So what's MM's problem?

[rbaloha1]

since mm year one...playcalling.

Somewhat agree. Waits too long to get AR in rhythm. Often times too conventional--try more trick plays.

[rbaloha1]

The bag of bad losses is just getting bigger; at least McCarthy isn't pulling the injury card as some puppy eyed observers are [pulling].

PS - I promise I won't point fingers when the Stubby era ends and there'll still just be 3 Lombardi trophies on the Packer mantel.

Yes. It ends this season as the packers finish 8-8. Bring on Harbaugh from Stanford.

[MJZiggy]

Yes. It ends this season as the packers finish 8-8. Bring on Harbaugh from Stanford.

Good luck with that one.

[rbaloha1]

Good luck with that one.

Mahalo!

[swede]

How was the spotlight on TT? The guy was rarely seen or heard from.

Are you kidding? All this fricking board did was wage a civil war over TT and scrutinize every move he made. The subject of MM was tedious.

MM is finally getting some serious scrutiny this year, as it should be. You're big into statistics. How many TT threads were there and how many Mike McCarthy threads were there in 2006? Attention has flipped from TT to MM this year.

[Patler]

From the moment TT arrived he held the spotlight usually reserved for coaches. This was remarkable to me since he has such a deferential and deliberately blan public persona. After MM was hired the attention stayed on TT. This season, for the first time, it seems that MM is front and center and TT has slipped into the background.

How was the spotlight on TT? The guy was rarely seen or heard from.

Are you kidding? All this fricking board did was wage a civil war over TT and scrutinize every move he made. The subject of MM was tedious.

MM is finally getting some serious scrutiny this year, as it should be. You're big into statistics. How many TT threads were there and how many Mike McCarthy threads were there in 2006? Attention has flipped from TT to MM this year.

I don't think of this board as a very bright spotlight.

[3irty1]

I have always respected the way that MM spoke about players and kept team drama to a minimum. I think he is a hard worker and understands a lot about how much he can push his players and when to cut them some slack. Posters here have already pointed out his flaws with game planning and in-game adjustments that seem to keep him from being better than just a good coach on game day.

My fear is that we have become the Kansas City Chiefs under Schottenheimer: winning seasons, keep the coaches, lather, rinse, repeat, bad draft positions, and no championships to show for it.

This implies that there is threshold of coaching ability that is required in order to win a superbowl and if a coach doesn't have it now they should be fired because they never will. Nevermind that it would be a tremendous setback to an offense that is just entering their prime, or would be if not for injuries.

Jesus Christ could be calling the plays and posters would be critical when they didn't work. Who is questioning McCarthy's ability to make a gameplan? This is his biggest point of strength IMO. People claim he was "out coached" after a tough loss but I'll still point out that we haven't lost decisively in over a year. His gameplans put his players in a position to win nearly every single game. His teams are historically young and thanks to injuries, have more youth than usual. I'd blame the infuriating unreliability of all but a handful of the players.

The most legit excuse I've heard for replacing McCarthy is if you subscribe to the thinking that its a coaches job to motivate. Meaning he has instilled an "awwww shucks" attitude in the team when things don't go well. Fans want to see a coach grabbing facemasks and bitching players out when they do something stupid. I won't say McCarthy's teams aren't motivated, as you said he seems to command the respect of his team but respect doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from dropping TD passes, lookout blocking, and missing field goals. Personally I expect the players to be plenty motivated by their millions of dollars or even each other to get better and not fuck up. McCarthy isn't the problem here either.

Even if I didn't think McCarthy had what it takes to win a SB. I don't think that even matters as long as Capers does. McCarthy is has shown he can win and even when he doesn't win he almost wins. As the team matures and with 1/10th of the luck that the Bears have had over the last decade, McCarthy wins a couple of superbowls before this team is past its prime.

[sheepshead]

Are you kidding? All this fricking board did was wage a civil war over TT and scrutinize every move he made. The subject of MM was tedious.

MM is finally getting some serious scrutiny this year, as it should be. You're big into statistics. How many TT threads were there and how many Mike McCarthy threads were there in 2006? Attention has flipped from TT to MM this year.

