McCarthy and "Close Games"

[pbmax]

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

What's wrong with Philbin?

[pbmax]

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.

Brett had a great season, but that team also rode its defense in the first half of the year when the offense was sputtering and Grant the second half. Some of Brett's best work was the limited number of turnovers.

[mraynrand]

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.

I agree with the boxed in comment, but not the experience comment. Sherman hired Hatley to cover for his inexperience. Effectively, Sherman had a solid NFL GM at his right hand. Did he listen? Did he ignore better advice? Maybe someday we'll know, but one thing is for sure - Hatley isn't going to be the one to spill the beans.

[vince]

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.

Unless you're blaming McCarthy for that interception, then yes your post is false. McCarthy has already proven that he can take a team to the Super Bowl. The fact that an interception out of his control kept his team from getting there is not an indication of McCarthy's ability to win an NFC Champtionship.

[Smidgeon]

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.

How is going to the NFC Title game a disappointment? Would the only season that wasn't disappointing be one where the Packers dominated every game and took home the Lombardi trophy at the end of the year?

[RashanGary]

What I miss about the Brett lead teams is that htey had an identity. You kind of knew what you were going to get from Driver, Jennings, Grant, etc. . . It was very similar week after week.

I'm no NFL offensive coordinator, but I'd image if you have an identity like that, it opens up other things and when your identity is the things your team does best, you're kind of on the right path.

I don't know if our offensive line is great at protecting for long periods of time, but we're asking them to be with the inconsistent down the field identity we have now.

Just seems dumb. Go back to the short stuff and mix everything else in from there. That's what our guys do well. OL, AR, WR's, TE's, RB's. . . . I know AR is good deep but his OL isn't and that's a HUGE part of any offense. Gotta play to their strengths and weaknesses too.

[retailguy]

What I miss about the Brett lead teams is that htey had an identity. You kind of knew what you were going to get from Driver, Jennings, Grant, etc. . . It was very similar week after week.

I'm no NFL offensive coordinator, but I'd image if you have an identity like that, it opens up other things and when your identity is the things your team does best, you're kind of on the right path.

I don't know if our offensive line is great at protecting for long periods of time, but we're asking them to be with the inconsistent down the field identity we have now.

Just seems dumb. Go back to the short stuff and mix everything else in from there. That's what our guys do well. OL, AR, WR's, TE's, RB's. . . . I know AR is good deep but his OL isn't and that's a HUGE part of any offense. Gotta play to their strengths and weaknesses too.

Never thought I'd say this, but, I miss the screen pass....

[Smidgeon]

What I miss about the Brett lead teams is that htey had an identity. You kind of knew what you were going to get from Driver, Jennings, Grant, etc. . . It was very similar week after week.

I'm no NFL offensive coordinator, but I'd image if you have an identity like that, it opens up other things and when your identity is the things your team does best, you're kind of on the right path.

I don't know if our offensive line is great at protecting for long periods of time, but we're asking them to be with the inconsistent down the field identity we have now.

Just seems dumb. Go back to the short stuff and mix everything else in from there. That's what our guys do well. OL, AR, WR's, TE's, RB's. . . . I know AR is good deep but his OL isn't and that's a HUGE part of any offense. Gotta play to their strengths and weaknesses too.

I remember another poster (perhaps Patler, perhaps not) saying that not having an identity is the Packers' identity. Opponents can't key in to try to stop one thing because the Packers can burn you nine ways from Sunday (as long as none of the nine are running plays). I don't know how valid that is, but I think it's worth keeping in mind.

[RashanGary]

I don't remember that, Smidg, but it's a great description of our identity.

Our identity is we'll attack your weakness.


In theory, it's a great identity but in practice I don't know if it works quite so well because you can only practice for so many hours and being great comes from repetition. MM and AR are all about theory. If I check into this, we should get that. If we attack this weakness, we should get that.

Problem is, if defenses show one thing presnap and do another post. So you're chcking into a bad play and don't even know it. Problem is, when your identity is doing everything, you never really become great at anything.

Too much theory it seems with these two.

[bobblehead]

Brett had a great season, but that team also rode its defense in the first half of the year when the offense was sputtering and Grant the second half. Some of Brett's best work was the limited number of turnovers.

We were the bears tht year. Take a look at the list of QB's we beat that season. Once upon a time I addressed every game that season. Those that recall us riding Brett's greatness to victories are going to remember what they want. Back when I went over every game they simply came back with things like "it was Bretts veteran leadership that inspired the defense to play great". I realized then that I couldn't convince them.

[Charles Woodson]

Unless you're blaming McCarthy for that interception, then yes your post is false. McCarthy has already proven that he can take a team to the Super Bowl. The fact that an interception out of his control kept his team from getting there is not an indication of McCarthy's ability to win an NFC Championship.

So if Brett doesnt throw that pick, we win? Automatically? I guess i was basing my assumption that we lose that game based on MM's close game record.

[bobblehead]

So if Brett doesnt throw that pick, we win? Automatically? I guess i was basing my assumption that we lose that game based on MM's close game record.

I would base it on the fact we got whooped in that game and the only reason we made OT was the officials. BUT...getting to the conference championship and winning 13 regular season games proves a guy CAN win. Will he? Who knows.

[Fritz]

Well, what's a "non-disappointing season," Ch. Wood? A Super Bowl win?

IF MM gets the Pack a SB win, how much slack will you cut him if the next year is not a SB victory? Or the one after that? Is one SB enough to make you happy? And for how long?

You try to set up your team to compete for the SB every year. You need to have talent, to keep replenishing, know when to ditch guys and when to re-sign them, have a smart, good coach who doesn't lose the players, and good assistants that you can replace when they get hired elsewhere.

People here would agree that NE is the epitome of that franchise - mostly due to Belichick. And they don't even win it every year. Hell, they haven't won a SB for six years. Belichick didn't win a SB in his first six years of coaching. Nor does another class franchise, Pittsburgh, win all the time. And by the way, it took Cowher 14 years to win his first SB. Oh, and his only SB. He had one AFC Championship as well.

If Cowher were coaching in GB would his one Championship title and subsequent SB loss be enough to show you he deserved another ten years to get to the SB again, then win?

So are those two guys disappointments?

[th87]

I don't remember that, Smidg, but it's a great description of our identity.

Our identity is we'll attack your weakness.


In theory, it's a great identity but in practice I don't know if it works quite so well because you can only practice for so many hours and being great comes from repetition. MM and AR are all about theory. If I check into this, we should get that. If we attack this weakness, we should get that.

Problem is, if defenses show one thing presnap and do another post. So you're chcking into a bad play and don't even know it. Problem is, when your identity is doing everything, you never really become great at anything.

Too much theory it seems with these two.

Great post, man. Very thought provoking. They do seem to be on the slippery slope of being mad scientists attempting to reinvent the wheel.

Fritz - great post also. Belichick and Cowher didn't show that much more until many years later. Like players, coaches must grow too.

[swede]

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 didn't get to see the last two or three plays in the game...because Stubby gets the sweats and can't think under pressure and wastes the last minute of the game we lost the chanced to run any number of plays that attacked the end-zone.

But yay for getting us to almost win. Yay yay yippee flipping yay!