More Banjo: Division Playoffs @ Cardinals

[Maxie the Taxi]

^^^ I dunno, it's not a perfect analogy. But let's run with it anywayStubby can go and help the LT, but that leaves something else open. It's like moving your top sales guy from the Caterpillar account to the Boeing account. You might save the Boeing account (maybe not because the guy isn'e experienced there), but lose the Caterpillar account. Maybe that's like the Sitton move against MN.

The better move was to bring up the fresh faced kid a who is begging to make his mark (Tretter) rather than the recovering alcoholic sales guy who used to be great but hasn't landed an account in five years (Barclay).

But sometimes you don't have any guys in the bullpen and no guys just waiting at home for your call, like RBs waiting for Belichick to call.

Nope, not perfect, but it makes my point.

By "helping" the LT I was thinking more tactics than personnel, i.e., the FB or RB or TE double-teaming the LT's block, etc. I think the best managers don't think changing personnel first, they change tactics or find creative ways to use their current personnel. It's the thing they can directly and immediately control.

[mraynrand]

Nope, not perfect, but it makes my point.

By "helping" the LT I was thinking more tactics than personnel, i.e., the FB or RB or TE double-teaming the LT's block, etc. I think the best managers don't think changing personnel first, they change tactics or find creative ways to use their current personnel. It's the thing they can directly and immediately control.

I thought the same thing in a couple of games, but those moves come at a cost too.

I think PB is right. The offense has to change somewhat to accommodate. Though I bet Stubby will think exactly like you portray (It was a tough year. Sometimes the ball doesn't bounce your way. You did the best you could......) - next year APRH, the offense will be dominant with 6 capable receivers and the pre snap read will work and crush other teams. But if it doesn't, and Stubby has no fundamental change to the offense, we'll see the same thing happen (unless the O-line improves, the running back improve, etc).

I am betting Stubby will go with just improving the line, the RB and getting everyone healthy, thinking that then he can just line up and dominate.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I thought the same thing in a couple of games, but those moves come at a cost too.

I think PB is right. The offense has to change somewhat to accommodate. Though I bet Stubby will think exactly like you portray (It was a tough year. Sometimes the ball doesn't bounce your way. You did the best you could......) - next year APRH, the offense will be dominant with 6 capable receivers and the pre snap read will work and crush other teams. But if it doesn't, and Stubby has no fundamental change to the offense, we'll see the same thing happen (unless the O-line improves, the running back improve, etc).

I am betting Stubby will go with just improving the line, the RB and getting everyone healthy, thinking that then he can just line up and dominate.

Yup. It's why we love to call him Stubby.

[Smidgeon]

And then there's this:


It's like my national sales manager coming into my office to explain why sales (and profits) went south last year:

"Well, boss, it was obvious that John, not our best salesman, needed help with closing that huge sale to Boeing. It's tough that we lost that one. It was our key account. We shouldn't have left him on his own out there.

"And, when the regional sales guy in New Jersey got sick and went out for the year, we probably should have went to plan B, you know, like modifying our sales territories and strategy to compensate, rather than try to do business as usual by replacing him with office interns and that guy we let go two years ago."

Of course, the first thing I'd do is kick my own ass for not paying attention to what was going on in my own company, but the next thing I'd do is decide whether the national sales manager understands his job, is worth rehabilitating or merits replacement.

The thing I wouldn't do is say: "It was a tough year. Sometimes the ball doesn't bounce your way. You did the best you could. You recognize that you made mistatkes. Next year the guy in New Jersey will be healthy and our sales people will be more experienced and more competent. Good job. See you this time next year. Here's your Christmas bonus."

http://www.packersnews.com/story/spo...lson/78965990/

M3 delegates. Sure, it's his company, but it's the responsibility of the managers he hired to address those needs (e.g. gameplan to help the LT). When that isn't what happened, heads will roll and those that don't roll are put on notice.

He had some strong words for the structure and promised to fix it.

Those expecting M3 to personally fix everything on offense I think are a bit overzealous. My CEO doesn't come talk to me or my manager when something goes wrong. He hires people he expects to competently manage anything that comes up.

Gash lost his job because of this. Possibly Fontenot too (I'm guessing due to his part of the game planning--pure speculation). And Bennett and Clements? Probably got the message loud and clear.

But M3 isn't going to stand in front of the media and point fingers for structural failure. He knows the buck stops with him, and that's why he does take the blame for things that happen down the line.

[pbmax]

Do we have evidence that McCarthy has changed things and straightened out problem issues year to year?

It was obvious year to year what Sherman was doing; fixing WRs (Walker), fixing ILBs (Nickerson), etc. He would announce it and then do it, regardless of tipping his hand, spending too much money or trading up in the draft. But he was GM so that stuff is easier to discern.

M3 has done longer term stuff; he fired his original D staff *, changed ST coaches, emphasized no turnovers, reduced penalties.

Shorter term stuff is not as obvious: he did encourage his coaches to literally go back to college to study new option offenses (talked to Sumlin, Aranda). I think Solari was hired to help both the run game and screen game (1/2 on those counts). They had red zone problems last year and there was evidence this year that they fixed part of it (I want to say they had another drought at one point this year though) and their 2 point conversions, which had not been good, were great this year. They went from ZBS to more Power stuff in a short time frame, especially with Lacy.

