McCarthy and "Close Games"

[bobblehead]

Maybe Sherman was another BB but the Packers screwed up by letting him go too early.

Always liked Sherman the coach. He was too tolerant of turnovers, both with Green and Favre, but I liked his coaching....as a GM however, well.

[bobblehead]

Yes and no - Wolf's last draft was abysmal, but it was Wolf who made the Ahman Green trade and drafted the O line that Shermy rode to success. Shermy the GM always played to win THIS year. Shoulda worked in 2002, but injuries blew it up. Ultimately the Shermy strategy will lead to the team crashing and burning. But for a Superbowl team to come together, you may just have to make a FA move or two to fill that gap or two that you just can't paper over with raw draft picks. It's that age old riddle that even Oedipus might not answer correctly.

So, since the Patriots cut all the players that they "made the move" for a couple of years ago and have relied on young drafted players this season they can't win the super bowl?

[bobblehead]

OK, last point. I went through the season looking to see if any "good" teams have problems in close games like the packers do. Problem is that I keep seeing teams like atlanta and the Jets (first two I looked at) who win some close games....and lose others by 14 or even 42 points. I guess we could say they have problems in close games if they would have at least been competitive in games like that, but by getting completely man handled they proved they can win close ones.

EVERYONE on this board (save one or two posters) thought we would lose and lose bad to the patriots. The fact that we were in it to the last play means MM is a bad coach in close games....anyone see a flaw in this logic? And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

[retailguy]

I'll agree. Philbin and Slocum suck. And the slow starts on offense the last two years. . . . Not good.

It's really been 3 of the last 4 years. It's looking more and more like a trend, and yes, it is not good.

[mraynrand]

So, since the Patriots cut all the players that they "made the move" for a couple of years ago and have relied on young drafted players this season they can't win the super bowl?

But for a Superbowl team to come together, you may just have to make a FA move or two to fill that gap or two that you just can't paper over with raw draft picks. It's that age old riddle that even Oedipus might not answer correctly.

[Smidgeon]

OK, last point. I went through the season looking to see if any "good" teams have problems in close games like the packers do. Problem is that I keep seeing teams like atlanta and the Jets (first two I looked at) who win some close games....and lose others by 14 or even 42 points. I guess we could say they have problems in close games if they would have at least been competitive in games like that, but by getting completely man handled they proved they can win close ones.

EVERYONE on this board (save one or two posters) thought we would lose and lose bad to the patriots. The fact that we were in it to the last play means MM is a bad coach in close games....anyone see a flaw in this logic? And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

I wish this site had a "Like" button...

[denverYooper]

OK, last point. I went through the season looking to see if any "good" teams have problems in close games like the packers do. Problem is that I keep seeing teams like atlanta and the Jets (first two I looked at) who win some close games....and lose others by 14 or even 42 points. I guess we could say they have problems in close games if they would have at least been competitive in games like that, but by getting completely man handled they proved they can win close ones.

EVERYONE on this board (save one or two posters) thought we would lose and lose bad to the patriots. The fact that we were in it to the last play means MM is a bad coach in close games....anyone see a flaw in this logic? And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

I agree with this and feel that a good part of what they need to win close games is on the players. After Rodgers's play at the end of the Atlanta game, I felt like he was there. It seems like a circular thing to say they just need to win some close games to win some more close games but I feel that is the case. It's like w/Minnesota and Favre, once they got that out of the way they seemed to have a bit more confidence. Now they need to do the same in close games.

[Patler]

Being close is fine; but, playoff runs usually involving winning close games at the end. With 5 years of history, overall I do not like what MM has shown in the last half of the 4th quarter.

What you do to stay close isn't necessarily what you need to do at the end to win. If you don't know how to win, all you will ever be is a really good team that never seems to win a championship. In football there are a lot of variables regarding possession, clock management, FG vs TDs, punting strategies, etc. etc. SO far, MM does not show particular skill in knowing how to close out games.

[Bretsky]

I'll agree. Philbin and Slocum suck. And the slow starts on offense the last two years. . . . Not good.

You've opened my eyes to wanting to critique Philbin more.

I will say this; I did not like the Philbin hire and I thougt he was a fine OL coach

If we'd have hired another more qualifed OC we might be a heck of a lot better off.........with Philbin still being in charge of the OL as well

I'm not fan of Lovie Smith, but I LOVE what the Bears have done with their assistants lately in hiring very experienced, proven assistant coaches coaches who were once head coaches in Martz, Marinelli, and Tice.

Gotta have a lot of confidence in your own ability to hire guys who might be more knowledeable than the head coach.

[RashanGary]

Capers was a brilliant hire. I didn't know a whole hell of a lot about him when he was first hired, but when I read through the bio, I felt like we lucked into the best defensive coach on the market one of the best in the game.

