Mike McCarthy Retires His Sharpie: Clements Promoted to Playcaller

[pbmax]

Considering the OC hasn't called plays ever for MM, what's the difference if its MM or the Assistant HC calling the plays?

MM might be on the cutting edge of something here. There was an article a while back that suggested this very thing. An assistant HC in charge of play calling. The argument was that with as complex as offenses have become in player groupings, the OC has a lot of player management responsibilities during the game. Not an issue for GB and other teams where the HC calls plays, but shouldn't the HC have other things on his mind, too?

So, why not a coach who can focus entirely on play calling duties?

There you go, arguing for more staff again!

[pbmax]

This move might be to keep Bennett around. If this report is true then the only way Edgar will leave now is if another team offers him a HC job. Clements is a pretty sharp guy. I just read his bio on the Packer website and his resume is pretty impressive. You don't graduate from Notre Dame magna cum laude if you are a dummy.

http://www.packers.com/team/coaches/...f-00f437249c9f

I often get this policy wrong, but I believe that a coach under contract no longer has the right to interview with another team, no matter if the new position is a promotion or not. This is how M3 has previously prevented Philbin, Clements and McAdoo from interviewing (eventually 2 did leave). The only exception is when the interview is for Head Coach.

The only way an assistant is ever free and clear to interview with other teams without permission, is when their contracts expire. Its possible that both Clements and Bennett's contracts are expiring, but no one has reported that, at least that I am aware of.

[pbmax]

But there are so many on here touting how peachy everything is as it is now. Myself, I think this would be a very wise move. I wonder what the odds are that this was started by TT and he is just letting stubby take credit to save face? Probably not, but hey it's the off season and fun to think about things like that.

There's the rub. Most everything is peachy (overall second best winning percentage for 20 years don't happen to average franchises), but nothing is beyond improvement.

You would get not argument that the D didn't need to improve. But Capers wasn't the sole issue. Once the personnel pictured cleared up a bit, Capers got his groove back. Hell, he got it back at the end of last year when Doc Jennings was still his starter at safety.

On offense, while vince made a blistering and persuasive case for the conservative approach in the Seattle game, most would agree that the 4 minute offense tended to slow down WAY too fast. It wasn't a total catastrophe, but could be used better. The Packers have run the clock off against several opponents this year and have passed for first downs in late situations. But the offense didn't take advantage of every high leverage situation they had this year either.

[ThunderDan]

There's the rub. Most everything is peachy (overall second best winning percentage for 20 years don't happen to average franchises), but nothing is beyond improvement.

You would get not argument that the D didn't need to improve. But Capers wasn't the sole issue. Once the personnel pictured cleared up a bit, Capers got his groove back. Hell, he got it back at the end of last year when Doc Jennings was still his starter at safety.

On offense, while vince made a blistering and persuasive case for the conservative approach in the Seattle game, most would agree that the 4 minute offense tended to slow down WAY too fast. It wasn't a total catastrophe, but could be used better. The Packers have run the clock off against several opponents this year and have passed for first downs in late situations. But the offense didn't take advantage of every high leverage situation they had this year either.

While I don't know this as fact, it does seem pretty clear that MM and TT evaluate every aspect of the Packers every year and aren't afraid to make changes. Every player and every coach gets graded. That is how you build and keep a winning NFL franchise.

I am skeptical on the change in play calling responsibilities. Our O has been fantastic for the last 20 plus years. Did Holmgren and Sherman call the O plays when they were head coach?

And last but not least, I can't wait until next year when we get to the 4 minute offense to seal a game and we throw 2 of the 3 downs, don't make a first, only burn 45 seconds off the clock and Red starts screaming how can MM forget about the run game at this point in the game!

Honestly, it doesn't matter who or what is called on O in that situation. If it doesn't work everyone will be screaming that the Pack should have done the exact opposite. Too much run!!!! Too much pass!!!!

I agree we should have been running the football in SEA late in the 4th quarter to burn clock and SEA timeouts. Only an unbelievable string of events occurred that cost us the game. A team collapse after dominating a game for 55 minutes. 97 out of 100 times if GB makes the exact same play calls on O the team wins.

[pbmax]

I agree we should have been running the football in SEA late in the 4th quarter to burn clock and SEA timeouts. Only an unbelievable string of events occurred that cost us the game. A team collapse after dominating a game for 55 minutes. 97 out of 100 times if GB makes the exact same play calls on O the team wins.

