Tweet
Given my time zone, I don't bother to stay up to the middle of the night to listen to night preseason games like I do during the season, if I can (they don't end until 5:00 AM). I have to say that I was dismayed to wake up and read the score of last night's game. Not so much that we lost, but that we scored three miserable points.
Now I know almost all of you guys focus most intensely on talent. But I don't. I focus entirely on coaching (though I obviously love watching great players). When a team can move from 1-10-1 to 7-5 in a new coach's first year (Lombardi) with the same talent, I think it illustrates the difference coaching makes.
Now, from the beginning, I have defended Thompson and McCarthy from all the nay sayers who were quick to damn them. Not because I believed in them, but because they had to have a chance to see what they could do. I didn't count last year because of Sherman's presence - to me, this is effectively Thompson's first real year, almost as much as it's McCarty's.
Now, I've read a lot of talk (in other forums) about how McCarthy didn't come from a winning tradition. Ok, fair enough. He certainly didn't prove himself as an OC nearly as much as Lombardi did with the Giants. But still, he didn't do all that badly with the Saints (in fact, some things were done very well) and certainly brought out the best in Brooks, just as he had years earlier as QB coach for Gannon. I just ignored SF. Mainly, I just hoped that McCarthy could be a guy who would buck the odds and turn out to be a terrific HC, as long as he had a strong staff (which appears to be the case).
Like I said, I don't mind so much that we lost - when you read that impressive list published by JS Online of all the GB coaches who won their first preseason game as 1st year coaches, Lombardi's name is noticeably absent. But I do feel concern over how the team looked.
Basically, I think under a very good coach, this team is a 9-7 team, which could go 8-8 with a little bad luck or 10-6 with a bit of good luck. Green Bay should never settle for less than a very good HC. Simply being good is not enough. That's half of what I'm looking for in McCarthy. The other half is how the team handles itself in postseason play, whether this year or next year. If this team doesn't go 8-8, minimum, I'll figure McCarthy is not the guy. After that, I won't care what potential he shows - I'll be a hard sell to convince that he should stay.
I'm not worried yet, obviously. Not yet. But another game like last night's and I'll definitely start worrying that I WILL be worrying early in the season. Meanwhile, I'll live in hope that he will turn out to be better than even 'very good' - but I won't hang on to that hope for much longer if the team doesn't show something.
Now I know almost all of you guys focus most intensely on talent. But I don't. I focus entirely on coaching (though I obviously love watching great players). When a team can move from 1-10-1 to 7-5 in a new coach's first year (Lombardi) with the same talent, I think it illustrates the difference coaching makes.
Now, from the beginning, I have defended Thompson and McCarthy from all the nay sayers who were quick to damn them. Not because I believed in them, but because they had to have a chance to see what they could do. I didn't count last year because of Sherman's presence - to me, this is effectively Thompson's first real year, almost as much as it's McCarty's.
Now, I've read a lot of talk (in other forums) about how McCarthy didn't come from a winning tradition. Ok, fair enough. He certainly didn't prove himself as an OC nearly as much as Lombardi did with the Giants. But still, he didn't do all that badly with the Saints (in fact, some things were done very well) and certainly brought out the best in Brooks, just as he had years earlier as QB coach for Gannon. I just ignored SF. Mainly, I just hoped that McCarthy could be a guy who would buck the odds and turn out to be a terrific HC, as long as he had a strong staff (which appears to be the case).
Like I said, I don't mind so much that we lost - when you read that impressive list published by JS Online of all the GB coaches who won their first preseason game as 1st year coaches, Lombardi's name is noticeably absent. But I do feel concern over how the team looked.
Basically, I think under a very good coach, this team is a 9-7 team, which could go 8-8 with a little bad luck or 10-6 with a bit of good luck. Green Bay should never settle for less than a very good HC. Simply being good is not enough. That's half of what I'm looking for in McCarthy. The other half is how the team handles itself in postseason play, whether this year or next year. If this team doesn't go 8-8, minimum, I'll figure McCarthy is not the guy. After that, I won't care what potential he shows - I'll be a hard sell to convince that he should stay.
I'm not worried yet, obviously. Not yet. But another game like last night's and I'll definitely start worrying that I WILL be worrying early in the season. Meanwhile, I'll live in hope that he will turn out to be better than even 'very good' - but I won't hang on to that hope for much longer if the team doesn't show something.
Comment