JSO's Hatchet Job on McCarthy

[Fritz]

The most recent attempt by the JSO to frame the narrative of the defensive coordinator search as a story of failure for McCarthy and the Packers appears in the article entitled "Haslett Likely the Next Top Candidate."

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/37690459.html

From that article, here's a bit that uses the word "sources" to claim that Nolan and Williams were McCarthy's top two choices, and that Haslett would have been had he not been in the running for the Ram's job:

"WHAT PART OF "DON'T POST JSO SHIT" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?"

By using these "sources" the JSO suggests that the Packers wanted Nolan or Williams or Haslett but failed to land either of the first two, and that Haslett, now that he's free, is therefore the front runner. So the clear implication here is the Packers can't get the guys they want, and now that Haslett's free, if he doesn't come to Green Bay, then McCarthy's incompetence in landing the coach he wanted is indisputable. There's not many other ways to read this framing.

Yet, in the very next sentence in the same article, we see this: "As logical a step as it would be for McCarthy to hire his old boss with the New Orleans Saints, an NFL source said Thursday that McCarthy intended to interview as many as three more candidates."

The first part of this sentence makes a value judgment - it would be the most "logical" step for McCarthy to take - to hire Haslett. Logical, yes, if those "sources" were accurate in claiming MM wanted Nolan, Williams, or Haslett. But in the quote above there is a new phrase - "an NFL source." Note this is not the same as the previous use of "sources." This identifies this as a new and different source then the one mentioned earlier, which of course claimed that it was Nolan, Williams, and Haslett who formed MM's wish list.

And this source claims McCarthy is going to interview three more candidates.

What? What happened to the first "sources" that identified the three big names? If that source is correct, then wouldn't McCarthy just hire Haslett? And as time passes, and Haslett is not hired, does that not suggest that the second, "NFL source" is more likely correct, that MM is conducting a thorough search and may not have a "front runner" in mind?

And if it's not clear which set of sources, if either, is more accurate, why does the headline suggest Haslett is "likely" the next top candidate? At this point, that is not at all clear.

It would be more accurate to write an article that suggests that different sources are saying different things, and therefore it's clear that McCarthy is playing this close to the vest. You could still speculate as to whether MM will want an experienced guy (Haslett) or some new blood, so much of the rest of the article could remain.

But to present this article as claiming some inside knowledge about Haslett's status, while contradicting that claim right in the article, is simply a continuance of this framing of the DC search that shows a picture of a coach and organization that can't get the guys it wants.

And this has not been established or verified, at all. Therefore, it is irresponsible.

[Rastak]

Look, you know for a fact that nobody speaks on the record. You also know that most of these guys have league or team connections. People who DO hear things in real live conversations.

If you want your newspaper to not investigate anything and only print hard facts I can see that. Who would read it? In this day and age you'd have gotten the facts long before the paper hit the doorstep.

The fact of the matter is teams won't say a thing. The people making the decisions are the only ones who know for sure and they don't talk. In addition, things change. People change course and change their minds.

Let's use an example of a writer indicating his sources say Nolan was the #1 choice. Perhaps he was but the interview didn't go as well as it could or other factors changed McCarthey's mind. The original report wasn't wrong when reported but isn't fresh intelligence any longer.

Again, it seems to me people want the papers to not investigate, only take peoples word on record and just report facts. AFTER they happen. Sports isn't as important as Watergate, Enron or all the stories uncovered by "sources" but to sports fans, getting some information is interesting and entertaining and can be on the money at times. There are lots of reasons why it could be wrong. This change, minds change or the source was flat out mistaken or misinterpreted something.


My two cents on the subject in general.

[pbmax]

The only way to settle it Fritz, is to get McCarthy to say whether he offered the job to either or not. Or that the search wouldn't have gone past a certain guy if he wanted it. He isn't going to say that, no matter what. We might never know. Its possible that both guys looked elsewhere after they found out the search was going to go one for at least another week.

