An Attempt At Discussing McCarthy's Future

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

what the fuck? Are you fucking kidding me? Fucking playoffs almost every year for 20 years. 3 Super Bowl wins in 18 years. 13 championships, two great HOF QBs back to back. Arguably the greatest coach in all of sports history. Lambeau Field. Mystique with no rival. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Yeah, I too lived thru the 70s and 80s deadzone which is exactly why I want to win now with the greatest QB in the NFL because I know the dark times are coming again.

[Patler]

You people do realize that Belichick hasn't won a Super Bowl for 10 years, don't you? Should he be fired? That's an awful long stretch of playoff failures. He hasn't won it since before MM came to GB. Don't give me the excuse that at least he has made Super Bowls since then, because that doesn't matter. A playoff loss is a playoff loss, it doesn't really matter when it is, especially when the loss is to the eventual SB winner. You would be making the same anti-MM arguments even if he had been to several SBs and lost.

When you have a coach that gets you to the playoffs year after year, one that has won it all, one that has gotten to the playoffs in spite of very, very significant injuries, one that has gotten to the playoffs even with rapidly changing rosters from year to year, rolling the dice with someone else is very risky.

Do I think MM is perfect, or the best there is available? No, not at all. I do place a lot of blame on him for the most recent failure; but I also give him a lot of credit for the 55 minutes that they were in total control of the game, in spite of their failures to maximize the opportunities they had. It was what I expected when I wrote in another thread that GB would win in a game that would be close in score, but one they would control. If Bostic catches the onside kick, or better yet if he blocked and allowed Nelson to make what looked like a much easier catch for him, the game probably would have been exactly what I expected. Had they beaten Seattle, my prediction for the SB would have been a GB win.

I'm not blaming Bostic. I could say the same regarding a half dozen other plays.

[mraynrand]

... because I know the dark times are coming again.

There's no reason to believe that they will. This isn't a 'law of averages thing,' it's an institutional thing. The Packers organization is set up to succeed. That it may not is a possibility, but it's not subject to some inevitable natural cycle.

Sorry for all the F bombs. I think I am still in the anger stage. I may need more sessions with Dr. John Holmes, MD, Ph.D. for a full recovery.

[mraynrand]

Shanahan didn't get tenure after winning TWO Super Bowls for Denver, so why should McRetardy?

Fire McCarthy!

FYI, I've started www.firethatfatfuck.com. Our mission is to get McRetardy fired. Please donate cash today! Thanks.

Shanny and Cheat both have won only with one QB, although Cheat is also probably responsible for most of Parcells' success. We may not get to see it, but it will/would be interesting to see Cheat and Stubby have to transition to a new QB.

[Patler]

The game was lost because players failed to make plays at key times.
The game was close (and therfore "losable"), because MM had a conservative "play not to lose" approach.

But ... For 57 minutes they were well-positioned to win the game because of what MM did in preparing them for the game, and perhaps even because of his conservative approach to this game. Not many gave them much of a chance to win this one. Getting at least some points from every scoring opportunity in a game almost predestined to be low scoring is a solid approach to winning that type of game. Going for max points is well and good in hindsight, but getting nothing from a scoring opportunity against a good defense also can be fatal.

Personally, I had no problem with the first FG, because I think getting an early lead was important. As the lead built, I would like to have seen him be more aggressive on 4th and short when 3 points doen't make a one score lead into a two score lead, or a two score lead into a three score lead. I would not go for it on 4th and short when it is a punting situation. Against a struggling offense, I want to keep the field long.

[Patler]

Coaches who consistently get to the playoffs lose their jobs usually only when relationships break down between the coach and either the GM/front office or owners. When the working relationship breaks down, you have to move on, because things can turn sour very quickly.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

There's no reason to believe that they will. This isn't a 'law of averages thing,' it's an institutional thing. The Packers organization is set up to succeed. That it may not is a possibility, but it's not subject to some inevitable natural cycle.

Sorry for all the F bombs. I think I am still in the anger stage. I may need more sessions with Dr. John Holmes, MD, Ph.D. for a full recovery.

The decline is inevitable. No team's success can last forever, regardless of the strength of the organization. Just look at the history of the NFL. Every year we get into the playoffs is another year closer to the decline of the packer empire. You have to win when the stars align.

And I for one will not be swayed by the rats' group therapy to make the loss easier. It still hurts like a motherfucker to be soooo close, and have them piss it away.

[mraynrand]

The decline is inevitable. No team's success can last forever, regardless of the strength of the organization. Just look at the history of the NFL. Every year we get into the playoffs is another year closer to the decline of the packer empire. You have to win when the stars align.

