So what's MM's problem?

[RashanGary]

Philbin is the most experienced OL coach on our team and with MM calling plays and running the passing game (along with Clements) I see no reason why a OL background offensive coordinator shoudn't take some of this blame. I'd shit-can Philbin and Campen.

You're going to have a million times easier job hiring a highly successful OL coach to be your coordinator than you will finding some quality control assistant to be your OL coach. The NFL only lets you hire up and the most successful OL guys will be looking to move UP not laterally.

Bye Philbin. It's the right move. It's the smart move. It's the only move with a high probability of working.

[bobblehead]

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.

The players still are the first factor in winning a superbowl, I have to remind myself of that a lot. The coach matters, but remember, Barry Switzer won a superbowl in his first season with the cowboys. That moron from miami could barely win a game with the Redskins.

[mmmdk]

The players still are the first factor in winning a superbowl, I have to remind myself of that a lot. The coach matters, but remember, Barry Switzer won a superbowl in his first season with the cowboys. That moron from miami could barely win a game with the Redskins.

Yeah, let's generalize SB coaches around the fluke called Barry Switzer. One freckin' disaster coach is not the trend; the rest of the SB winning coaches are legends and even many that were SB runner ups are near legends.

Do yourself a favor a run through the all SB coaches and you'll understand. Stubby will never reach that list; no, we'll have to wait till it's obvious to the blind that a change is needed.

Lastly, as I've (now) stated a zillion times; it's probably not a good idea to unseat Stubby any time soon. Especially with lock out looming. I just wish this Packer could win big - SOON!

[3irty1]

Philbin is the most experienced OL coach on our team and with MM calling plays and running the passing game (along with Clements) I see no reason why a OL background offensive coordinator shoudn't take some of this blame. I'd shit-can Philbin and Campen.

You're going to have a million times easier job hiring a highly successful OL coach to be your coordinator than you will finding some quality control assistant to be your OL coach. The NFL only lets you hire up and the most successful OL guys will be looking to move UP not laterally.

Bye Philbin. It's the right move. It's the smart move. It's the only move with a high probability of working.

I'd have a hard time with this. Philbin has been a part of some of the greatest offenses in franchise history.

I think giving Campen the boot is in the longterm plans as soon as McCarthy feels that Jerry Fontenot is ready to be promoted to OL coach. One disadvantage of being a young, first time head coach is that you mostly have to pick from young first time assistants. Fontenot could be the OL version of Kevin Greene, both are relatively new to coaching and both themselves were ideal players for their schemes. Fontenot was a player from 2000 to 2004 under Mike McCarthy in New Orleans where he played center. Coming into the NFL Fontenot was the quintessential TT offensive lineman. He was smart, versatile, durable, and athletic midround pick who used sound technique and hard work to have a long and productive NFL career. Most importantly, the guy played in and excelled in McCarthy's ZBS. He was obviously brought here to take over one day, I feel that his 5 years should be enough. I'd also like to see Tauscher brought back as a coaching intern to fill the void left by Fontenot's promotion.

[RashanGary]

I see your point, 3irty1, but I'll add this. Joe Philbin has ZERO experience coaching an NFL passing attack and it's arguable if he has any in the college ranks. There are two types of offensive coordinators.

1. OC's with QB/Passing background
2. OC's with OL/Running background

If you're a head coach with QB/passing experience, you will almost always hire an OC with OL/Running experience. That's why MM hired Jags when he came here and it's also why he stayed with an OL guy when he promoted Philbin. If you're a running/OL coach, you hire a passing offensive coordinator, like what Sherman did with Tom Rossley.

Joe Philbin is an experienced OL guy but he's in training in the passing game. Look at his background. Do you really think he's to credit for our outstanding passing game? Do you really think he's not to blame for our horrendous offensive line production?

And if Philbin is the expert you think he is on the OL, what the hell is promoting Fontenot going to do for our running game? NO way in hell a squirt like Fontenot overrides a 20 year OL coach. Not gonna happen, man.

The bottom line is the OC position is the carrot that all outstanding OL coaches are striving for. We have a fine, fine damn fine defense. We have a great passing attack. Any outstanding OL coach across the league would be licking their chops to fix our big weakness. But we can't hire laterally, we have to promote.

Goodbye Joe Philbin. The Packers OC job is one of the most desirable jobs for an OL background coach and you're not holding up your end on the OL. Lets get the best like we did with Capers but if you want the best, you're going to have to give him the title he's looking for and the pay.

ST's is the tricky one. You can't just pry someones ST's coach away from them with the way hiring works in the NFL.

[gbgary]

Give over. The offense has consistently been one of the best in the league.

