, but then concludes it was premature to cut him. I don't follow the logic.

FavreChild
10-09-2006, 11:41 AM
Thanks for posting; obviously, I agree.

Harlan Huckleby
10-09-2006, 11:44 AM
McGinn seems to dog on the replacement guys, but could they possibly play any worse?

Ummm, yes. Not worse than Carroll's nightmare game, perhaps, but Carroll looked better than those guys in practice, and he's played well much of the time as a starter.

I'm on both sides of this argument. I agree with everything McGinn said - except my gut tells me it was time for the divorce.

Tony Oday
10-09-2006, 12:01 PM
Carrol is BAD REAL BAD. Who cares he sucked we are rebuilding cut him and then kick him in the head!

prsnfoto
10-09-2006, 12:09 PM
THE PENALTY ASPECT IS FLAWED. Al Harris usually gets called for defensive holding which is a first down but only 5 yards, Carroll got called for pass interference mostly which can be a whole lot more damaging if it is a 69 yard penalty. It probably was a mistake to let him go in a league so poor in corners but it can't get much worse so how bad can it really get?

Patler
10-09-2006, 12:54 PM
Most of the NFL is made up of somewhat interchangeable parts that have different strengths and weaknesses, but mostly can be exchanged one for the other. The key is to find the right mix among the strengths and weaknesses of those otherwise interchangeable parts.

Who ever replaces Carroll may not be as good in run support as he was, but may be better all-around in pass coverage performance. That may be more what the Packers need at this time.

Unless the primary backup is a young guy destined to become a starter in the furture, I can't get too excited over dumping one and replacing him with another. Carroll falls into the "I really don't care category".

the_idle_threat
10-09-2006, 01:01 PM
Carroll looked better than those guys in practice, and he's played well much of the time as a starter.

I can't agree with you on either of these points, Harlan.

I haven't seen any of these guys in practice, and I'd bet every dollar in Patler's wallet that you haven't either. But M3 and TT have. They saw how Carroll and his potential replacements practiced, and their decision to release Carroll indicates that they believe the replacements have looked good enough in practice, as compared to Carroll, to make Carroll expendable.

Carroll started last year. But I wouldn't say he played well ... he just didn't play as poorly as he had before. His reputation benefitted from deservedly-low expectations. Carroll still gave up big completions or pass-interference penalties, but not at the alarming rate of his rookie season. But keep in mind, opposing teams started guys at QB like Kyle Orton (twice), Joey Harrington (twice), Aaron Brooks, Charlie Batch, Mike McMahon, and Kyle Boller (who torched Carroll anyway). That group could make me look like a passable cornerback.

wist43
10-09-2006, 01:09 PM
I usually agree with McGinn, but not on this one...

Carroll had proven that he had no instincts or ball skills, and was simply going to continue to be targetted by opposing OC's. It was time for him to go... Another busted 1st round pick.

And you guys wonder why I'm hypercritical of the Packers scouting dept???

Patler
10-09-2006, 01:10 PM
I haven't seen any of these guys in practice, and I'd bet every dollar in Patler's wallet that you haven't either.

You're being awful free with MY money. Are you by chance one of my kids??? :lol: :mrgreen:

the_idle_threat
10-09-2006, 01:13 PM
I haven't seen any of these guys in practice, and I'd bet every dollar in Patler's wallet that you haven't either.

You're being awful free with MY money. Are you by chance one of my kids??? :lol: :mrgreen:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Bear with me ... If I win the bet, there's a cut in it for you. :mrgreen:

Bretsky
10-09-2006, 01:15 PM
I think the PR Website had better points regarding AC; but I guess one could argue I'm a bit biased :mrgreen:

KYPack
10-09-2006, 05:50 PM
I think the PR Website had better points regarding AC; but I guess one could argue I'm a bit biased :mrgreen:

Yer own article, right B?

Fritz
10-09-2006, 06:05 PM
Patler's right. GB picked up former #1 pick Bryant Westbrook who was a bust in Detroit, and he was someone who generally fit in (until he got hurt...again). They've picked up other #1's like Rod Gardner, who filled a role at the end of last season, and Ryan Pickett, whom St. Louis obviously did not outbid GB for.

