McCarthy and "Close Games"

[bobblehead]

Waldo was a great poster............one of the top I miss
But he as still wrong plenty of times as well..as most ar
He noted Jeremy Thompson was the idea fit for our OLB but he didn't make it
I think Harrell would have been ok as a run stuffer but I still feel I saw a lot more upside in his play than Harrell

Waldo also proclaimed that Kampman was never anywhere near the player Mathews is after 3 games this season. One of the dumbest posts I ever read regarding jumping the gun. When Mathews finally gets a 16 sack season as the main guy to block then I'll put him EQUAL with Kampman. Kamp was perhaps the least respected guy I've ever seen.

[mraynrand]

Waldo also proclaimed that Kampman was never anywhere near the player Mathews is after 3 games this season.

I agree with Waldo. Never saw any teams scheme for Kampman the way they scheme for Matthews

[get louder at lambeau]

Waldo also proclaimed that Kampman was never anywhere near the player Mathews is after 3 games this season. One of the dumbest posts I ever read regarding jumping the gun. When Mathews finally gets a 16 sack season as the main guy to block then I'll put him EQUAL with Kampman. Kamp was perhaps the least respected guy I've ever seen.

Clay has 13 sacks, 3 turnovers caused, 4 passes defensed and a TD in 13.5 games as the main guy to block, and he's not even pass rushing all the time. Kampy's best year was 15.5 sacks in 16 games with 3 turnovers caused, no passes defensed and no TDs.

Clay also has as many 10+ sack seasons after 2 years as Kampy has in 9. The kid is outstanding.

[Bretsky]

Why so negative on Jennings Bretsky? Sure he had that TD gift-wrapped and ended up giving the ball away, but he's had a pretty damn good year overall.

I'm not negative on Jennings; he's had a stellar year and proven to be very reliable after Finley went down. He's legit top 10 in the NFL

[RashanGary]

Seriously, though - you would take Grant over Finley. Really? Did you notice other teams were game planning for Finley and not so much for Grant?

I don't know. Losing Grant destroyed our run game. I know Finley is a better player. Jennings picked up the slack. Nobody picked up the slack left by Grant.

[get louder at lambeau]

I don't know. Losing Grant destroyed our run game. I know Finley is a better player. Jennings picked up the slack. Nobody picked up the slack left by Grant.

It hurt, but it didn't destroy anything. The 2010 Packers are rushing for 14 less yards per game than the 2009 Packers with Grant.

[Smidgeon]

It hurt, but it didn't destroy anything. The 2010 Packers are rushing for 14 less yards per game than the 2009 Packers with Grant.

Really?? Wow.

[pbmax]

I would not ponder MM as one of the top 5 coaches in the NFL; I more than conceded at a later post he's above average and in the top 10. I would not take Mike Smith or Harbaugh off the list myself; both have well disciplined teams who seem to show consistency and improvement. If Caldwell has none nothing of note you can replace MM into that sentence as well and then you can take MM out of your top 5. Tomlin, seriously......he's well above MM in results so far and it's not my fault if MM has hired some shitty coaches while Tomlin's excel. Coaches deserve some credit or blame for the quality of assistants they fly with. Fischer was one I was debating some. I could certainly add a couple who I personally might like over MM but I don't think there is justification yet.
.

Harv answered about Tomlin so I will take Caldwell. He took over a Super Bowl caliber team (including Super Bowl caliber offensive assistants Moore and Howard Mudd) and took it to the Super Bowl. He went 14-2 (impressive under any condition) while playing in a bad AFC South Division. In three years, this might indicate that Caldwell is under-appreciated currently and is indeed a top ten coach. But right now, to me, he seems closer to Barry Switzer or Brian Billick.

Judging the Colts this year is tough as like the Packers they have had extensive injuries. However, unlike Tomlin, Caldwell had the clout to remake his defensive staffand hired Larry Coyer to replace Ron Meeks. Meeks' last two years with Dungy produced points allowed rankings of 1st and 7th. Coyer has notched 8th and 23rd. As I said, injuries make conclusions about this year tough. But Caldwell is a cipher compared to McCarthy. M3 has done more with less for longer.

But let's face facts: McCarthy's credentials can be argued back and forth for eternity. There is material for each side of the debate. If he makes another deep playoff run or wins a Super Bowl, then all questions will fade and his near-genius will be proclaimed far and wide. But until that point, no one will have the guts to comment that this guy is good and that its a good bet that when replaced, the next guy will be worse.

All coaches have holes and weaknesses. No one thought Holmgren could win in Green Bay with a passing attack that couldn't run until he did it (I always thought it odd that the Dickey years didn't provide more confidence about a passing attack in Green Bay-must have been Infante; or Gregg's overall record). But when he made the championship game and then won a Super Bowl, all questions were left in the dust. He didn't transform into a genius and he had the same weaknesses, people just couldn't claim those weaknesses were fatal.

