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.
Printable View
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!