Happens all the time.

Rastak
10-09-2006, 07:35 PM
From ESPN Insider:


Packers couldn't wait on 'potential'posted: Thursday, October 5, 2006 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: Green Bay Packers

With their team ranked next-to-last in the league in pass defense, the Green Bay Packers' brass was not impressed with the poor play of cornerback Ahmad Carroll. In fact, the Packers were disappointed enough to cut Carroll after thinking enough of him in 2004 to make him a first-round draft pick.


CarrollIs this a knee jerk reaction by Green Bay, making Carroll a scapegoat for the poor performance of a defense that was expected to keep the Packers in games, rather than losing those games?
No. Simply put, Carroll had been given many opportunities to achieve his potential but never played up to expectations. Carroll was a reach as a first-round draft selection. The Packers made that decision based more on his measurables and potential than on his collegiate on-field performance. Since arriving in Green Bay, Carroll didn't lack for confidence, but he also didn't walk the walk on the field to back up his constantly talking the talk.

In his rookie season, Carroll started 11 games but was penalized regularly for holding, pass interference and illegal use of hands. He also was consistently out of position, often getting beaten deep and giving up explosive plays. It didn't take opponents long to take advantage of him.

When I was coaching in Minnesota and we game-planned against the Packers, our staff designed ways to isolate Carroll and create a mismatch that would give our receivers opportunities to make plays. Even worse, our receivers would argue over who should get Carroll in those individual matchups. Even without an injured Randy Moss in 2004 we matched up Nate Burleson twice against Carroll. In both games Nate dominated, toasting Carroll for 141 yards and a score at Lambeau Field followed by another 110 yards at the Metrodome, including a 42-yard catch-and- run and a 68-yard touchdown catch.

Due to the economics of the NFL, high draft picks will be given many opportunities to succeed. First, the team has a tremendous investment in them, with huge bonuses and high salary. Second, the decision-makers have egos that often force coaches to get players on the field for reasons other than their ability to make plays.

Players drafted higher will be kept around longer and given more chances so the people who made the pick won't look bad. Unfortunately, sometimes the competitive ego interferes with putting the best players on the field. And sometimes coaches can get fired for losing games while playing players they have been forced to put on the field.

During his short time in Green Bay, Carroll couldn't establish himself as a consistent starter, and this year he found himself playing nickel cornerback. Now, after giving up more game-breaking big plays that cost Green Bay another game, he's gone. A favorite player of many Packers opponents, Carroll turned out to be a liability based on his performance, not his potential.

To quote the famous college coach, Jerry Claiborne, "Son, your potential is going to get me fired!" Current Packers general manager Ted Thompson and first-year head coach Mike McCarthy inherited Carroll from the previous regime, but they didn't want his "potential" to cost them any more games -- or their jobs.

GBRulz
10-09-2006, 09:57 PM
I still say kudos for TT not wearing the tighty whities that day and having some guts on making this decision. I agree 100% with his move, I think it sends a message.

To Carroll's defense, I feel he was thrown to the wolves before he was ready, but he's had enough time to develop, which he has not. I also think if the kid wasn't such an egotistical punk, we might have been a little more patient with him.

GBRulz
10-09-2006, 09:58 PM
BTW,, no offense to the guys wearing tighty whitie underwear in my last comment :wink:

MJZiggy
10-09-2006, 10:58 PM
I still say kudos for TT not wearing the tighty whities that day and having some guts on making this decision.

This brings up thoughts I'd just rather not think... :?

vince
10-10-2006, 06:56 AM
When I was coaching in Minnesota and we game-planned against the Packers, our staff designed ways to isolate Carroll and create a mismatch that would give our receivers opportunities to make plays. Even worse, our receivers would argue over who should get Carroll in those individual matchups. Even without an injured Randy Moss in 2004 we matched up Nate Burleson twice against Carroll. In both games Nate dominated, toasting Carroll for 141 yards and a score at Lambeau Field followed by another 110 yards at the Metrodome, including a 42-yard catch-and- run and a 68-yard touchdown catch.
If the combination of Carroll getting toasted with regularity, the consistent stream of yellow flags flying on the field as a result of his actions, and this competitor's former coach's comments doesn't convince people that Ahmad Carroll was a serious liability on this team, and that moving on without him was a good idea, it's absolutely hopeless.