He has not been shy about adjusting his practice schedule or training methods.

Anyone got any other year over year changes to his approach?


* McGinn, after blasting Packers management and McCarthy for not having an immediate press conference and concluding that no one would ever trust them again, ha never acknowledged the wisdom of that move. He has also never acknowledged that it was one of the few times M3 has hired the type of Assistant McGinn loved to load into the mortar and throw Stadium walls; an experienced guy who has coached the position before and had great success.

[mraynrand]

^^^^ Vanilla Bob's linebackers didn't look so hot to me on Saturday night... let's see how they do against Cam and Co.

[Maxie the Taxi]

M3 delegates. Sure, it's his company, but it's the responsibility of the managers he hired to address those needs (e.g. gameplan to help the LT). When that isn't what happened, heads will roll and those that don't roll are put on notice.

He had some strong words for the structure and promised to fix it.

Those expecting M3 to personally fix everything on offense I think are a bit overzealous. My CEO doesn't come talk to me or my manager when something goes wrong. He hires people he expects to competently manage anything that comes up.

Gash lost his job because of this. Possibly Fontenot too (I'm guessing due to his part of the game planning--pure speculation). And Bennett and Clements? Probably got the message loud and clear.

But M3 isn't going to stand in front of the media and point fingers for structural failure. He knows the buck stops with him, and that's why he does take the blame for things that happen down the line.

Strictly IMO, it all boils down to corporate culture and management style, whether the organization is large or small. In some sports organizations (Steinbrenner's Yankees, Jones' Cowboys, Davis' Raiders) the boss operates with an iron fist, management's delegated authority is kept on a short leash. Micromanagement is common. A headstrong manager/coach/player who butts head with his superior in reality butts heads with the boss who sets the tone. That headstrong employee is soon shown the door.

I think the GB Packers' organization is more as you describe. The board appoints a General Manager and a Head Coach. These appointees are given general directions, a large measure of autonomy and a long leash. Little fiefdoms develop. That becomes the culture. The General Manager and Head Coach appoint their staffs and give them a little fiefdom of their own with general direction, autonomy and a fairly long leash. When things go south, the organization relies heavily on the chain of command and individual appointees to straighten things out within their fiefdom. At the end of the year the organization evaluates itself and changes are quietly made to fiefdoms, personnel and structure. The entire system is designed to prevent or minimize major upheavals. The two most powerful guys at the top set the tone and the direction but not with a direct hand.

I don't know enough about it, but my impression is that the Packers devolved from the former system to the latter. Maybe all of professional football did and Jerry Jones' system is a dying breed. Are there teams that have a system somewhere between the extremes? Probably. All I know is that change for the better or for the worse in Green Bay is very slow and uncertain. That may be a good thing. However, it certainly is frustrating to a fan looking in.

Dallas fans have it easier. They don't have to wonder who's in charge or who's to blame when things go south. All they have to do is ask Jerry.

[Bossman641]

Still not sure what he says here makes sense to me, especially the first paragraph:

Mainly because it sounds like he is saying two different things and Jordy didn't spend much time in the slot.

His explanation makes sense to me. It's the fact that they had no real counter that doesn't make sense. The middle is the easiest place to attack when a defense plays press. Shorter throws and if you guy getting free he realistically should have an easier time to break one long.

Jordy spent quite a bit of time in the slot in 2013 while Cobb was out. I can't remember how much time he spent there in 2014.

[Smidgeon]

Strictly IMO, it all boils down to corporate culture and management style, whether the organization is large or small. In some sports organizations (Steinbrenner's Yankees, Jones' Cowboys, Davis' Raiders) the boss operates with an iron fist, management's delegated authority is kept on a short leash. Micromanagement is common. A headstrong manager/coach/player who butts head with his superior in reality butts heads with the boss who sets the tone. That headstrong employee is soon shown the door.

I think the GB Packers' organization is more as you describe. The board appoints a General Manager and a Head Coach. These appointees are given general directions, a large measure of autonomy and a long leash. Little fiefdoms develop. That becomes the culture. The General Manager and Head Coach appoint their staffs and give them a little fiefdom of their own with general direction, autonomy and a fairly long leash. When things go south, the organization relies heavily on the chain of command and individual appointees to straighten things out within their fiefdom. At the end of the year the organization evaluates itself and changes are quietly made to fiefdoms, personnel and structure. The entire system is designed to prevent or minimize major upheavals. The two most powerful guys at the top set the tone and the direction but not with a direct hand.

I don't know enough about it, but my impression is that the Packers devolved from the former system to the latter. Maybe all of professional football did and Jerry Jones' system is a dying breed. Are there teams that have a system somewhere between the extremes? Probably. All I know is that change for the better or for the worse in Green Bay is very slow and uncertain. That may be a good thing. However, it certainly is frustrating to a fan looking in.

Dallas fans have it easier. They don't have to wonder who's in charge or who's to blame when things go south. All they have to do is ask Jerry.

Good analysis.