motife
04-26-2006, 08:18 AM
Favre's return gives McCarthy a fighting chance
Posted: April 25, 2006
Cliff Christl
E-MAIL
If Mike McCarthy was clicking his heels and dancing a jig behind his office door today, one could hardly blame him.
Brett Favre's decision to play another season gives McCarthy at least some hope that his first season as coach of the Green Bay Packers won't be a total disaster and it also might increase his odds of achieving long-term success.
Let's make it clear that Favre's return guarantees nothing.
He started all 16 games last year and the Packers went 4-12. This season could be a repeat of last or even worse.
Advertisement
But with no Favre, it was all but a given that this season would have been a nightmare and the Packers probably would have been even far less competitive than they were last year. After all, Aaron Rodgers looked a lot more like Joey Harrington or even Akili Smith than a budding star in last summer's camp.
Some might ask: How much worse could things get?
Believe it or not, the answer is a lot worse.
Favre's league-high 29 interceptions were crippling and contributed to the Packers' worst season in 14 years. But the Packers also lost eight of their 12 games by seven points or less. And they still finished 18th in total offense and seventh in passing. Moreover, they allowed the fifth fewest sacks in the NFL and Favre finished in the top 10 in touchdown passes.
What can't be calculated is how many more sacks and, in turn, how many more fumbles the Packers might have suffered with an inexperienced quarterback. Favre's ability to read defenses even before the snap at times and to get rid of the ball in an instant may be his most under-appreciated gift.
Houston's David Carr was sacked 68 times last season and he should have benefited some from the league's 15th best running game. Favre, operating with a running game that ranked 30th, was sacked only 24 times.
Remember the Baltimore game?
Favre wasn't sacked once in 29 pass attempts, although the Packers fell behind, 14-3, just beyond the halfway mark of the first quarter. In his most extended opportunity of the season, Rodgers dropped back 18 times and was sacked three times and lost two fumbles.
Had Rodgers been the starting quarterback could he have been sacked 44 more times than Favre and matched Carr's total?
You bet.
Now let's look at Alex Smith, the quarterback taken with the first pick in last year's draft, 23 spots ahead of Rodgers.
Smith started seven games last season. His average per attempt was 5.3 yards. The last Packers' starting quarterback to have that bad an average or worse was Jug Girard in 1949.
Smith threw 11 interceptions; one touchdown. His passing rating was 40.8, almost 30 points below Favre.
Could Rodgers' stats have been that horrendous if he had been the starter in Green Bay?
Once again, the answer is you bet.
In fact, Rodgers might have done no better this year as the starter had Favre retired.
Don't forget, McCarthy was Smith's coordinator. And McCarthy was part of the San Francisco brain trust that decided Smith was a better prospect than Rodgers.
So, yes, as bad as the 2005 season was, it likely would have been a lot worse without Favre. And the 2006 season could have been worse yet, considering that the Packers have done little to improve themselves in free agency; that they still may be without their two other best offensive weapons, Ahman Green and Javon Walker; and that Rodgers doesn't have any more experience than he did last year.
But Favre's return at least gives the Packers a flicker of hope. He may be near the end of the line and his skills could vanish almost overnight at any time, but, as of this moment, he still ranks as one of the game's top 10 quarterbacks.
Who else is better other than Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick and maybe Donovan McNabb and Matt Hasselbeck?
But what about beyond this season? Does Favre's return give McCarthy a shot at .500 or so this year, but doom him to failure regardless?
Perhaps.
One could certainly argue that McCarthy would have been better off starting fresh with a new quarterback and not delaying the rebuilding process any longer.
But the guess here is that if Fave had retired, it would have taken a minimum of three years and probably closer to five, if not more, for the Packers to become competitive again. And what coach today could survive three years or more of dismal finishes?
It might have been better for the Packers long-term if Favre had retired, but probably not better for McCarthy.
This way, he now has a shot at finishing better than Mike Sherman did last year. And who knows what might happen thereafter?
Maybe some of the other pieces will start falling in place even if the Packers don't get to draft as high next April. Maybe Favre will continue playing at a reasonably high level even beyond this season. Or maybe Rodgers will be better prepared to assume the starting role a year from now.
