Mike Mccarthy is the gretest coach ever

[red]

This is the thread most people on here want

Like all agree and talk about all the ways that m3 is the perfect head coach

[woodbuck27]

If I have to put up with any more >>> well ... sigh ... look at his winning percentage record arguments I'll have to consider going for a sex change operation with a constant regieme of hormone treatments.

That's cost restrictive.

My Green Bay Packer loyalty must remain unbound.

What will I ever do?

pausing to think.............................

[bobblehead]

Parcells it the best there ever was imo (modern day). I criticize MM plenty, but I try to be fair and accurate about it.

Woody, it IS a winning thing. The packers under TT and MM have won a high percentage, a superbowl and make the playoffs every year. We are in a rough spot. No one is beyond critique, but lets just keep it within the realm of sensible.

[Bretsky]

Parcells it the best there ever was imo (modern day). I criticize MM plenty, but I try to be fair and accurate about it.

Woody, it IS a winning thing. The packers under TT and MM have won a high percentage, a superbowl and make the playoffs every year. We are in a rough spot. No one is beyond critique, but lets just keep it within the realm of sensible.

I'm in my 40's so I did not witness Vince
I'd tak Hoody Genius and then Jimmy Johnson as the best I've witnessed
I'm glad Jerry Jones ego would not allow him to co-exist with Jimmy Johnson
I HATE Dallas but iff JJ had stayed I think they would have won about 3-4 more SB's in Dallas

[Rodgers12]

The packers under TT and MM...Make the playoffs every year.

Really? I seem to recall Thompson giving birth to 4-12, 6-10, 8-8 and this season.

Under the imposing regime of Wolf and Sherman, the Packer did NOT experience a single losing season (Wolf was hired in November of '91; that season doesn't count). And then along came the Polar Bear.

Only 1 GM in NFL history made the playoffs ever year he was GM with minimum of 4 full seasons. Care to name that GM?

[Teamcheez1]

If you are trying to suggest that the team was headed in the right direction after Wolf and Holmgren left, you can stop right there.

[woodbuck27]

Really? I seem to recall Thompson giving birth to 4-12, 6-10, 8-8 and this season.

Under the imposing regime of Wolf and Sherman, the Packer did NOT experience a single losing season (Wolf was hired in November of '91; that season doesn't count). And then along came the Polar Bear.

Only 1 GM in NFL history made the playoffs ever year he was GM with minimum of 4 full seasons. Care to name that GM?

Mike Holmgren HC of the Green Bay Packers from 1992-1998.

Holmgren molded quarterbacks such as Steve Young, Brett Favre and Matt Hasselbeck during his tenures in San Francisco, Green Bay and after Green Bay in Seattle.

Under Holmgren's leadership and play-calling the Green Bay Packers were consistent winners and he was one of the best coaches in the NFL, Leading the Green Bay Packers (1996) to their twelfth league championship in Super Bowl XXXI. Returning the Packers (1997) to Super Bowl XXXII. In all as the Packers HC he led the Packers to the playoffs six (6) consecutive years from 1993-98.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/HolmMi0.htm

[woodbuck27]

Parcells it the best there ever was imo (modern day). I criticize MM plenty, but I try to be fair and accurate about it.

Woody, it IS a winning thing. The packers under TT and MM have won a high percentage, a superbowl and make the playoffs every year. We are in a rough spot. No one is beyond critique, but lets just keep it within the realm of sensible.

I'll restrict this post to things Packers:

I try very hard when I make a serious post to be serious. This post is serious:

Yes TT and MM have done all right overall as a team for the Green Bay Packers and if we must confine all argument and Packers leadership and in terms of the past and not today>>>tomorrow:

Are they (TT and MM) the best in terms of Green Bay Packers history? If anyone believes they are ? That belief can be challenged.

I say let's not belabour one another with those corner store arguments and look at the now and the future.

From my post this AM in another thread:

It's often been said:

Every strong NFL team is 'only' as strong as it's backup QB.

Ted Thompson cannot be excused for ignoring that fact. Who was responsible for taking what TT gave him at backup QB and molding that man into a capable backup for Aaron Rodgers. Has been described as some kind of expert in developing QB's along with his OC Tom Clements?

That would be Mike McCarthy and what happened? Where does the blame for not developing that backup lie? Does it lie with MM or with TT for not giving MM enough to work with?

