good article on why it might be time to move on from fat mike

[red]

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2016/1/1/10697346/mike-mccarthy-and-the-trouble-with-consistency?ref=yfp

good quotes

every team in the last 30 years that has won multiple Super Bowl titles with the same quarterback has done so within four years of the first win

"Sometimes you have to be willing to leave something good, to achieve something great."

[Patler]

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/20...stency?ref=yfp

good quotes

We had a thread on here a few years ago that followed up on an article about head coach longevity. I think the cutoff they used was something like seven or eight years. Their research showed that for coaches who stayed with the same team beyond that time, their later years were almost always worse than their early years, typically, a lot worse. I think they identified only one or two coaches that were more successful at the end than at the start of their tenure. One theory was that a coach is hired and renewed because he is innovative and successful, but his success makes him reluctant to change, and the league catches up to the the innovative things he had initially. The few coaches they found who were as successful or more successful at the end of their tenures had in fact changed significantly in some ways during that tenure.

[pbmax]

Maybe its time to chuck the entire offensive staff, not because they are incompetent, but to get some new voices and ideas.

Worked for the defense in 2009. Though part of that was established DC versus first time DC.

[Patler]

Maybe its time to chuck the entire offensive staff, not because they are incompetent, but to get some new voices and ideas.

I had hoped a benefit of the major reorganization this year might to do just that, at least to some degree. With new people writing the game plan, and a new play caller, I thought maybe past tendencies would be clouded, if not changed altogether.

[mraynrand]

I had hoped a benefit of the major reorganization this year might to do just that, at least to some degree. With new people writing the game plan, and a new play caller, I thought maybe past tendencies would be clouded, if not changed altogether.

They just changed seating assignments.

If you want to grow the organization and adapt, you have to bring in new outside voices and give them some power.

The growth of Rodgers from within - to the point where I believe Rodgers thinks he knows more/is smarter than Stubby - along with a fresh coordinator from another system, might bring the kind of refreshing change the offense needs. At this point, probably the stumbling block would be Stubby himself, as he appears to be very Stubby. It's a pretty common feature of successful business and research practice to bring in new people with new ideas. Sometimes it doesn't work though...

However, Belicheat seems to manage this, but he's a good coach who wins the Super Bowl every year.

[mraynrand]

My first reaction to this article was - did the author realize Stubby was an errant bobble away (and also a collection of improbable turns) from the Superbowl last year? That he beat the Super Bowl winner?

If Stubby goes the way of Shanny, then yeah, I hope they throttle him sooner than later.

The transition from Rodgers to (presumably Hundley), replacing Clay Matthews, and moving from from TT to (?Eliot Wolf) will be the big moments organization-wise in the coming 5 years. If they can manage that and win a Superbowl, Stable Stubby will be in GB until his chest grab. But that's just stating the obvious.

[Guiness]

We had a thread on here a few years ago that followed up on an article about head coach longevity. I think the cutoff they used was something like seven or eight years. Their research showed that for coaches who stayed with the same team beyond that time, their later years were almost always worse than their early years, typically, a lot worse. I think they identified only one or two coaches that were more successful at the end than at the start of their tenure. One theory was that a coach is hired and renewed because he is innovative and successful, but his success makes him reluctant to change, and the league catches up to the the innovative things he had initially. The few coaches they found who were as successful or more successful at the end of their tenures had in fact changed significantly in some ways during that tenure.

Doesn't bode well for a guy who's come to be known here as 'Stubby'.

[Bretsky]

We had a thread on here a few years ago that followed up on an article about head coach longevity. I think the cutoff they used was something like seven or eight years. Their research showed that for coaches who stayed with the same team beyond that time, their later years were almost always worse than their early years, typically, a lot worse. I think they identified only one or two coaches that were more successful at the end than at the start of their tenure. One theory was that a coach is hired and renewed because he is innovative and successful, but his success makes him reluctant to change, and the league catches up to the the innovative things he had initially. The few coaches they found who were as successful or more successful at the end of their tenures had in fact changed significantly in some ways during that tenure.