Except in 2006 when he was putting his program in place for the first year, his offenses have been ranked 4th, 5th, and 3rd in scoring (this year they're currently at 11th). Even including 2006, they were in the Top 10 in offensive yards (except this year where they're currently 11th). And that's just a cursory offensive overview.

Now if you have complaints about playcalling in certain situations, that's different (and would spark a playcalling versus execution debate). But to complain about the playcalling that has garnered a consistent top offense is extremely shortsighted.

it's absolutely situational but there are generalities too. he's extremely stubborn which makes him shortsighted. instead of taking what the defense is willing to give up he'll try to take things that aren't there. how many times has he tried a running play when it's hasn't been there all game long or when the D is clearly expecting it...or gotten away from it when it was working? his brand of wco (if you can call it that) doesn't seem to include throwing to the backs and, other than finley, the tightends have been larely ignored. seems like puting together drives takes a back seat to big plays. the high percentage pass gives way to the lower percentage deep ball. the latest example is flynn's last drive. plenty of time on the board and timeouts to use and it ends with a deep ball on 4th and one.

[3irty1]

Philbin is valuable for the scheme part of things, Campen and Fontenot in the technique. Philbin is a career coach and an X's and O's guy who most notably served in Iowa under Kirk Ferentz, the zone-blocking Mike Shanahan of the college level. Campen and Fontenot are both former players. Personally I like the scheme, I just think the players suck at it. I doubt the ability of our position coach to teach the guys, specifically in the footwork and techniques specific to zone blocking. I guess I think they suck more on an individual level rather than as a unit--I just don't see any improvement in the new OL this staff has been given. Thus why I'd rather get rid of Campen than Philbin but would understand getting rid of both.

Before McCarthy came to GB he was considered a great QB developer but also a run-first type of offensive guru with the great rushing attacks he had led in NO and SF as an OC (under two defensively-minded coaches). I have a feeling that even if we did fire Philbin that we'd promote Tom Clements to OC rather than go look for another OL guru. Clements has grown quite the resume around here and with all the QB turnover in the league this coming offseason you've got to believe that he'll be on a couple of other teams' lists. Promoting him might be the only way to keep him.

[RashanGary]

3irty1, I can definitely why firing Philbin and replacing him from outside would be difficult.

1st - Philbin does have some valuable experience where he probably has some pride so firing him is really a slap in his face, saying he's not good enough. It has to be difficult to fire a person.

2nd - Clements is accomplished and passing over him would be a major slap in the face


but. . . .

Even though MM would have to do some really tough things to some good guys, the fact remains the biggest coaching need we have is on the OL and the best way (probably the only way outside sheer luck) to get one of the most qualified OL coaches in the league to our staff is to give him the OC spot.

I know it's teh tough thing to do, but clearly it's the right thing to do if he's true to his word of trying to win a championship.

[rbaloha1]

Why blame Philbin? MM calls the plays.

[rbaloha1]

5-15 in close games -- Sherman II

[swede]

I find myself agreeing with both the pro and anti-MM crowd as both groups are making good points. Currently I have my dial set at +45% supportive of MM. That is up from a low of +35%.

That 5-15 in close games stat is pretty provocative, though. I may have to drop the support to +42%

[Bossman641]

5-15 in close games -- Sherman II

Would you like to try again?

Sherman's record was something like 14-13 in games decided by 4 or less.

[Pugger]

I would make the argument that his "problem" is mostly injuries. The go-to play for Rodgers early in the season was "throw it to Finley cuz he can probably come down with anything."

I think people are focusing on the playcalling at the expense of execution. The offensive line stunk, stunk, stunk. Very early in the game the Packers were driving with ease, when Quarless fumbled on about the Detroit 30 yard line. Then Jennings dropped a sure touchdown. Either or both of those plays, had they been made, would likely have changed the entire complexion of the game.

This.

[th87]

I find myself agreeing with both the pro and anti-MM crowd as both groups are making good points. Currently I have my dial set at +45% supportive of MM. That is up from a low of +35%.

That 5-15 in close games stat is pretty provocative, though. I may have to drop the support to +42%

Being a Marty disciple, I always wondered whether his lack of clutchness would rub off.

However, if we're going to count that stat, we also have to consider that he never gets blown out.

[Fritz]

Again, the knock on Bill Cowher and Dean Smith and others like them is that they couldn't win the big one. This sounds remarkably similar to the lament now being given that MM can't win the close games.

Hey, I wonder if people would be happier if the Pack had gotten blown out in say, eight or nine of those close games. MM would still have the same coaching record, but it'd look like he was better in close games.

Another way to look at that 5-15 record is that if MM wasn't such a good coach, they'd have gotten blown out in games that should not have been even close. Hmmm....