Agree with running twice at least. But the pass can't just be on third down like it was in the first clock killing series. If you are going to pass, you have to make it difficult on the D. Hard to argue with the choice of run plays because the QB is limited and its obvious they didn't think he could run play action.

Also agree that its possible the play calling won't get better, we would be doing well if it doesn't get worse considering the Packers led the League in scoring.

However, I hope M3 uses his new found time (if this happens) to rethink those 4th and short at the goal line plays. Its a huge leverage play for the Packers and they kicked twice. Even if you whiff on a 4th down O play, if the team is prepared for the stadium to go wild, you have a scuffling offense backed up to its own goal posts. The field position alone is worth four points.

[ThunderDan]

Agree with running twice at least. But the pass can't just be on third down like it was in the first clock killing series. If you are going to pass, you have to make it difficult on the D. Hard to argue with the choice of run plays because the QB is limited and its obvious they didn't think he could run play action.

Also agree that its possible the play calling won't get better, we would be doing well if it doesn't get worse considering the Packers led the League in scoring.

However, I hope M3 uses his new found time (if this happens) to rethink those 4th and short at the goal line plays. Its a huge leverage play for the Packers and they kicked twice. Even if you whiff on a 4th down O play, if the team is prepared for the stadium to go wild, you have a scuffling offense backed up to its own goal posts. The field position alone is worth four points.

Three in the hand is worth Four in the bush?

[Patler]

There you go, arguing for more staff again!

Ya, I was thinking that. But, that is the way of the league. Average staff size continues to increase.
Seems a bit crazy.

One article said Bennett could remain as WR coach in addition to OC. Apparently several teams have the OC in charge of a position group, too.

Now....if we can just find a Special Teams Assistant- Long Snapper,.........
Come to think of it, shouldn't there be different ones for long (punt) snapping, and "kind of long" snapping (FGs and extra points)?

[woodbuck27]

Three in the hand is worth Four in the bush?

3 X 3 = 9 Pts and the Seattle offense likely starting at it's own 20 yard line or better.

or

Even 1 of three and 7 Pts = 13 pts or 4 More Pts and as it went down in the 4th Qtr:

The Packers secure the 'W' with clock management; not forced to drive late to try to at least gain a tie game in regulation.Too many times we've seen Mike McCathy call a game to secure a tie (or come up short) when more aggressive play calling in that game would have secured easy wins.

The good news.

Mike McCarthy won't be calling the plays as at least an attempt to exceed his style/personality and get the Packers past the real contenders and a Super Bowl. Real hope exceeds 'the same ole' and coming up short.

GO PACK GO !

[Pugger]

You make the obvious for need and easy to make changes first after a thorough evaluation.

The focus is winning the NFC and then the Super Bowl. To get there it's obvious there must be some major change on the coaching side. You're aware of Aaron Rodgers reaction post NFCC game. Your aware of a predominance of criticism of MM's play calling and game management. He needs to be more hands on during games and what's going on around him.

Mike McCarthy is feeling other pressure or being pressed to make changes that simply make sense. It's obvious that MM struggles trying to make play calls and manage the games. This struggle is in direct proportion to the overall skill of the opponent. He gets out coached.

Have you studied th87's posts in "ARE WE GIVING AROD A FREE PASS ??????????????????" ?

You know very well I've read that thread. I just have a different opinion than you do about Mike's play calling. Is that allowed Woody? Good grief. Why are you so condescending towards me at times? Don't be such a Neanderthal. Just because I'm not a man doesn't mean I don't know anything about football.

If McCarthy feels this move will make the team better I'm all for it. I suspect he wasn't thrilled to learn from reporters in his post game presser that Clay was out of the game late in regulation and Sherman's injury. I doubt we'll see a drastic change in our offense if indeed these reports are true.

[Pugger]

I often get this policy wrong, but I believe that a coach under contract no longer has the right to interview with another team, no matter if the new position is a promotion or not. This is how M3 has previously prevented Philbin, Clements and McAdoo from interviewing (eventually 2 did leave). The only exception is when the interview is for Head Coach.

The only way an assistant is ever free and clear to interview with other teams without permission, is when their contracts expire. Its possible that both Clements and Bennett's contracts are expiring, but no one has reported that, at least that I am aware of.

You might be right. I now recall Mac recently blocked a team from interviewing Van Pelt. We are all just speculating here anyway. This move may be just freeing up Mac to oversee everything on game days and nothing more.

