One sentence summary, my long-winded analysis of 2008

[MJZiggy]

Fos, so if the Phins last year went 1-15 and this year go 15-1, that still averages out to .500 ball. You know you can't look at it like that. You need to look at trends and decide if the trend upward from 4-11 to 13-3 is the valid trend, or the drop from 13-3 to 6-10.

And you also know that you can't compare Rhodes because while he played .500 ball, he completely lost the locker room. When the team won't show for your meetings and won't work for you, it's pretty indicative that the future trend is not going to be an upward line on the chart.

Does he need to reverse course, sure. But your justification for you opinion is faulty.

[Fosco33]

Fos, so if the Phins last year went 1-15 and this year go 15-1, that still averages out to .500 ball. You know you can't look at it like that. You need to look at trends and decide if the trend upward from 4-11 to 13-3 is the valid trend, or the drop from 13-3 to 6-10.

And you also know that you can't compare Rhodes because while he played .500 ball, he completely lost the locker room. When the team won't show for your meetings and won't work for you, it's pretty indicative that the future trend is not going to be an upward line on the chart.

Does he need to reverse course, sure. But your justification for you opinion is faulty.

I get it, MJ. It's not a great comparison with RR losing control of the team (and I'm fine with that call, btw). What I'm really saying is M3 has been only slightly better than average - not great.

I think we're seeing the 13-3 year wasn't 'true' - should've been something like 10-6 or 9-7 with all the close wins.

On the flip side, this year should've been about 9-7 again with all the close losses.

We also know the 4-12 year was because of tons of injuries at WR/RB, losing Wahle/Rivera without true backups. That team also lost a number of close games (4L under 3 points or 5L under 5 points). Meaning they should've been like 6-10.

So, really - we have a team that's been about .500 for 3 years and has only progressed a few games/year over 4 years.. Sure, M3 may have good rapport with the players/etc - but I agree with Patler in that he's soft. He also makes too many conservative playcalls (see my thread on 2nd and short) and it shows on the field.

So, would I lose sleep if he's let go this year - nope. Maybe he has one year left - but he should know that another average year means the axe.

[The Leaper]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

To me, I think McCarthy just lost focus. He got fat and happy with a 13-3 season and a new contract, and pulled a C-Hunt on us. He got a bride, got a kid, and got too caught up in life off the football field.

If you want to be a great family man and social jitterbug, dont be an NFL head coach. It is unfortunate, but pretty much the way it works.

Now is not the time to get rid of him...he's a good head coach when focused 100% on football, and deserves a chance to rebound. However, there has to be a shakeup on his staff to get some new blood in there.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

A lot of people tend to forget that this Packers team was the youngest for the 2nd straight year. I see bright spots and positives all over the roster, the Packers will never completely outmatched all season(maybe the defense against the Saints). You people act like 6-10 is the end of the world. While I'm not old enough to remember the late 70's and 80's Packers, all I have to do is ask my grandpa or uncle about those years and I realize how lucky most of us have it. The team lost close games, lost momentum, lost toughness, but they played every team to the wire and are certainly not as bad as 6-10 suggests.

Wholesale coaching changes are not the way, you have to give a guy enough time to put his system in place. If M3 has another season like this I say sure, fire the guy, but if you don't give continuity a chance you risk going the way of the Lions, Cardinals and Browns. Firing Marty certainly didn't help the Chargers get anywhere they haven't already been. If the players have to learn a new scheme every 2 or 3 years how much can they actually grow as players?

[mission]

A lot of people tend to forget that this Packers team was the youngest for the 2nd straight year.

No. No one tends to forget this.

We're reminded of it constantly from guys like you ...

[Partial]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

I'm on record as well. I have noted numerous times that if MM cannot pick up the intensity, improve his play calling, etc, then he probably isn't the man for the job.

[Partial]

I don't think not practicing outdoors in December is an issue. If memory serves I don't recall Holmgren doing it either.

Holmgren didn't. Remember the NFC title game against Carolina. They didn't practice outdoors before that game and they didn't have a problem with it. Using the "they didn't practice outdoors" as a reason for bad play is just looking for an exucse for it.

I tend to agree, but this why practice with the door closed? Even Sherman was smart enough to realize that getting used to the conditions and cold weather will prepare you to play in them.

The thing that I cannot stand about MM is how he talks a big game about how he wants to be this physical, hard hitting team, yet the offense is a finesse, timing based passing attack, and the defense is a passive bend-but-don't-break scheme.

MM needs to keep building the trenches and hope to find that stud linemen that they can run behind and have consistent success. Our running game is still too inconsistent.

[Bretsky]

interesting topic; my one sentence that would define last year would be

We were 0-7 in games with a four or less point differential

Now the reason............that's debatable

[Partial]

interesting topic; my one sentence that would define last year would be

We were 0-7 in games with a four or less point differential

Now the reason............that's debatable

I would be curious to know if this is a common theme with bad teams. I don't see too many blow outs. I would bet most games are decided by 6 or less.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

A lot of people tend to forget that this Packers team was the youngest for the 2nd straight year.

No. No one tends to forget this.

We're reminded of it constantly from guys like you ...

Could you be any more vague? What kind of guy am I like exactly? Asinine comments about a person you know nothing about makes me question how knowledagble you can really be.

[Lurker64]

I would be curious to know if this is a common theme with bad teams. I don't see too many blow outs. I would bet most games are decided by 6 or less.

Well, the Detroit Lions were only 0-3 in games decided by 4 points or less this season...

[mission]

A lot of people tend to forget that this Packers team was the youngest for the 2nd straight year.

No. No one tends to forget this.

We're reminded of it constantly from guys like you ...

Could you be any more vague? What kind of guy am I like exactly? Asinine comments about a person you know nothing about makes me question how knowledagble you can really be.

Tell me how I could know nothing about you ... for the last couple years I've read conservative, whoo-rah-rah, everything's-all-good thoughts from you. That's enough for me to form my own opinion of the kind of individual you are... it doesn't take a PHd in Psychology to draw correlations ... just like you can formulate your own opinions of me, which, actually might not be too far from the truth.

But you, or anyone else, questioning my (football) knowledge doesn't require any defense. It just doesn't bother me... you're going to have to pay a little more attention before attempting your own blanket statements. Mine hold some water at least ...

[MJZiggy]

Uhhh...mission? I think you may be confusing our TennesseePackerBacker with TEXASPackerBacker.

A few hundred miles to the west and to the right...

[Bretsky]

Uhhh...mission? I think you may be confusing our TennesseePackerBacker with TEXASPackerBacker.

A few hundred miles to the west and to the right...

well it's the 1st so maybe he's sauced too

I'm not sure Tenn is the doo rah rah guy mission is referring to and my gut tells me he made the same mix up as well

[pbmax]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

I'm on record as well. I have noted numerous times that if MM cannot pick up the intensity, improve his play calling, etc, then he probably isn't the man for the job.

Intensity and play calling are the criticisms of the confused. No one in the history of the planet has ever accused a successful team of lacking intensity or having bad play calling. If you win, your play calling is genius and you have the intensity of Mike Singletary. Lose, and you are dumb and possibly criminally inclined. White collar crime, not lunch bucket average bag o doughnuts tough blue collar crime.

No one complained about intensity last year and few complained about play calling. Its players and schemes, not heart or intensity. And unless you have coaching film to breakdown, then judging a season's worth of playcalling is worthless too.