What's with MM and his play calling?

I'll 'only' start right here.

MM has to stop crushing our RB into a wall of men. Is MM just plain stupid in that regard? Holy catfish I don't get MM and that. >>> <<< Ted Thompson !! Right now our OL can't defeat too many men in the box. We don't have the QB now that can trump opposition 'D's and using that against us.

MM and Ted Thompson STOP crushing your RB into a wall.

It's obvious to me that not all of MM's issues are focused in the loss of his MVP caliber starting franchise QB. A lot of his issues start with his own head. A portion of the blame for his predicaments lies with his GM and in terms of the co-operation he needs from Ted Thompson.

I hope you'll agree that this post is one demonstrating real concerns and based in that fact is ....... reasonable/sensable.

[pbmax]

It's often been said:

Every strong NFL team is 'only' as strong as it's backup QB.

I seriously doubt that this has been said in the last 30 years. Certainly not during the cap era.

[woodbuck27]

I seriously doubt that this has been said in the last 30 years. Certainly not during the cap era.

Well I say it pb.

[Fritz]

Well I say it pb.

I don't understand how people can blame the Packers' record on the backup QB's, given the talent, or lack thereof, at that spot across the league.

You don't get a Matthew Stafford backing up Aaron Rodgers, or even a Jay Cutler. You get second stringers who haven't run the offense much until the number one guy gets hurt. That's what you get.

There might be three teams with backups that could come in and run the offense effectively in the blink of an eye. I'd say they are Chicago's McNown and Detroit's Hill. There might be one or two others with whom I am not familiar, but that's about it.

You're going to get some really mediocre play from about 28 of the 32 backups in the league. Some are veteran clip board holders (like Seneca Wallace), some are greenhorns whom the team hopes to develop (and those guys are not number one picks; they're the third to seventh rounders, generally).

And finding a very good backup who is willing to come in and be the backup - well, that's rare, too.

I'm telling you all, the backup QB play has not been good, but it wouldn't be for the vast majority of NFL teams.

The problems with this lousy skid have to do with the defense and with special teams. You play some tough, smart defense, and ditto for special teams play, and the Packers would've had a couple victories instead of being basically 0-4-1 since Rodgers was out. A team that had gone 2-3 in that stretch would be sitting at 7-5 and right there with the Loins.

If the defense that showed up for that brief two game stretch against Minny and Cleveland had shown up these past five games, and had Shawn Slocum's special teams not kept their heads firmly up their butts, this team would have a fighting chance.

It's not the backup. Sure, if the Packers had a top notch backup, it might be different. But we'll never know if Seneca Wallace coulda been that guy, and the guys after him weren't ever going to be top notch backups, given they were the third and fourth choices.

[woodbuck27]

" I don't understand how people can blame the Packers' record on the backup QB's, ... " " Fritz

Any legitimate backup QB on 'a competitive Upper Level NFL team' must be capable of filing in for 3-5 games and holding down the fort and leading the team to some 'W's' while the starting QB is out.

There TT and MM failed ... they clearly failed.

[Patler]

" I don't understand how people can blame the Packers' record on the backup QB's, ... " " Fritz

Any legitimate backup QB on 'a competitive Upper Level NFL team' must be capable of filing in for 3-5 games and holding down the fort and leading the team to some 'W's' while the starting QB is out.

There TT and MM failed ... they clearly failed.

TT & MM failed why? Because Wallace got hurt, or because their 3rd and 4th options at QB haven't been able to get a win?

Is it fair to condemn their selection of Wallace just because of the Bears game?

[woodbuck27]

TT & MM failed why? Because Wallace got hurt, or because their 3rd and 4th options at QB haven't been able to get a win?

Is it fair to condemn their selection of Wallace just because of the Bears game?

Really !

based on all you know about Seneca Wallace and his NFL experience>

Would you say he was an excellent candidate to be the Packers backup?

If so...Why?

[Bossman641]

" I don't understand how people can blame the Packers' record on the backup QB's, ... " " Fritz

Any legitimate backup QB on 'a competitive Upper Level NFL team' must be capable of filing in for 3-5 games and holding down the fort and leading the team to some 'W's' while the starting QB is out.

There TT and MM failed ... they clearly failed.

Hi WB, could you please let me know who these backups are? Just curious