McCarthy has the tools and the smarts. The outstanding questions (special teams, O line inconsistency, penalties, being overly fond of 50 FG attempts(ie. passive late game strategy)) will stay the same. But if he can hold two of those together for a string of six games (ST and penalties) late in the season, then I think he wins one very soon.

[pbmax]

Really?? Wow.

He is messing with your head. 14 yards per game is more than you think. The 2009 version of the Packers had 230 more yards after 15 games. It averaged 4.3 yards per carry versus 2010's 3.9. And Rodgers has also had more attempts and yards per game this year. Its a bad thing when the QB has to make up for some of the run game.

And 14 additional yards per game would move the Packers from 22nd this year to 13th in yards per game.

[channtheman]

WANT TO PONDER A SICK THOUGHT

If we beat Detroit a few weeks ago, this Sunday we'd be playing for the #2 seed in the NFC

I thought about this earlier today. Unfuckingbelievable that we lost that game.

[pbmax]

WANT TO PONDER A SICK THOUGHT

If we beat Detroit a few weeks ago, this Sunday we'd be playing for the #2 seed in the NFC

You know how to hurt someone B. Also, now please understand the awesome power of Daryn Colledge.

[Gunakor]

It hurt, but it didn't destroy anything. The 2010 Packers are rushing for 14 less yards per game than the 2009 Packers with Grant.

A better comparison to last year would be the frequency of the run game. What percentage of plays were runs vs. passes last year. How about this year?

Or even better, how often are we able to use play action this year compared to last?

Losing Grant was teh bigger loss because without a run game half the playbook is irrelevant since you can't use it anyway. Finley's strength was attacking the safeties. He'd be a real asset Sunday against the Bears Tampa-2 defense. He's a bigger playmaker than Grant, but not quite as important to the efficiency of our offense. We'd like to be a passing team, but that's not as easy without a complementary run game. A steady run game is the catalyst for this offense. Losing Grant is the far bigger blow IMO.

[mraynrand]

A better comparison to last year would be the frequency of the run game. What percentage of plays were runs vs. passes last year. How about this year?

Or even better, how often are we able to use play action this year compared to last?

Losing Grant was teh bigger loss because without a run game half the playbook is irrelevant since you can't use it anyway. Finley's strength was attacking the safeties. He'd be a real asset Sunday against the Bears Tampa-2 defense. He's a bigger playmaker than Grant, but not quite as important to the efficiency of our offense. We'd like to be a passing team, but that's not as easy without a complementary run game. A steady run game is the catalyst for this offense. Losing Grant is the far bigger blow IMO.

How about comparing the number of sacks - doesn't the run game prevent sacks? Finley was being game-planned for - a guy dedicated over the top and underneath help. he was a mismatch for both LBs, Corners, and Safeties. If Grant were some world-beater running back, I'd say losing him was a big deal. If the Packers had an O-line that could efficiently run block, I'd also say it was a big deal. Look who the Patriots trot out there to run the ball and how often they run it. Just enough to keep the defense honest. Also, with Finley in there, the Packers would likely have
huge gaps in the run game simple due to Finley being able to clear out a LB and Safety. I'd much rather have Finley back than Grant. Much more dangerous weapon, teams have to gameplan, he alters the entire defensive scheme. All that, versus Grant, who can run downhill a little bit. If you notice in 2008, with Grant, but not an up-to-speed Finley, a lot of teams were only playing 7 in the box, defending the pass, daring the Packers to run. Not as though they feared the running of Grant, eh?

[Gunakor]

You're looking at individual talent, I'm looking at team impact. MM has already said that over half of his playbook is reliant on a running game. We haven't had a running game since Grant went down. It's not Grant's individual talent that's the huge loss but rather the benefits of a consistent threat in the run game. Suffice it to say, half of MM's playbook has been useless all season. I doubt the loss of Finley had a similar impact. As I said, Finley is certainly the better playmaker. He's a mismatch wherever he lines up because he's a superior athelete and there's no argument he's a guy you have to gameplan around. But his being in the game doesn't improve our offense as a whole the way a consistent run game does, and his loss hasn't restricted the offense nearly as much as the loss of Grant has.

[vince]

You're looking at individual talent, I'm looking at team impact. MM has already said that over half of his playbook is reliant on a running game. We haven't had a running game since Grant went down. It's not Grant's individual talent that's the huge loss but rather the benefits of a consistent threat in the run game. Suffice it to say, half of MM's playbook has been useless all season. I doubt the loss of Finley had a similar impact. As I said, Finley is certainly the better playmaker. He's a mismatch wherever he lines up because he's a superior athelete and there's no argument he's a guy you have to gameplan around. But his being in the game doesn't improve our offense as a whole the way a consistent run game does, and his loss hasn't restricted the offense nearly as much as the loss of Grant has.

They both hurt no doubt. I'm of the opinion that the loss of Finley hurts more. Although the pass attack has rebounded after a few games of adjustment quite nicely - better than I feared. Jennings has really stepped up. Losing Finley also hurts the running game though, as backers and safeties would have to pay a lot more attention to him when he's in there, which can be just enough to create seams when they are not as aggressive in run support.