It just seems that this way maybe McCarthy has a fighting chance.
Posted: April 25, 2006
Cliff Christl
If Mike McCarthy was clicking his heels and dancing a jig behind his office door today, one could hardly blame him.
Brett Favre's decision to play another season gives McCarthy at least some hope that his first season as coach of the Green Bay Packers won't be a total disaster and it also might increase his odds of achieving long-term success.
Let's make it clear that Favre's return guarantees nothing.
He started all 16 games last year and the Packers went 4-12. This season could be a repeat of last or even worse.
Advertisement
But with no Favre, it was all but a given that this season would have been a nightmare and the Packers probably would have been even far less competitive than they were last year. After all, Aaron Rodgers looked a lot more like Joey Harrington or even Akili Smith than a budding star in last summer's camp.
Some might ask: How much worse could things get?
Believe it or not, the answer is a lot worse.
Favre's league-high 29 interceptions were crippling and contributed to the Packers' worst season in 14 years. But the Packers also lost eight of their 12 games by seven points or less. And they still finished 18th in total offense and seventh in passing. Moreover, they allowed the fifth fewest sacks in the NFL and Favre finished in the top 10 in touchdown passes.
What can't be calculated is how many more sacks and, in turn, how many more fumbles the Packers might have suffered with an inexperienced quarterback. Favre's ability to read defenses even before the snap at times and to get rid of the ball in an instant may be his most under-appreciated gift.
Houston's David Carr was sacked 68 times last season and he should have benefited some from the league's 15th best running game. Favre, operating with a running game that ranked 30th, was sacked only 24 times.
Remember the Baltimore game?
Favre wasn't sacked once in 29 pass attempts, although the Packers fell behind, 14-3, just beyond the halfway mark of the first quarter. In his most extended opportunity of the season, Rodgers dropped back 18 times and was sacked three times and lost two fumbles.
Had Rodgers been the starting quarterback could he have been sacked 44 more times than Favre and matched Carr's total?
You bet.
Now let's look at Alex Smith, the quarterback taken with the first pick in last year's draft, 23 spots ahead of Rodgers.
Smith started seven games last season. His average per attempt was 5.3 yards. The last Packers' starting quarterback to have that bad an average or worse was Jug Girard in 1949.
Smith threw 11 interceptions; one touchdown. His passing rating was 40.8, almost 30 points below Favre.
Could Rodgers' stats have been that horrendous if he had been the starter in Green Bay?
Once again, the answer is you bet.
In fact, Rodgers might have done no better this year as the starter had Favre retired.
Don't forget, McCarthy was Smith's coordinator. And McCarthy was part of the San Francisco brain trust that decided Smith was a better prospect than Rodgers.
So, yes, as bad as the 2005 season was, it likely would have been a lot worse without Favre. And the 2006 season could have been worse yet, considering that the Packers have done little to improve themselves in free agency; that they still may be without their two other best offensive weapons, Ahman Green and Javon Walker; and that Rodgers doesn't have any more experience than he did last year.
But Favre's return at least gives the Packers a flicker of hope. He may be near the end of the line and his skills could vanish almost overnight at any time, but, as of this moment, he still ranks as one of the game's top 10 quarterbacks.
Who else is better other than Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick and maybe Donovan McNabb and Matt Hasselbeck?
But what about beyond this season? Does Favre's return give McCarthy a shot at .500 or so this year, but doom him to failure regardless?
Perhaps.
One could certainly argue that McCarthy would have been better off starting fresh with a new quarterback and not delaying the rebuilding process any longer.
But the guess here is that if Fave had retired, it would have taken a minimum of three years and probably closer to five, if not more, for the Packers to become competitive again. And what coach today could survive three years or more of dismal finishes?
It might have been better for the Packers long-term if Favre had retired, but probably not better for McCarthy.
This way, he now has a shot at finishing better than Mike Sherman did last year. And who knows what might happen thereafter?
Maybe some of the other pieces will start falling in place even if the Packers don't get to draft as high next April. Maybe Favre will continue playing at a reasonably high level even beyond this season. Or maybe Rodgers will be better prepared to assume the starting role a year from now.
It just seems that this way maybe McCarthy has a fighting chance.