Hoody Genius is the obvious exception.......to pretty much everything.......Tomlin seems to still be very effective but not sure how long exactly his tenure has been. I would say Coughlin but it sounds like he's ready to resign and the Giants are not going to fight the idea.

[pbmax]

Half of Pittsburgh (Tomlin) and more than half of NY/Jersey (Coughlin) want those coaches fired. Don't kid yourself. They are all saying a version of this. Only Coughlin's story diverges a bit because he either makes it to the Super Bowl or doesn't make it to the playoffs.

Hoody survived a 9 year SB (win) drought.

Coaches as good as these don't grow on trees. I would like the see the offense shook up, but I am not eager to fire M3. The odds are the next coach will be worse.

[Bretsky]

I'm not on the fire MM train by any means. I do think the mother of all f'ck ups may have been all of the offense coaching changes last year. But deep down I think he's a top 10

I thought Pitt still likes Tomlin.

[red]

we all wanted to see (or most of us anyways), wanted to see a shake up on the offensive side after the collapse against seattle last year.

a lot of us were done with tubby's playcalling

so last off season he puts another of his buddies in change of that so he could step back and focus on the total team, the new offensive play callers was so pathetic that we were begging m3 to take back play calling. and its the same shit after he took it back. the play calling has to change, its been a problem for a few years now, m3 is not a good playcaller.

i like the idea of bringing in new blood to freshen up the offense, someone who's not afraid to get on a-rods case when he's playing like cshit and fucking up, someone willing to take a few more risks

and if we can't do that, then its been well documented that i think we win despite our head coach and that he is long past his experation date with us

[Bretsky]

The offense was not good last year in the final game but good enough to get us the SB if not for about 7 f'ck up in a 5 minute period

But if you believe MM has broken the offense you want to see him go completely then. I'm just not really in that camp.

Ted Thompson has failed Mike Mccarthy miserably and he deserves much of the blame for our struggles.

Ted drafted Frenso Adams over a Pro Bowl WR in Al RIbinson and frankly, several other WR's who are much better. Then then pissed away a 3rd round pick the same year on a DL who was shit from day one, and has completel failed in getting us a TE that is much better then Ed West as a receiver.

He's also failed to get us a superior pass receiving RB that can create mismatches (Deon Lewis or James White anybody) as well and then only makes the TE and Adams failure magnify.

Along with leaving us short via the draft, he stubbornly refuses to take many chance in free agency to fill short term holes.

WOULD TED THOMPSON have HAD THE STONES TO SIGN REVIS IF HE WERE IN NEW ENGLAND. With Revis they were a world champion; without him they are not

We refuse take Hoody Genius like risks so if we keep f'cking up on draft picks and leaving the team short handed this is the result; no championshps.

[yetisnowman]

Sort of interesting...I live in Atlanta, and a local sports talk station(680 the fan) had a call in segment about who was the 2nd best NFL head coach behind Belicheck. And I'd say about 75% said McCarthy. The other 25 split between Tomlin, Arians, and yes even Coughlin. Perception is a motherfucker. To me though, after the Beckham-Norman incident, Tom's comments in the post game presser were pretty damning. When asked why didn't he bench OBJ or at least take him aside and try to cool him off, Tom claimed he wasn't aware all those personal foul call were against Beckham. HUh? Seriously. Think it may be time to put ol' Tom out to pasture.

[Bretsky]

I'd say MM is recognized nationally and among those on the NFL network as a top 5 coach in the NFL; I think the odds are we'd hire a lesser head coach.
Defense is better this year. Why ? Better players and some addition by subtraction........Dom Capers is the same...but improved defense due to better personnel

Offense...hmmm..............LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, I"D LIKE TO MAKE A SPECIAL ANNOUCEMENT

It's time to start holding Ted Thompson accountable.

[esoxx]

So true.