TT gets slammed everywhere on sites like this . Its the nature of fans who somehow think they know personnel better than TT and his staff. ( some guys on here must have miles of game film and attend 1000's of college games). I have never ever engaged in that. I just do not watch enough college football and there's no way I can zero in on some nose tackle even if I did. I have never been sold on MM since his arrival. Many like his personality I think. I think he has done a fine job this year. Actually, this isnt necessarily the year to criticize him. He and his staff have gotten quite a bit out of a team of second stringers.

I still dont follow the spotlight comment either. Maybe you should read some newspapers or something.

[bobblehead]

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.

I think you nailed most of it here with only 2 things you didn't address. First, Rodgers has always held the ball a bit long, dating back to college. Second, we simply are totally predictable as to when we absolutely will not run. If the run is not VERY successful MM throws it out. 2nd and 10 in a one score game is 50/50 run/pass, but with MM its 95/5 pass. Other teams have figured it out and are committing to stopping the run on first down only, then go nickel regardless of down and distance. I would like to see a breakdown of 2nd down runs by MM in his career. Interestingly MM's biggest weakness in my book was Sherman's biggest strength. If we had a running game like that with a QB that protects the ball and throws it deep like AR we would be unstoppable.

As far as Rodgers holding the ball too long we need a QB coach that hammers him between every possession of every game to unload it quicker. Much like we needed that guy to tell Burt to stop throwing it late over the middle. After Holmgren that guy didn't exist until MM, but by then it was too late.

[bobblehead]

I think we underestimate how bad the packers o-line is. Thats says a lot about Rodgers though. They need at least three new starters on the o-line IMO. Splitz, Colldge, Clifton, and Wells could all be let go and I wouldn't care at all.

Spitz isn't a starter, so its been irrelevant. Clifton and Wells both do what they are asked to do pretty well. Wells occasionally gets beat by elite talent, cliffy can't run block. Neither is a reason to be cut. Suh will beat 30 of the 32 centers in the NFL the way he is playing right now. Clifton consistently makes great pass rushers disappear (but occasionally makes meh players look great). College is wildly inconsistent and gets beat in short yardage consistently so I wouldn't mind replacing him. For the record Bulaga hasn't been lighting the world on fire either.

[rbaloha1]

From the moment TT arrived he held the spotlight usually reserved for coaches. This was remarkable to me since he has such a deferential and deliberately blan public persona. After MM was hired the attention stayed on TT. This season, for the first time, it seems that MM is front and center and TT has slipped into the background.

I have always respected the way that MM spoke about players and kept team drama to a minimum. I think he is a hard worker and understands a lot about how much he can push his players and when to cut them some slack. Posters here have already pointed out his flaws with game planning and in-game adjustments that seem to keep him from being better than just a good coach on game day.




My fear is that we have become the Kansas City Chiefs under Schottenheimer: winning seasons, keep the coaches, lather, rinse, repeat, bad draft positions, and no championships to show for it.

Good point. MM becomes too tense during critical games which reflects on team performance. This performance is similar to past regimes.

[swede]

This implies that there is threshold of coaching ability that is required in order to win a superbowl and if a coach doesn't have it now they should be fired because they never will. Nevermind that it would be a tremendous setback to an offense that is just entering their prime, or would be if not for injuries.

Jesus Christ could be calling the plays and posters would be critical when they didn't work. Who is questioning McCarthy's ability to make a gameplan? This is his biggest point of strength IMO. People claim he was "out coached" after a tough loss but I'll still point out that we haven't lost decisively in over a year. His gameplans put his players in a position to win nearly every single game. His teams are historically young and thanks to injuries, have more youth than usual. I'd blame the infuriating unreliability of all but a handful of the players.

The most legit excuse I've heard for replacing McCarthy is if you subscribe to the thinking that its a coaches job to motivate. Meaning he has instilled an "awwww shucks" attitude in the team when things don't go well. Fans want to see a coach grabbing facemasks and bitching players out when they do something stupid. I won't say McCarthy's teams aren't motivated, as you said he seems to command the respect of his team but respect doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from dropping TD passes, lookout blocking, and missing field goals. Personally I expect the players to be plenty motivated by their millions of dollars or even each other to get better and not fuck up. McCarthy isn't the problem here either.

Even if I didn't think McCarthy had what it takes to win a SB. I don't think that even matters as long as Capers does. McCarthy is has shown he can win and even when he doesn't win he almost wins. As the team matures and with 1/10th of the luck that the Bears have had over the last decade, McCarthy wins a couple of superbowls before this team is past its prime.