[pbmax]

And just because it doesn't belong anywhere else, I am still rooting for Jerry to overreact, offer Jason Garrett the HC job and fire Wade Phillips. I predict this will happen if the Rams offer him the HC job.

And Dave McGinnis is my backup.

[Fritz]

Look, you know for a fact that nobody speaks on the record. You also know that most of these guys have league or team connections. People who DO hear things in real live conversations.

If you want your newspaper to not investigate anything and only print hard facts I can see that. Who would read it? In this day and age you'd have gotten the facts long before the paper hit the doorstep.

The fact of the matter is teams won't say a thing. The people making the decisions are the only ones who know for sure and they don't talk. In addition, things change. People change course and change their minds.

Let's use an example of a writer indicating his sources say Nolan was the #1 choice. Perhaps he was but the interview didn't go as well as it could or other factors changed McCarthey's mind. The original report wasn't wrong when reported but isn't fresh intelligence any longer.

Again, it seems to me people want the papers to not investigate, only take peoples word on record and just report facts. AFTER they happen. Sports isn't as important as Watergate, Enron or all the stories uncovered by "sources" but to sports fans, getting some information is interesting and entertaining and can be on the money at times. There are lots of reasons why it could be wrong. This change, minds change or the source was flat out mistaken or misinterpreted something.


My two cents on the subject in general.

Ras, if there are "sources" that seem to "know" who the top candidates are or were, then why does another "NFL source" say differently? The focus of this story could easily be that the picture is muddled, that MM does not seem to have an easily readable course, or that sources conflict as to what MM's plan really is. Those are all ways to frame the narrative that are more honest than what's been done.

I don't mind the speculation, Ras. I know that in this day and age there is space to fill and not much real info. What bothers me is the attempt to frame McCarthy as a coach incapable of getting who he wants. That's a serious knock - your coach isn't respected enough or doesn't have the ability to make a decision or get the guy he wants. But there's no proof of that.


So write the article, but frame it in a way that suggests that it's not clear if MM is being snubbed, or if he is simply holding his cards close.

[vince]

I agree with you Fritz.

If these "sources" (as opposed to "NFL sources" - who by virtue of that differentiating identifier indicate more credibility) were anything other than agents with a clear agenda, how is it that Williams took the Saints job when he was supposedly waiting for the Titans job to open up - less than 24 hours before the job he supposedly was waiting for actually opened up?

MAYBE the "source" was trying to coax an offer from the Packers - but didn't get one... Perhaps MM thought he wasn't the right guy after interviewing him - or at a minimum, perhaps he wanted to wait to interview additional candidates before making an offer, ...

Were these the same "sources" that indicated a deal with Nolan was all but done? Could this have been a source close to Nolan, who was guilty of a bit of wishful thinking coming out of the interview? He was apparently making calls and putting a staff together? Given that, who would it appear wasn't prepared to do the deal? the Packers or Nolan? I'd say the Packers weren't ready to offer Nolan the job for one reason or another.

These "sources" have proven beyond any doubt that they don't have anything more than a vested interest in what they are giving information about. Otherwise, the articles wouldn't be so blatantly wrong.

Here's a blog entry that's even worse... It's all based on an "assumption" by Vandermause - a headline and an entire article - all written based on an assumption. And the entire assumption is completely contradicted within the same article! IRRESPONSIBLE, MISLEADING, STUPID, WRONG and every other word you can think of.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/insider/index.shtml

Will someone out there take this job?
Maybe it's not a question of whom the Packers will name as their next defensive coordinator, but rather, can Mike McCarthy find someone highly qualified who wants the job?

Fair or not, there's an impression that the leading candidates have given McCarthy a stiff-arm to the face. Mike Nolan interviewed with McCarthy and took Denver's DC position. Gregg Williams interviewed with McCarthy and today was named the Saints’ DC.