[woodbuck27]

You know very well I've read that thread. I just have a different opinion than you do about Mike's play calling. Is that allowed Woody? Good grief. Why are you so condescending towards me at times? Don't be such a Neanderthal. Just because I'm not a man doesn't mean I don't know anything about football.

If McCarthy feels this move will make the team better I'm all for it. I suspect he wasn't thrilled to learn from reporters in his post game presser that Clay was out of the game late in regulation and Sherman's injury. I doubt we'll see a drastic change in our offense if indeed these reports are true.

" You know very well I've read that thread." Pugger

I asked the question (as just a maybe?) you hadn't read and then got the jest of th87's analysis.

Your opinion is 'of course' yours. You can defend that as you please.

Your poo pooing the changes. Understanding th87's efforts of analysis in my view supports that someone other than Mike McCarthy may 'in fact' call plays better. That this change was due. The results being positive or not?

That will be a wait and see and another evaluation and possible adjustment in the future.


" Good grief. Why are you so condescending towards me at times? Don't be such a Neanderthal. Just because I'm not a man doesn't mean I don't know anything about football." Pugger

Feel as you may about that. Your just another member here to me. Stand by your beliefs and do so (if I may suggest) without bringing sexism into it. If you demand a certain courtesy then so may others at Packerrats may demand the same. That's not realistic here. That's not a part of what Packerrats is.

I don't treat you without courtesy and respect. I may not always agree with you.

[ThunderDan]

Your poo pooing the changes. Understanding th87's efforts of analysis in my view supports that someone other than Mike McCarthy may 'in fact' call plays better. That this change was due. The results being positive or not?

I thought the analysis of th87 showed that ARod shouldn't be given a free pass in the end of game situations; that ARod needed to improve in the last part of the 4th quarter in close games when we are trailing.

And until we have data for all of the other teams and QBs, trying to make a broad conclusion from one data point is crazy.

[Pugger]

" You know very well I've read that thread." Pugger

I asked the question (as just a maybe?) you hadn't read and then got the jest of th87's analysis.

Your opinion is 'of course' yours. You can defend that as you please.

Your poo pooing the changes. Understanding th87's efforts of analysis in my view supports that someone other than Mike McCarthy may 'in fact' call plays better. That this change was due. The results being positive or not?

That will be a wait and see and another evaluation and possible adjustment in the future.


" Good grief. Why are you so condescending towards me at times? Don't be such a Neanderthal. Just because I'm not a man doesn't mean I don't know anything about football." Pugger

Feel as you may about that. Your just another member here to me. Stand by your beliefs and do so (if I may suggest) without bringing sexism into it. If you demand a certain courtesy then so may others at Packerrats may demand the same. That's not realistic here. That's not a part of what Packerrats is.

I don't treat you without courtesy and respect. I may not always agree with you.

I'm not poo pooing the changes at all. I think it is a good move, frankly. Now Mike can oversee everything on game day and I doubt we'll see a big change in our offense. I've never had an issue with MM's play calling. IMO most of the time when plays don't work it is an execution problem. If our offense converts a few more 3rd downs the outcome of the NFCC game is very different and we aren't discussing most of the stuff on this forum right now.

I guess it is your choice of words towards me and condescending tone that bothers me. I try to treat everyone here with courtesy no matter who they are except perhaps at times with trolls like Tank. We do banter here with colorful language that isn't seen on other forums. I don't have problem with that. Some of the kidding around and teasing is fun. But I'm not some young kid who just fell off the turnip truck. I've been watching football longer than you might think.

[mraynrand]

Not an issue for GB and other teams where the HC calls plays, but shouldn't the HC have other things on his mind, too?

There's a whole set of gestures and gesticulations that a HC needs to develop to be truly considered great.

[3irty1]

Considering the OC hasn't called plays ever for MM, what's the difference if its MM or the Assistant HC calling the plays?

MM might be on the cutting edge of something here. There was an article a while back that suggested this very thing. An assistant HC in charge of play calling. The argument was that with as complex as offenses have become in player groupings, the OC has a lot of player management responsibilities during the game. Not an issue for GB and other teams where the HC calls plays, but shouldn't the HC have other things on his mind, too?

So, why not a coach who can focus entirely on play calling duties?

I suspect the reason for not having more play-calling specialist coaches is because they'd be obvious targets of poaching if they were any good at their job. A HC who calls plays is really the only way to ensure continuity.