Official FIRE Mike McCarthy thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2675887-chris-simms-nfl-power-rankings-ahead-of-week-11/page/12\

Chris Simms' NFL Power Rankings Ahead of Week 11

By Chris Simms , NFL Lead Analyst

Nov 14, 2016

22. Green Bay Packers

Mike McCarthy coaches a roster that's never infused with veteran free-agent talent.

So it seems unfair that he'll be the one to lose his job over Green Bay's scoring run. But when you coach Aaron Rodgers and you lose to the Tennessee Titans, something's gotta give.

Again, McCarthy's playbook regressed to Rodgers throwing fast, hard and accurately. No receivers earned significant separation. No running backs got anything resembling a ground game going.

[VegasPackFan]

not to mention the 15-1 debacle where we sat the starters the last game of the regular season, meaning by the time they played against the giants, they hadn't played football in 2 full weeks.

we came out flat, and were one and done

THIS.

[King Friday]

How was the running back situation such a blunder? Eddie Lacy + an experienced backup who had nearly 1000 yards in 2015. Lacy was running as well as he ever had until he was injured.

Where was this monumental blunder that some of you are talking about????

1. Lacy was a question mark coming into camp this season. Sure, when healthy and not fat, he's a very good RB. However, we know all about the weight concerns, and his running style certainly opens him up to a greater chance of injury. There was very little reason to expect he was going to give you 16 full games of action at 100% in 2016...so you HAD to have a contingency plan.

2. Starks is a capable backup...but he's also 30 years old. Again, you HAD to expect he would not be able to assume the load as a full-time back if Lacy went down for an extended time either due to injury or food consumption.

3. The Packers had NOTHING behind these two. NOTHING. They were basically rolling the dice that Lacy would be able to start 13 or 14 games and have Starks fill in occasionally when Lacy was out for a short period of time. In essence, this is like expecting a $200,000 401k account to be able to last out a 15+ year retirement. It COULD happen...but the chances aren't good.

4. We got rid of Sitton...with depleted OL depth, even more reason to keep extra ammunition at RB instead of WR.

I agree that the first two guys on the roster are OK...however, no NFL team should only be 2 guys deep on the depth chart at RB. That is basically what the Packers were...otherwise Ty Montgomery wouldn't be playing RB.

[pbmax]

1. Lacy was a question mark coming into camp this season. Sure, when healthy and not fat, he's a very good RB. However, we know all about the weight concerns, and his running style certainly opens him up to a greater chance of injury. There was very little reason to expect he was going to give you 16 full games of action at 100% in 2016...so you HAD to have a contingency plan.

2. Starks is a capable backup...but he's also 30 years old. Again, you HAD to expect he would not be able to assume the load as a full-time back if Lacy went down for an extended time either due to injury or food consumption.

3. The Packers had NOTHING behind these two. NOTHING. They were basically rolling the dice that Lacy would be able to start 13 or 14 games and have Starks fill in occasionally when Lacy was out for a short period of time. In essence, this is like expecting a $200,000 401k account to be able to last out a 15+ year retirement. It COULD happen...but the chances aren't good.

I would buy this argument more if it didn't work last year. Even Fat Lacy was able to complete the season. It was not unrealistic to expect him to do it again. He had a very good offseason. Starks injured his knee, he didn't break a hip getting the paper.

The Packers didn't just keep 2 RBs. They also have a FB, which many teams don't have.

They had Cobb and Monty, who they planned on getting a lot of reps. So usage rate of RBs would be lower this year.

They decided the two guys who hung around last year were not among the 53 best.

4. We got rid of Sitton...with depleted OL depth, even more reason to keep extra ammunition at RB instead of WR.

I think Sitton leaving makes a case for another OL, not another RB. Maybe another QB.

But the biggest error here is that you think foresight would save the team from this problem. Please tell me, if they had a third RB on the roster, what would the secondary look like right now?

They lost the top three guys. When Rollins came back, they started, then benched him for Goodson. Goodson would not be on the roster if there was a 3 RB at the start of the season.

They had six WR on the team last year and they still had to sign James Jones last minute to make a go of it. And it didn't work. Sometimes, well made plans fail. Its a mistake to assume failure means your process is bad. Nothing is certain.

[pbmax]

Or even if Goodson still squeaks by, do you have Kentrell Brice to play safety after Burnett and Hyde are hurt? If you dump Abby or Janis from the WR corp, are special teams worse?

If one position being short of above replacement level players is the mark of mismanagement, every football team would change their GM every third year.

[pbmax]

Not to mention Jackson's presence on the PS. Do you expect the Packers to pay more for the 3rd string RB?

[Rutnstrut]

PB, you keep repeating how Jones did nothing last year. He saved their ass early in the season. Without him there would have been no strong start. Without the 6-0 start last year they never would have made the playoffs due to their skid the second half of the season. You seem very reluctant to give credit where it's due.

[pbmax]

PB, you keep repeating how Jones did nothing last year. He saved their ass early in the season. Without him there would have been no strong start. Without the 6-0 start last year they never would have made the playoffs due to their skid the second half of the season. You seem very reluctant to give credit where it's due.

Was the Packers offense last year successful or not? I am saying even after signing Jones to replace Jordy, they could not keep the offense at a high level. That point is in service to the larger point that if fate decrees a position will be decimated, there are very few things that can be done in season to save it no matter the backups available. Even at a well stocked position like WR.

Healthy Jones was great. The Packers offense as a whole, over the entire season, was not. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that he would have suffered when teams changed the way they played pass D even if healthy. But that is simply speculation.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000741282/article/aaron-rodgers-criticism-of-mccarthy-ridiculous

Aaron Rodgers: Criticism of McCarthy ' ridiculous '.

I filed this under:

I've got your ass if your covering mine.

[Pugger]

PB, you keep repeating how Jones did nothing last year. He saved their ass early in the season. Without him there would have been no strong start. Without the 6-0 start last year they never would have made the playoffs due to their skid the second half of the season. You seem very reluctant to give credit where it's due.

True, but you can't ignore the fact Jones disappeared in the second half of last season. Defenses quickly figured out you don't have to double him so they doubled up elsewhere.

[pbmax]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...thy-ridiculous

Aaron Rodgers: Criticism of McCarthy ' ridiculous '.

I filed this under:

I've got your ass if your covering mine.

He was accused by Pro Football Talk of criticizing McCarthy publicly. They read his critical comments about the play of the team as implicating at McCarthy.

Florio's evidence was that McCarthy was with the 49ers when they did not draft him.

The comments were much easier to read as knocking the players (and his own) performance.

[Fritz]

Pete Daughter's article that the Packers simply lack playmakers is just true.

[King Friday]

If one position being short of above replacement level players is the mark of mismanagement, every football team would change their GM every third year.

Wrong.

Plenty of teams go through multiple injuries at RB during a season. Ours is the only one who turns to a WR as the #3 RB, because the cupboard is BARE, BARE, BARE. It is embarrassing. You don't need a quality starting RB in the #3 spot...but you DO need one who is at least capable of looking like an NFL talent.

[pbmax]

Wrong.

Plenty of teams go through multiple injuries at RB during a season. Ours is the only one who turns to a WR as the #3 RB, because the cupboard is BARE, BARE, BARE. It is embarrassing. You don't need a quality starting RB in the #3 spot...but you DO need one who is at least capable of looking like an NFL talent.

Don Jackson was that guy. I suspect, but have not confirmed, that his 1 game delay in getting promoted was injury related. As in, they had to decide who was going to stay on the roster versus IR before they were going to have a slot open without dropping someone they liked.

As Patler said, running a risk one week at one position is pretty common.

[Patler]

I still think Montgomery can take significant snaps at running back.

Some of the things said about him before the draft and in college.

"Built like a full-grown man. Body type resembles that of a running back with well-defined, muscular legs."

"Top athlete when healthy. Well-built with long arms, broad shoulders and a thick lower half."

"Powerful, thick build at 6-foot, 220 pounds."

"Some draft analysts have suggested Montgomery take up running back full time."

"Montgomery’s goal is to separate himself from that group, and he may be best suited to do it while used as a runner with a slight increase in carries. If he re-gains the weight he lost after the combine and returns to about 220 pounds, Montgomery would become a legitimate threat as an inside runner after already showing a willingness to take the abuse. Over four seasons at Stanford he totaled 344 rushing yards, averaging 8.6 per carry."

Dragging tacklers is nothing new for him, his father said. "He always had a work ethic. He was taught to move the pile. When he was a running back (in high school), it used to take four or five guys to bring him down."


"That's because, at 6-foot-2, with 215 pounds of mostly muscle, he's a running back in both stature and inclination."

"He's got the mentality that he's got to go forward like nobody can tackle him," Stanford receivers/quarterbacks coach Mike Sanford said. "When he touches the ball, that's what he's thinking."

"When other coaches visit a Cardinal practice, they can't believe how big and strong Montgomery is, Sanford said. "They see him on tape and see that he's fast and agile and can get in and out of breaks and can track the deep ball - basically the full skill set of a receiver. Then they see his lower half; it's pretty impressive. He can run through a lot of things."