Good post. I think that you understood my point better than others did, as you artfully argued against the point I was making. You will be proven right if the wins keep coming and opposing defenses stop playing us as if they'd been practicing with us in the Hutson Center all week.

The opening point regarding TT was simply pointing out that the GM in GB received more attention and more criticism than MM did in his first few years, and I sense that balance is shifting back to the coach--as it is for most teams. If others don't feel that is the case I am surprised, but I won't labor the point since it is merely a perception I hold.

[Fritz]

This implies that there is threshold of coaching ability that is required in order to win a superbowl and if a coach doesn't have it now they should be fired because they never will. Nevermind that it would be a tremendous setback to an offense that is just entering their prime, or would be if not for injuries.

Jesus Christ could be calling the plays and posters would be critical when they didn't work. Who is questioning McCarthy's ability to make a gameplan? This is his biggest point of strength IMO. People claim he was "out coached" after a tough loss but I'll still point out that we haven't lost decisively in over a year. His gameplans put his players in a position to win nearly every single game. His teams are historically young and thanks to injuries, have more youth than usual. I'd blame the infuriating unreliability of all but a handful of the players.

The most legit excuse I've heard for replacing McCarthy is if you subscribe to the thinking that its a coaches job to motivate. Meaning he has instilled an "awwww shucks" attitude in the team when things don't go well. Fans want to see a coach grabbing facemasks and bitching players out when they do something stupid. I won't say McCarthy's teams aren't motivated, as you said he seems to command the respect of his team but respect doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from dropping TD passes, lookout blocking, and missing field goals. Personally I expect the players to be plenty motivated by their millions of dollars or even each other to get better and not fuck up. McCarthy isn't the problem here either.

Even if I didn't think McCarthy had what it takes to win a SB. I don't think that even matters as long as Capers does. McCarthy is has shown he can win and even when he doesn't win he almost wins. As the team matures and with 1/10th of the luck that the Bears have had over the last decade, McCarthy wins a couple of superbowls before this team is past its prime.

i think 3irty1 has written an excellent post. I would only add that there are coaches who are now considered golden boys in coaching - Bill Cowher in Pittsburgh, Dean Smith at North Carolina, to name only two - who coached for years and years and years before nabbing that first championship.

Were they bad coaches before they won it all? No. of course not.

My own opinion is that there is a base level of competence or high competence that a coach needs to have in order to get a team to a Super Bowl. But there are factors beyond the coach's competence that propel a team the rest of the way. The first factor is the talent he gets. Bill Belichik - what a crappy coach he was in Cleveland! Then he goes to NE and he's a sudden genius? Now, it is true that Belichik may have learned a lot and gotten better as he went along, but I would argue that if he probably had a base level of competency in Cleveland. A second factor beyond a coach's control is sheer luck. One lousy call, one replay that he doesn't challenge because the replay is slow. The third factor is, of course, injuries.

I think MM has demostrated a very high level of competence as a coach. His getting a team to the SB will most likely have a lot more to do with factors two and three above than with his perceived faults as a coach.

Can we not agree that this team has been absolutely decimated with injuries this year? Can we not agree that this team, given the ridiculous number of players missing, both in IR, to suspension, and simply week-to-week, has performed admirably?

MM's not perfect by any means. I do think he's hung on to certain coaches too long (Campen). I think his ability to hire excellent assistants is his weakest spot, yet even then he's managed to come up with some good coaches or was smart enough to keep good coaches who were already here.

Finally, I would say that I used to be one of those fans, too, who wanted an in-your-face kind of tough-guy coach. It made me feel good. But does that really work? For every Bill Parcells, there's probably two or three Mike Singletarys.

[mmmdk]

Good grief; a serious case of Stubby snatchers have invaded the bodies of (many) PR members. We're doomed

[th87]

Swede, I completely agree. TT had the spotlight for a while, where it seemed like every article was about his unwillingness to dabble in free agency, etc. MM's turn now. Hopefully that will get him to fire Campen. I honestly think the o-line is his downfall. He's innovative, the players like him, and he doesn't really lose in blowouts. If we had the Saints' line, people are talking about him like they do Payton. Hopefully he realizes that he needs to replace the weak link.