So what's MM's problem?

[th87]

It's always interesting to read the game threads, where we rip MM for his play-calling. Too much passing, too predictable, etc. We like to suggest what he should've done. Simplify the playbook, shorter passing, screens, etc.

My question though is this - don't you think he's thought of those possibilities? He does have more football background than all of us combined, so anything we've thought of, I'm sure he has too.

So what do you think the problem is? Could it really be that we know more about play calling than he does, which makes him a complete idiot? Or is he just arrogant and gets too cocky with the passing attack? Or is he too obsessed with the mismatches on paper?

I really think he's a good offensive mind, but his inconsistent line tends to betray him from time to time. They're good enough to make things work sometimes, which lull him into a false sense of security to try riskier things. And at the most inopportune moments, they bite him in the ass.

[MJZiggy]

We get hindsight. We get to see whether a play worked before we have to determine whether it was the right call. We get more and better replays (in HD at home with no distractions) before we decide whether that challenge flag should have been thrown. We get to hear the infinite wisdom of the idiots in the broadcast booth tell us whether the playcall was right. MM doesn't have any idiots in the booth. He has to rely on people like Dom Capers, et al.

To be honest, given time to think about it, I was surprised by the bomb on 4th and 1, but I didn't get to survey the field and see who was or wasn't open short. Maybe the long shot was the only option that wasn't covered. Maybe it was Flynn who took it seeing that he didn't have anyone else to throw to.

[mmmdk]

I think McCarthy is working his butt off and he's doing all the thinking he can muster but he's not the one to lead you to a championship. That's the aim, right?

Sometimes I get the feeling that "doing fine" is what's expected by a group of Packer fans. The Packers has the talent to contend but have been bit by the injury bug. This season Packers should make the playoffs but it seems that's sliding towards failure. TT will keep Stubby 'cos a lockout is looming and I don't blame him. But changes in the coaching ranks needs to be done during post season. That might aid McCarthy in the long run...or the run that's left for him.

[Joemailman]

I think he's hampered by his offensive line. Their inability to run the ball consistently prevents him from doing what he'd like to do offensively. When Rodgers went out yesterday, that situation screamed for a running game. Yet, Flynn threw more passes in just over half a game than Stanton threw the whole game. I think he needs to make the change to a different OL coach, or we'll be saying the same things this time next year.

[Patler]

I mentioned in another thread that it seems like MM tries to out-think or out-fox his opponents, rather than letting his players outplay them.

What do the Packers do well? What is their signature play that they can ran against almost anyone? I can't think of one. They really have no identity on offense, other than that they are a passing team. They were a passing team under Sherman, too; but the play they could complete in their sleep was a slant. They would go to it time and time again. Is there such a play now?

Variety is good, but reliability is better. Right now, the Packers have variety, but not a set of core plays that are reliable. MM tries to win with play-calling rather than play-execution. When push comes to shove and he needs a play, he has more confidence in himself to call a play that will trump the defense than he has in the offense to execute a bread and butter play.

That, and he shows signs of being impatient. Long, time consuming drives are not in his nature. He prefers a quick strike.

[Pugger]

I think he's hampered by his offensive line. Their inability to run the ball consistently prevents him from doing what he'd like to do offensively. When Rodgers went out yesterday, that situation screamed for a running game. Yet, Flynn threw more passes in just over half a game than Stanton threw the whole game. I think he needs to make the change to a different OL coach, or we'll be saying the same things this time next year.

+1

This may very well be what's ailing this team. Our O line got beat badly all afternoon. Until this problem is corrected by either better players and/or a new position coach we're gonna be inconsistant and Rodgers' career will be cut short if he is our leading rusher.

[swede]

It might be better for this team, in the long run, to not make the playoffs. Rodgers does NOT need a third head injury this season.

The team taking the field wouldn't have the running game or tight ends or Defensive line depth to go very far anyway.

And I'd hate to have Campen keep his job because we backed into the playoffs somehow.

Losing to a 2-10 team has a way of spoiling a week.

[mmmdk]

The Patler said:"Variety is good, but reliability is better." but it sounds like Vince to me.

Can you coach too, Pat, or is it just politics?

Wanted: 4th Lombardi trophy and then some more Lombardi trophies.

[Patler]

The Patler said:"Variety is good, but reliability is better." but it sounds like Vince to me.

Can you coach too, Pat, or is it just politics?

Wanted: 4th Lombardi trophy and then some more Lombardi trophies.

Oh, I coached for a lot of years, but not football.

[red]

I mentioned in another thread that it seems like MM tries to out-think or out-fox his opponents, rather than letting his players outplay them.