The Packers likely will argue that neither Nolan nor Williams were offered jobs in Green Bay. Technically, that may be true, but it's reasonable to assume that had either wanted to work for the Packers, they would have been given the chance.

So now McCarthy is down to his third choice, Jim Haslett, who is also in the running to become the St. Louis Rams' permanent head coach. If Haslett doesn't get the Rams' job, it's likely he will be Bob Sanders' replacement in Green Bay.

If McCarthy is forced to go to Plan D, the search could take a while. Any number of current assistant coaches would be in the running, but some are working for teams still alive in the playoffs. The question then becomes, how long can McCarthy afford to wait? He has to ask himself whether it's worth it to hold off until after the Super Bowl, for example, to interview someone like Eagles secondary coach Sean McDermott, assuming Philadelphia makes it that far.

If McDermott were clearly a superior candidate, then why not wait another two to three weeks for the chance to land him? However, what if McDermott bombs in the interview? Then McCarthy would be holding the bag well into February, and that may be a chance he doesn't want to take.

In light of Williams landing in New Orleans, it will be interesting to watch the fortunes of the Saints and Packers next season. Assuming Williams spurned the Packers, it will be curious to see how both defenses pan out. The stakes will be high, since Saints coach Sean Payton and McCarthy were hired at the same time, and both face an urgency to win or face job insecurity issues.

-- Mike Vandermause, mvandermause@greenbaypressgazette.com

Just how, Mr. Vandermause, is it "reasonable to assume" that two people who were interviewed, and clearly may not have had offers made to them, as you say in the article, have been offered the job? It is actually unbelievable that a supposedly reputable reporter would publish anything based on such stupid logic.

[Waldo]

Lombardi at NFP commented on the article this morning:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2009/01/diner-morning-news/

There is no rush for McCarthy to hire a coach right now. There is more of a rush to hire the right person who is also the right fit for the scheme he wants to run. Taking his time is a good thing, and some of the names mentioned above are all well-equipped to handle the challenge. They might not be familiar names to fans, but sometimes a new, fresh approach is best. I keep hearing the Packers want to be more of 3-4 team, which allows you to become more versatile in your coverage calls and adjustments. Converting from a 4-3 to a 3-4 is not that hard as long as the 3-4 is more along an attack mode.

McCarthy has to get someone he is comfortable with, not someone he knows.

He pretty much ignored the Haslett part and addressed the second part about the other options.

And he is pretty adamant about the 3-4 thing, and has been all offseason. I'm inclined to even consider them a stronger source than the JS or GBPG because of their degree of connections, between Brandt and Bechta they have some strong inside contacts inside the organization.

When you look at McCarthy's and Thompson's backgrounds it is littered with the 3-4 in their formative years.

Thompson's played in Bum Phillips' 3-4 and Wade Phillips was his LB position coach for his early career. The Oilers were the dominant 3-4 at the time in the NFL.

McCarthy followed Hackett from Pit to be QB coach for the Chiefs under Marty Schottenheimer, and was there for a long time. Marty ran the 3-4 in KC, but occasionally switched to a 4-3 base when his personnel were a better fit. He always wanted to run the 3-4, but was flexible and fit it to his personnel. And his defenses were good. The best defenses that McCarty has been on the staff for were Marty's 3-4 defenses. Since leaving KC he was in GB for a year, then with Haslett, then Nolan's early attempt at switching to a 3-4.

It would not surprise me one bit if McCarthy prefers to have a 3-4, and Ted is better at picking 3-4 defensive players, since that is what he played.

An interesting thing about Bates 4-3 is that in its ideal form it shares the balanced symmetry of a 3-4, unlike the usual unbalanced 4-3. It is entirely possible that McCarty prefers his defense to present a balanced front (he has seemed to have more difficulty game planning for a balanced front). Unfortuanately the players required to run a true balanced Bates 4-3 are rare and expensive, and thus far the team has been unable to put together the personnel, finding and keeping 2 hybrid NT/UT's, 2 SLB/WLB hybrids, and 2 FS/SS hybrids that are any good is darn near impossible.