And I for one will not be swayed by the rats' group therapy to make the loss easier. It still hurts like a motherfucker to be soooo close, and have them piss it away.

I'm not trying to ease the pain of the loss. Just trying to inject a little reality into the conversation. A decline is not inevitable: but that depends on what you mean by decline. I expect there will be down years, there might even be a stretch where some bad institutional leadership returns. But long stretches of institutional incompetence are not inevitable, just possible and less likely, based on how the Packers are organized. But to your point about winning while stars are aligned - I agree, you like to capture that title when you are close, because nothing is guaranteed. Looking long, long term, I actually think the game of football is destined to be eliminated or so fundamentally changed over the next several decades as to be unrecognizable. By the time that happens, I'm pretty sure the Packers will have a legacy of winning ensconced for all time in the game of football as we now understand it.

[vince]

There's no reason to believe that they will. This isn't a 'law of averages thing,' it's an institutional thing. The Packers organization is set up to succeed. That it may not is a possibility, but it's not subject to some inevitable natural cycle.

Sorry for all the F bombs. I think I am still in the anger stage. I may need more sessions with Dr. John Holmes, MD, Ph.D. for a full recovery.

You mockin' me man? Fuck you! I'll get there sooner or later.

[pbmax]

Shanahan didn't get tenure after winning TWO Super Bowls for Denver, so why should McRetardy?

Fire McCarthy!

FYI, I've started www.firethatfatfuck.com. Our mission is to get McRetardy fired. Please donate cash today! Thanks.

I'll sign up in 2020. Shanahan got 10 years after the last Super Bowl run.

[Joemailman]

The decline is inevitable. No team's success can last forever, regardless of the strength of the organization. Just look at the history of the NFL. Every year we get into the playoffs is another year closer to the decline of the packer empire. You have to win when the stars align.

It can't last forever, but it should last as long as Rodgers is one of the NFL's top QB's, and as long as TT and MM are running things. Unlike teams like New Orleans and the Giants, teams that have won fairly recent Super Bowls, the Packers are better than they were 2 years ago. They are one of the top 3 teams in the NFL, and they are the 4th youngest team. The decline seems far off.

[hoosier]

Not going to lie. The Schottenheimer comparisons are frightening.

I'm not buying it. MM already won one SB, there is no jinx and no congenital inability to win the big one here. Could MM have done better on Sunday? Maybe, but in his defense he was true to the principles that got the team to that point in the first place. There is a reasonable argument to be made that MM did exactly what he had to do, and that too many players failed to execute when it was time to snuff the life out of the skittles.

But you're an old Browns fan, aren't you? I can imagine that the comparison probably brings back horrid memories that no one would wish to relive.

[pbmax]

I'm not buying it. MM already won one SB, there is no jinx and no congenital inability to win the big one here. Could MM have done better on Sunday? Maybe, but in his defense he was true to the principles that got the team to that point in the first place. There is a reasonable argument to be made that MM did exactly what he had to do, and that too many players failed to execute when it was time to snuff the life out of the skittles.

But you're an old Browns fan, aren't you? I can imagine that the comparison probably brings back horrid memories that no one would wish to relive.

My eyelid has been twitching since I read his name. And there is a vein popping out I haven't seen in a while.

[woodbuck27]

I give up. Serious changes? Replacing their 3rd string TE on the hands team is a change that woulda got him to the Super Bowl this year. How serious is that?

vince:

Brandon Bostic screwed up. That's too obvious to even discuss.

What's even worse is to park the total Green Bay Packer collapse on that successful for Seattle onside kick. If 'on side kicks' were never successful would Seattle have tried to execute one?

I maintain that many things transpired to allow a victory for Seattle.Let's neglect anything that transpired good, bad or indifferent in the opening half.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015011800/2014/POST20/packers@seahawks#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000460724&tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

In this LINK:

** Observe what the NFL.COM Analyst Team of Greg Rosenthal, Dan Hanzus, Chris Wesseling and Marc Sessler have to say about the game.

** Also study the Play By Play starting at 4:56 remaining in the 3rd Qtr.

NOTE:

With 4:56 remaining in the 3rd Qtr. The Score is Green Bay 16 - Seattle 0.

[pbmax]

What's even worse is to park the total Green Bay Packer collapse on that successful for Seattle onside kick. If 'on side kicks' were never successful would Seattle have tried to execute one?

Yes, because it was their only hope. 20% of expected onside kicks work.