Few things in football are as clear as this situation. It's difficult to imagine a bigger liability for a football team than Ahmad Carroll was for the Packers.

Tough strategy for opponents: Wait until Carroll gets into the game. Isolate him in coverage. Kick the extra point.

How any objective observer could still want him on a team that you actually root for to WIN is beyond me.

Rastak
10-10-2006, 07:13 AM
When I was coaching in Minnesota and we game-planned against the Packers, our staff designed ways to isolate Carroll and create a mismatch that would give our receivers opportunities to make plays. Even worse, our receivers would argue over who should get Carroll in those individual matchups. Even without an injured Randy Moss in 2004 we matched up Nate Burleson twice against Carroll. In both games Nate dominated, toasting Carroll for 141 yards and a score at Lambeau Field followed by another 110 yards at the Metrodome, including a 42-yard catch-and- run and a 68-yard touchdown catch.
If the combination of Carroll getting toasted with regularity, the consistent stream of yellow flags flying on the field as a result of his actions, and this competitor's former coach's comments doesn't convince people that Ahmad Carroll was a serious liability on this team, and that moving on without him was a good idea, it's absolutely hopeless.

Few things in football are as clear as this situation. It's difficult to imagine a bigger liability for a football team than Ahmad Carroll was for the Packers.

Tough strategy for opponents: Wait until Carroll gets into the game. Isolate him in coverage. Kick the extra point.

How any objective observer could still want him on a team that you actually root for to WIN is beyond me.


FYI in case you didn't know, it was written by Dean Dalton who was the Vikings running back coach the last few years. He does paint an ugly picture
of Carroll, that's for sure.

woodbuck27
10-10-2006, 12:18 PM
Personally, I don't agree with the article.

"Well, we just felt it was time for a change," Thompson said Friday. "I think he busted his tail. I like the kid. I wanted to make a player out of him. I felt like maybe give these other guys a shot and see if they can do it." Ted Thompson "wanna be GM of "the Green Bay Packers".

Ted Thompson "the no account Champion of the double talk". The biggest phony I have ever witnessed in all my years of following sports.

Ted Thompson makes me sick as a dedicated a Packer fan.

He is the worst I've ever witnessed in an Organization's front office.

Tripping on his pathetic ego lift, that will take OUR team to the dogs.

FIRE Ted Thompson's phony ass.

Packer fans have to finally stand up and demonstrate some credibility "in outrage ", for what he's done/doing to OUR team.

Ted Thompson is pathetic.

Ted Thompson must be FIRED ASAP !

Dump him.

Zool
10-10-2006, 12:27 PM
Good gracious. How do you feel about Mr Thompson? Maybe you could just start a thread and consolidate your hatred to one intense beam of death towards his head?

BooHoo
10-10-2006, 12:47 PM
Carroll was in Green Bay way to long. We should have never drafted him.

sharpe1027
10-10-2006, 01:09 PM
The fact that no team bothered to pick him up off of waivers says it all. Not to mention, that no team even bothered picking him up for the league minimum.

KYPack
10-10-2006, 09:11 PM
The fact that no team bothered to pick him up off of waivers says it all. Not to mention, that no team even bothered picking him up for the league minimum.

He signed with Jax.

Teams wait for a short period to sign vets. That was they aren't on the hook fo any of the old contract.

woodbuck27
10-10-2006, 09:20 PM
Carrol is BAD REAL BAD. Who cares he sucked we are rebuilding cut him and then kick him in the head!

Ohhhhuuu Maaaan.

Brutal. :mrgreen:

woodbuck27
10-10-2006, 09:24 PM
Good gracious. How do you feel about Mr Thompson? Maybe you could just start a thread and consolidate your hatred to one intense beam of death towards his head?

Maybe the next loss will take me there... stay tuned !! :mrgreen:

woodbuck27
10-10-2006, 09:25 PM
Carroll was in Green Bay way to long. We should have never drafted him.

You have a strong argument for that claim. :mrgreen: