MCGINN---NEW JSO ARTICLES..........THE BLAME FALLS ON

[mraynrand]

Bob McGinn would never use 'irregardless'

[Patler]

How much better is Aaron Rodgers than Tom Brady? How much better is Aaron Rodgers then Tom Brady has been over his career? Bill Belichick has won a single Super Bowl in the time period that Mike McCarthy has been with the Packers. Essentially that covers the timeframe since Tom Brady has become the future Hall of Fame quarterback we know.

If Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson are failures for not winning more super Bowls with Aaron Rodgers as their quarterback but Bill Belichick is the best in the world while achieving a similar result, it must mean that Aaron Rodgers is a vastly better quarterback than Tom Brady ever was.

I don't believe that.

[mraynrand]

How much better is Aaron Rodgers than Tom Brady? How much better is Aaron Rodgers then Tom Brady has been over his career? Bill Belichick has won a single Super Bowl in the time period that Mike McCarthy has been with the Packers. Essentially that covers the timeframe since Tom Brady has become the future Hall of Fame quarterback we know.

If Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson are failures for not winning more super Bowls with Aaron Rodgers as their quarterback but Bill Belichick is the best in the world while achieving a similar result, it must mean that Aaron Rodgers is a vastly better quarterback than Tom Brady ever was.

I don't believe that.

I feel sorry for Rodgers - he has carried the entire weight of the Packer organization for eight years - from scheduling events in the Atrium to cleaning out jockstraps to designing the offensive and defensive schemes, to drafting players, to scouting pro personnel and ignoring them, he has done it all the while Stubby just gets fat at the Golden Corral.

[Scott Campbell]

I'd prefer we fire the entire front office and coaching staff after each loss.

[pbmax]

Maybe if coaches cross train by handling a different position group each week, we could develop a deep coaching bench.

[wist43]

McCarthy gets the credit for developing Rodgers and having a very effective passing game over a long period of time.

By the same token, McCarthy is almost entirely to blame for the offense's dismal performance this year. The buttons he pushed in the offseason were all the wrong buttons - and given his steadfast refusal to change the way he rosters offensive linemen, and his refusal to incorporate more power running - when the passing game couldn't be relied on, there was no running game to fall back on.

It seems to be in McCarthy's nature to stick with what isn't working even when it's been shown not to work. Can't say what his illogic is to stay the course, but he surely is stubborn about admitting when something isn't working.

Nothing is going to change with how they roster offensive linemen, and their approach to running the ball. Everything has to build off of the passing game - including the defense. In terms of approach to winning on both sides of the ball, I think it is simply too one-dimensional. I don't see that changing at all.

[Patler]

I think people have gone off the deep end confusing goals or objectives with standards or requirements. Of course the goal should be a Super Bowl victory for the Packers every year. Reality tells us this will not happen.

The following is from another thread, but I think it applies here as well:

D'Amato asks this question:

And you have to ask yourself: How many Super Bowls would Bill Belichick have won with this team over the last 10 years?

I would answer with another question: how many did BB win with his own teams from from 2005 until last year, teams that had Tom Brady as their QB, teams that had even better records that MM's teams, including one that was 16-0. The answer is 0 until last year. Does D'Amato think the Packers have been better the past 10 years, or that Rodgers has been better than Brady?

People act like Belichick wins the SB every other year.

If D'Amato believes that Bill Belichick would have won more Super Bowls coaching the Packers than Mike McCarthy has, then he also believes that Bill Belichick would've won more with the Packers than he did with the Patriots. That would have to mean that he also believes the Packers rosters have been significantly better than the Patriots rosters or at least that Aaron Rodgers has been a significantly better quarterback than Tom Brady has been. Yet, the Patriots have been a more successful team than the Packers have been the past 10 years, at least in the terms of wins and losses.

Why does D'Amato's question make any sense at all?

[mraynrand]

By the same token, McCarthy is almost entirely to blame for the offense's dismal performance this year....

Again, you like McGinn and all the others who are excessively critical of Stubby never honestly acknowledge the affect of injuries. Four starting WRs missing at the end of the season, and missing or diminished much of the season. The entire O-line was diminished. Lacy (fat) questionable I suppose could be blamed on Stubby at some level, etc. etc.

To actually make a reasonable argument, show me the team that's lost their top 4 WRs that won the Superbowl. Along with having their top two tackles miss significant time to injury. Along with their top 'Power' running back showing up fat and out of shape, and not getting into shape. Where is this team that wins it all with these things taking place. Who are/were the magical people they brought in to compensate? Just give me a couple of Superbowl winners who have overcome such obstacles and I might take you seriously.

[mraynrand]

I think people have gone off the deep end confusing goals or objectives with standards or requirements. Of course the goal should be a Super Bowl victory for the Packers every year. Reality tells us this will not happen.

The following is from another thread, but I think it applies here as well:


If D'Amato believes that Bill Belichick would have won more Super Bowls coaching the Packers than Mike McCarthy has, then he also believes that Bill Belichick would've won more with the Packers than he did with the Patriots. That would have to mean that he also believes the Packers rosters have been significantly better than the Patriots rosters or at least that Aaron Rodgers has been a significantly better quarterback than Tom Brady has been. Yet, the Patriots have been a more successful team than the Packers have been the past 10 years, at least in the terms of wins and losses.

Why does D'Amato's question make any sense at all?

this is a great post. Really great. One of the best ever on Packerrats because it concisely points out why all the idiots who constantly make these absurd comparisons and demands of Super Bowl wins are logically flawed. Excellent post Patler. And you can be sure it will be countered with either silence or more absurdity and howling from the likes of Red, Runtstrut, Yellowsnowman, Bertsky and the like.

[Deputy Nutz]

It takes something magical to make it to a Super Bowl and to win a Super Bowl. The Patriots have been to 6 Super Bowls since 2000. That's less than one every other year. It is impressive but they win one almost every four years which is also extremely impressive, but it is not like the Patriots are there every year. They have injuries that they can't over come just like the Packers. They have had season where their defense has to be rebuilt. They have had all of their assistant coaches replaced at some point. The Constant, has been Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. They stay the course just like Stubby and Thompson should.

[woodbuck27]

Is there anyone on this Forum truly wanting Packer Head Coach Mike McCarthy FIRED !??

Isn't it simply about some common sense analysis and follow up orn adjustments.

Isn't he trying to do that?

It's NOT about anything going down all negative in MM's life as a Packer HC.


It's ALL ... ABOUT... the Green Bay Packers properly preparing for a long season in terms of Roster talent and depth....to deal with any adversity......and ultimately and realistically having a REAL CHANCE to properly compete and earn the right for playing to win the SUPER BOWL...and anything below that being somewhat (lesser or more) of a failure.

It's TOTALLY ............ALL ABOUT THIS ....and ....in REALISTIC TERMS..... 'the TRUTH'.

Why we have an honest faith when we shout out:

GO PACKERS ! GO PACK GO !!

[Fritz]

McCarthy gets the credit for developing Rodgers and having a very effective passing game over a long period of time.

By the same token, McCarthy is almost entirely to blame for the offense's dismal performance this year. The buttons he pushed in the offseason were all the wrong buttons - and given his steadfast refusal to change the way he rosters offensive linemen, and his refusal to incorporate more power running - when the passing game couldn't be relied on, there was no running game to fall back on.

It seems to be in McCarthy's nature to stick with what isn't working even when it's been shown not to work. Can't say what his illogic is to stay the course, but he surely is stubborn about admitting when something isn't working.

Nothing is going to change with how they roster offensive linemen, and their approach to running the ball. Everything has to build off of the passing game - including the defense. In terms of approach to winning on both sides of the ball, I think it is simply too one-dimensional. I don't see that changing at all.

The first criticism in boldface is a criticism of a change McCarthy made after the team failed to get to the SB.

The second criticism in boldface is a criticism of McCarthy's unwillingness to change.

I would agree that McCarthy seems a bit slow to pull the trigger on changes, and that can and has hurt this team from time to time. On the flip side, changing it up constantly is no recipe for success, either.

[Carolina_Packer]

The first criticism in boldface is a criticism of a change McCarthy made after the team failed to get to the SB.

The second criticism in boldface is a criticism of McCarthy's unwillingness to change.

I would agree that McCarthy seems a bit slow to pull the trigger on changes, and that can and has hurt this team from time to time. On the flip side, changing it up constantly is no recipe for success, either.

I also wonder if MM and coaches don't become a bit hamstrung when the depth at certain positions might be a first or second year player and not veteran depth as you might see on other teams. Can you win with your own youthful depth? Yes, if they can get up to speed and contribute quickly.

I'm glad we have a cap-minded GM who is always trying to find developmental talent for the back-end of the roster some of whom can ascend, such as Jayrone Elliott. That's one of the brightest examples of sign and develop, and will help keep the cap healthy. That said, I would not be completely opposed to finding someone better than Don Barclay/Josh Walker who do not have the footwork and athleticism to play OT. This is where I would consider getting a veteran for depth. Of course, one could argue that what is available from the free agent market might not be any better or serviceable to provide that depth. This is kind of the same conundrum of the backup QB. If you were talented enough, you'd likely be starting, and what team owner/GM not named Jerry Jones is going to give starter money to ensure backup depth? Personally, I would take a strong look at legit OT's in the 3rd/4th round of this year's draft. If they beat out Bach, so be it. We can still keep him as depth. If it pushes Bach to keep his job, then they have drafted someone who can be a versatile OT and our depth can be drafted depth. Obviously being drafted isn't always a guarantee, but generally, I'd rather take my chances on finding guys like Tretter in the draft, than waiting to see who might be available in the college free agent market after the draft.

[Maxie the Taxi]

^Careful, Carolina, you're flirting with heresy.

[3irty1]

A few thoughts; my goal is to win a title every year. I do consider the season a failure when we don't.
I cant get on the MM is a bad coach train though; on my end, TT has let us down some.

Hoody Genius is elite. What coaches do you clearly take over MM ? My guess is Pete Carroll might be considered the next best. Then who...Tomlin ? Again, I find it hard to separate MM with the next best head NFL coaches after Carroll.

From that list, I might take Payton over MM; truth be told I would not be surprised if he coaches GB someday. We had the job he wanted,after all

I'm not defending TT for leaving the cupboard dry at TE; look at the list of FA's we could have had last year

I hope TT decides to utilize more means than just the draft...and undrafted or unwanted free agents, in the upcoming season

As much as you love the "FA wins superbowls" shtick its always proven hollow. I think Ted did a good job this year, McCarthy and bad luck are the main culprits. Not that he's a bad coach. I'd prefer McCarthy as a coach to both Carroll and Tomlin but there are some guys I'd rather have.

Belichick is obviously a fabulous coach. Maybe even underrated considering his shortcomings as a GM. That is the big disadvantage of BB is that he doesn't play well with others so you'll never have an elite GM and coach at the same time. Take into account his history of punishment for breaking the rules and I can only be mildly envious of the Pats. Still BB is one of the few defensive philosophers of the game and I think history shows this is the best way to get trophies.

I think Sean Payton also compares favorably with McCarthy although the two are so similar its really a matter of taste. Both have that philosopher-coach thing going which has let them succeed with multiples offenses and craft proven game plans. Both are considered great QB-developers. Both great playcallers. Payton probably has a worse record than McCarthy and has also gotten in big trouble for the rules but I'd still prefer him because I think his offenses are diverse and more about mismatches. Everyone in Payton's offenses are like specialists which makes for some mismatches even coming off the bench. McCarthy used to be more willing to build his offense around a player like Finley or Cobb but that's always bit him in the ass with injuries and for the most part he seeks guys to be interchangeable parts. All the WR, TE, and OL need to play all the positions. Might be counter-intuitive but I think Payton's way might be more injury-proof.

I think Ron Rivera has a bunch of potential. He's not that proven but if you were about to start an NFL franchise right now I think he'd be the guy I'd want. "Riverboat Ron" seems to me like a Belichick type coach whos willing to question assumptions and spin defenses that are way more than a sum of their parts. He's equally comfortable with a 4-3 or 3-4. Seems like you give him any unfair advantage and he'll find a way to best leverage it.

Also I think you've got to like what we've seen from Arians so far. Another QB whisperer, perhaps the ultimate players coach, and most importantly a guy who seems to be able assemble a stud staff out of up-and-comers. Just the change he made in putting Fitz in the slot to turn him back into a playmaker shows some insight that other coaches lacked. I don't know if I'd give up McCarthy for Arians as I value the continuity but if I needed a head coach right now I'd rather hire Arians over McCarthy.