[RashanGary]

The best source I've hears so far is Andrew Brandt. He DOES have connections inside Lambeau and he hasn't made any outrageous claims of knowing who MM wants.

On the radio a week or two back, he said the Packers will NOT make a quick decision. MM will set up several interviews with several of the top candidates. They will weigh all information gathered and make the best decision they can after all information is collected.

Two weeks later, everything Andrew Brandt said on the radio is coming true. MM is interviewing several candidates. He's NOT making a quick decision.



I agree the article is irresponsible and wrong. It's complete speculation printed as in a way that would make you believe they have very solid reason to believe what they believe. As usual, you cannot trust JS. Like Ras said though, it's the new age of media. They have to bend reliability to keep up with the every changing online compeitition. I don't blame them, I just don't trust them. I still read them, but I take a lot of it with a grain of salt, almost like PFT.

[Kiwon]

Articles like this that cite unnamed sources remind me of the supposed negotiations with Randy Moss a few years ago.

[Patler]

Many reporters admit that unnamed sources are often agents. Can there be an "insider" that is more unreliable than an agent of a person involved in the matter? Agents openly lie and misinform, threaten and confuse all in the effort to achieve the best for their client. What are they willing to do when their name is not directly connected to the information?

What bothers me most about reporting in these types of situations, and the local media seems often guilty of it, is confusing the opinion of someone else for the opinion of the team. There is an assumption that MM, TT or the Packers in general MUST have the same opinion or evaluation that the media's so-called expert has. Often they imply that they are reporting the opinion of the team when in fact they are reporting what someone else thinks they team is probably doing. I don't have a problem with that type of information being presented as long as they make it clear they are reporting the opinion of someone else, and not a "leak" from the team. The local media often fails to make that distinction clear, and fans are lead to believe the information is a "leak" and therefore true, when in fact it is someones opinion, which may or may not be accurate.

[Fritz]

And Patler, this could be easily corrected simply by writing "sources outside of the team."

Doing so, however, would weaken the apparent validity of the source. Therefore, by not doing so, the paper - at the least - avoids being responsible.

Waldo, I have expressed my reservations about hiring someone to switch to a 3-4. I'm not an expert; I simply feel that this team has been built to run a 4-3 and that this team is not in a place to switch to a different defense quickly. If MM gets fired at some point and a new guy wants to switch, I'm fine. But I would like MM to hire someone who can use the talent at hand.

This is a point that an article or two has claimed about MM - that he wants someone who can utilize the existing talent. To me, this means someone who runs a 4-3.

However, as you describe it, the kind of 4-3 that the Packers have is similar to a 3-4 and the defense could easily adapt. Perhaps this is so, but I have also read that several Packer players (Kampman, Hawk) would not fit well into a 4-3. I tend to believe that, though I could well be wrong. But you have opened my eyes to the possibility that the current system and players could be adapted. I'm not convinced, but I will entertain the possibility, particularly if you can explain further how certain players like Kampman could fit into a 3-4.

[rbaloha1]

JSO know as much as this board.

[Fritz]

JSO know as much as this board.

I dunno. I think sometimes this board knows more. Think Vince, PB, Patler, KYPack, BadgerinMaine, Oregon, JH, Lurker, Gunakor, CPK, sometimes Partial, Zool, Mad, etc. etc.

[Pugger]

Vince, I agree. I have no use for Vandermause. He has no love for TT or MM. It appears the WI newspaper people have agendas...

[Fritz]

I don't care whether he has love or not, but I don't like the way a few writers seem willing to use ricketedy unnamed sources to shape perceptions that do not reflect reality.

Again, I know these guys have to write stuff for the Packer-starved nation. But if it's speculation, be a little more upfront about that. Don't pretend you know more than you do.