We have to make that move on ST's NOW and we have to make the move with an OL guy. We're getting there talent wise (outside of the OL). It's time to just sell out for a superbowl. We're there. Coaches, players, everything. We're close enough to go for it and close enough ot pick our hire. Any coach would want to be here.

[Bretsky]

Capers was a brilliant hire. I didn't know a whole hell of a lot about him when he was first hired, but when I read through the bio, I felt like we lucked into the best defensive coach on the market one of the best in the game.

We have to make that move on ST's NOW and we have to make the move with an OL guy. We're getting there talent wise (outside of the OL). It's time to just sell out for a superbowl. We're there. Coaches, players, everything. We're close enough to go for it and close enough ot pick our hire. Any coach would want to be here.

I was listening to Gil Brandt the other day and he was analyzing some fan complaints about certain assistant coaches and inquired as to how to land a top tier assistant coach wth experience.

Brandt offered some nice viewpoints.

Every year there are certain head coaches fired and when that occurs the general rule of thumb is those assistants are probably gone and are open to negotiate with other teams.

So if you want a quality assistant with experience and you intend on making a change your coach/GM should be evaluating the staffs that are likely to be fired and eyeing up their asistant coaches at your position of need.

Then you move fast to fill your coaching void.

So maybe you start looking at the OL/ST coaches of say.......the Bengals (no brainer), Carolina (likely), 49ers (likely), Titans (sounds like Fischer and the owner may clash over Young), Texans (Kubiak is probablygone)..............and try to move fast.

It would be a fun exercise to do this but if MM goes the status quo and takes these guys back because he is comfortable with them or takes his sweet time with the analysis of the coaches it could be too little too late

[denverYooper]

I was listening to Gil Brandt the other day and he was analyzing some fan complaints about certain assistant coaches and inquired as to how to land a top tier assistant coach wth experience.

Brandt offered some nice viewpoints.

Every year there are certain head coaches fired and when that occurs the general rule of thumb is those assistants are probably gone and are open to negotiate with other teams.

So if you want a quality assistant with experience and you intend on making a change your coach/GM should be evaluating the staffs that are likely to be fired and eyeing up their asistant coaches at your position of need.

Then you move fast to fill your coaching void.

So maybe you start looking at the OL/ST coaches of say.......the Bengals (no brainer), Carolina (likely), 49ers (likely), Titans (sounds like Fischer and the owner may clash over Young), Texans (Kubiak is probablygone)..............and try to move fast.

It would be a fun exercise to do this but if MM goes the status quo and takes these guys back because he is comfortable with them or takes his sweet time with the analysis of the coaches it could be too little too late

Might look at Cleveland also. OL has been a strength for them and Mangini is not safe. Plus, I believe that their OL coach worked with MM for a year in San Fran.

[vince]

Cannot and has not are two different concepts but they both will and do apply to MM. He wont win a championship. What gives you any idea that he can? He has had five years and produced next to nothing.

Except already being an overtime interception away from a Super Bowl. Damn McCarthy has to quit coaching his QB's to throw interceptions at critical times in NFC Championship games. What a loser.

[Charles Woodson]

Except already being an overtime interception away from a Super Bowl. Damn McCarthy has to quit coaching his QB's to throw interceptions at critical times in NFC Championship games. What a loser.

Oh im sorry, is my post false? While i dont pin that loss on him, the fact is we didnt win that game and we havent gotten anywhere near there since. The only reason i said next to nothing is because of that year that we rode brett into the NFC championship. Even still, i feel like your post sums up McCarthy's career this far. "Well we almost won.... blah blah blah" All im asking for is a non disappointing season. I just think that we wont get that with McCarthy.

[pbmax]

I think that is what gets forgotten during the Sherman era. Each year the team was expected to compete, and expected to be in the playoffs and expected to win. He didn't get there in large part because he could never solidify the left side of the DL. Until he got Barnett, MLB was a problem too.

He's got this rep for not liking rookies or valuing draft picks, but when your focus is to win every year, you take risks and sometimes you win, and sometimes you don't. He didn't.

We have the opposite exact same issue right now. Our OL sucks, it is not solid. If they don't get it fixed asap, it will be their undoing just like the DL was Sherman's undoing.

He usually had one focus each offseason. When he realized Free was done and Schroeder wasn't going to morph into a better player, he went out, traded up and got Walker to add to Driver. Same with Barnett. But with so few picks and an aging team, he was turning his roster over to the dregs of the league. Combine that with botched FA maneuvers (signing Diggs back from the Eagles RFA and matching a phantom offer for KGB) he just boxed himself into a corner.

He was the epitome of a smart person doing a job he had no experience with. By his third year, it caught up to him.