What do the Packers do well? What is their signature play that they can ran against almost anyone? I can't think of one. They really have no identity on offense, other than that they are a passing team. They were a passing team under Sherman, too; but the play they could complete in their sleep was a slant. They would go to it time and time again. Is there such a play now?

Variety is good, but reliability is better. Right now, the Packers have variety, but not a set of core plays that are reliable. MM tries to win with play-calling rather than play-execution. When push comes to shove and he needs a play, he has more confidence in himself to call a play that will trump the defense than he has in the offense to execute a bread and butter play.

That, and he shows signs of being impatient. Long, time consuming drives are not in his nature. He prefers a quick strike.

i mentioned this a couple months ago and got blasted for it.

to me M3 seems to think he's the smartest man alive, and to me he seems like a big dumb idiot

i agree he seems to try and outsmart everyone, in his mind he might think he can do it, but i don't think he has the brain skills to pull it off

[pbmax]

I don't know if it is out think or out fox. He is pretty straightforward. He watches the film of the upcoming opponent and attacks their weaknesses. But that is actually linear thinking. Its doesn't account for adjustments by the opponent and it does not account for whether his team can accomplish those tasks. He is building from the film to the gameplan.

In the case of Detroit, he saw exactly what he expected to see from their Defense. But he did not get the execution he needed to complete his plays. At this point in the season, its time to adjust the plan. There are no player adjustments left. Some of his players can give him better execution (Jennings on that would be catch or Jones for instance), but there are no more options to be had in terms of adding abilities.

I am curious; does anyone remember if McCarthy called the offensive games for NO or San Fran from the booth or the sideline? I wonder if his view of the field of play is an issue.

[3irty1]

I mentioned in another thread that it seems like MM tries to out-think or out-fox his opponents, rather than letting his players outplay them.

What do the Packers do well? What is their signature play that they can ran against almost anyone? I can't think of one. They really have no identity on offense, other than that they are a passing team. They were a passing team under Sherman, too; but the play they could complete in their sleep was a slant. They would go to it time and time again. Is there such a play now?

Can't not having an identity be an identity? The multiples playbook has been mighty successful for the Patriots although historically they have older, steadier, more reliable players running their scheme. Not really this year though.

The domination of the slant didn't stop with Sherman, we rode it to a 13-3 season under McCarthy as well. This is simply the route that Brett Favre threw best. Eventually teams begin to cheat it which led to a ton of picks but even more double moves for TD's. I'd say that Rodger's best throw is the 15 yard comeback thing along the sidelines and we've had enough success with that this season that teams were also attempting to cheat it and have gotten some explosive plays doing double moves with it as well.

Variety is good, but reliability is better. Right now, the Packers have variety, but not a set of core plays that are reliable. MM tries to win with play-calling rather than play-execution. When push comes to shove and he needs a play, he has more confidence in himself to call a play that will trump the defense than he has in the offense to execute a bread and butter play.

That, and he shows signs of being impatient. Long, time consuming drives are not in his nature. He prefers a quick strike.

Agree with this bolded part! You can run an entire offense at any level of football off of just one or two plays! You'd like one of them to be a running play (other than the draw) and in the past such a running play has always emerged by this point in the season for the McCarthy Packers. In 2006 it was a specific inside zone play. While Ryan Grant was ripping it up in 2007 it was the outside zone. The Packers were nearly guaranteed to not lose yards on these plays and could often get a couple of yards successfully--with a guy like Ryan Grant these can even be explosive gains. It might be too late in the season to find such a play at this point.

As for impatience, I disagree. I just think its his overall philosophy. He'll always take the score when its there and I wouldn't call that impatience. I happen to agree with it, the long time consuming drive is a good ability to have but to play ball control all the time is an underdog strategy. Meaning if you shorten the game, the inferior team has a better chance of winning. As Vince Lombardi once said:

"The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game. They just ran out of time."

[MichiganPackerFan]

I did think that vs SanFran, MM got his team out of a funk by going to a no-huddle (coincidentally RIGHT after Brian Billick commented that he had to do something to get his team going. I was hoping he would try that again when the team came out flat vs detroit.

[3irty1]

I did think that vs SanFran, MM got his team out of a funk by going to a no-huddle (coincidentally RIGHT after Brian Billick commented that he had to do something to get his team going. I was hoping he would try that again when the team came out flat vs detroit.

They went no huddle on their first two series.

[mmmdk]

Oh, I coached for a lot of years, but not football.

I'm not surprised! You got the "it" factor.

I've coached soccer with the little 'uns. Had a ball doing it; kids are so awesome.