McCarthy's Fate

[texaspackerbacker]

Like you said, they had a "top-rated" O line that year - healthy Sitton, Lang, and Bulaga, etc. as well as Eddie Lacy at his best. I've got nothing against a running game or even a total immersion running game. It's what I campaign for a lot for the Badgers. But if you don't have a decent O Line and you do have an all world QB, then the sensible thing to do is pass pass pass - assuming that QB is adept at scrambling.

Rodgers had an off year in 2015. I checked to see what might have been the cause. There were injuries to the O Line as well as Lacy in '15, not to mention Jordy Nelson missing the season.

[mraynrand]

Like you said, they had a "top-rated" O line that year - healthy Sitton, Lang, and Bulaga, etc. as well as Eddie Lacy at his best. I've got nothing against a running game or even a total immersion running game. It's what I campaign for a lot for the Badgers. But if you don't have a decent O Line and you do have an all world QB, then the sensible thing to do is pass pass pass - assuming that QB is adept at scrambling.

Rodgers had an off year in 2015. I checked to see what might have been the cause. There were injuries to the O Line as well as Lacy in '15, not to mention Jordy Nelson missing the season.

Congrats on looking something up. I didn't think you had it in you. The point remains - a balanced offense just works better. Just look at the Rams

[Rutnstrut]

Tell me you're not saying you'd rather Rodgers threw MORE interceptions/took a lot of chances like a lot of other QBs. The scrambling and holding on to the ball is the carefulness that leads to his fantastic record of lack of interceptions. I, for one, want that to continue.

That's not what I meant, but. Sometimes I think AR plays it too safe. What I meant above is if the front office and coaching staff doesn't start doing things differently. It will be another 30 years or so before this team even sniffs another SB.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm still not ruling out this year hahahaha.

[Rutnstrut]

Someone should tell Belichick that running the ball and the short passing game doesn't work when you have a great QB. Maybe he could start winning then.

[3irty1]

The last best year of the Packer O was 2014, when they were #1 overall; 8th in passing and 11th in rushing.

I think the statistical success of the 2014 offense is a deception that fooled almost everybody. This was the year where the offense sprung visible leaks and started getting reliably stuffed by good defenses. In that year they started their first 3 games losing at Seattle, making a 2nd half comeback against the Jets, and losing at Detroit in one of the worst offensive performances of the MM/Rodgers era. All good defenses. Just to prove this was not merely a slow start, the offense later fell apart against the next best defense they saw all year in Buffalo. Then of course there was the NFCC where the offense turned the ball over and settled for field goals while the defense dominated most of the game.

I've come to view 2014 as the year where MM's game plans shifted from being reliably competitive ones that kept the Packers in every game to plans that only made hay while the sun shined.

[mraynrand]

I think the statistical success of the 2014 offense is a deception that fooled almost everybody.

The simplest explanation is that the passing attack was just running out of steam, due to loss of receiving talent. in 2014, they made it work well against the weaker defenses but got exposed by the good ones. In 2015, they got exposed by all - and lost the running game to boot.

[3irty1]

The simplest explanation is that the passing attack was just running out of steam, due to loss of receiving talent. in 2014, they made it work well against the weaker defenses but got exposed by the good ones. In 2015, they got exposed by all - and lost the running game to boot.

I buy that. This was post-Jennings, post-fast-Jordy, and post-Finley. In other words it was post-mismatch.

[mraynrand]

I buy that. This was post-Jennings, post-fast-Jordy, and post-Finley. In other words it was post-mismatch.

They may actually have a chance to reboot that offense this year - Adams, Cobb, Graham, MVS, EQ, Allison, Monty. Flood the field and try and let the defense stop 'em all. But the younguns have to be reliable and line has to be healthy...

[Fritz]

McCarthy's fate huh?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the fault - to the extent that there even is a fault - lies with the previous GM and the delinquent job he has done procuring quality personnel to go along with Aaron Rodgers. McCarthy may not be flashy, but he is doing reasonably well with the personnel he has.

As for whether or not there is a "problem", fans of about 28-30 of the 32 NFL teams would trade the record and situation of their preferred teams for that of the Packers. Sure, things could have been, probably should have been maximized, but face it, we've gotten spoiled.

McCarthy ain't going anyplace until he gets ready to go. The leadership of the team doesn't want him to go, and the large sensible portion of fans don't want him to go either.

I agree that we Packer fans have been spoiled. I see this up close, living near Detroit. I also have begun to think that Thompson lost some of his luster these last three or so years. On the other hand, he drafted Micah Hyde, who turns out to have been better suited to safety - and he drafted Damarius Randall, who apparently is also better suited to safety. Both of them are starting NFL safeties now, playing better than Brice, for sure. And funny, we could use a safety right about now. So is that a coaching problem? The talent is there, but the coaching staff apparently did not see how to best utilize that talent. TT drafted poorly in my opinion the last few years - Rollins, M. Adams, J. Spriggs and J. Jones were important busts - and could not make up for it with the A. Joneses and the K. Clarks of the world. He just didn't hit on enough. Yet he did hit on some that the coaching staff failed to utilize. And there was Hayward, too, who was well-suited to a different system - is that on the GM or the coaches? Hayward is obviously talented enough to play and start in the NFL.

So I wouldn't place all the blame at Ted's feet, unless you think he, as GM, should have ditched MM a couple years ago, for not utilizing the talent he was given.

I dunno. It's tough to assign responsibility when it's all so intermeshed. Suffice to say that being a fan of a sports team is unlike enjoying other entertainment - how often do movie buffs spend arguing more about the director vs. the producer vs. the actor's responsibility for the product than they do actually enjoying the movie?

[pbmax]

^ The mismatch between the talent and its use on defense was the biggest problem for late era Capers. He needed talent and managed to squander it away in his scheme. Hayward wasn't all his fault given injuries, but even when he was healthy they just wanted him as a slot guy.

Thompson had some down drafts, that was also a factor. Also very few game changers in this decade (Bach, Adams) and drafting late did not help.

But the first problem is the one good teams solve. Its an organizational issue. Someone has to square the circle between talent acquisition and its use on the field. You aren't this bad at talent acquisition after being very good without an active failure. Thompson and Murphy could have been the Steelers and fiddled around with the coach and his D coordinator to get the lineup they wanted, but they don't like to operate that way.

So it should fall to McCarthy, but he showed how he felt about this issue when he weighed in on the GM hiring process. He wanted FA and not simply draft and develop. His current usage of Aaron Jones is the prime example of the failure to take advantage of what you have so the process can survive.

[pbmax]

I buy that. This was post-Jennings, post-fast-Jordy, and post-Finley. In other words it was post-mismatch.

The problems were evident before 2015 though as you said.

Stop me if you have seen this before: game script is normally effective. Defense adjusts, then the offense sputters and its an open question if they get a new functional plan at halftime. Prior to the last two years the offense would grind its gears for the entire rest of the game. Packers and Rodgers had a well deserved reputation for not pulling games out late (not all AR's fault, but still, it did not happen often). But I think Rodgers role in the late game offense has grown past that of a vet. I suspect he is calling his own offense late when behind.

I was going to post in another thread that the Packers offense has become Dan Reeves/John Elway with Denver. The plan is horrific and nothing good happens until the plan gets chucked out the window and the QB asserts himself. This is why Elway was king of the comebacks for quite a while. And this is exactly whats happening now. What used to be an effective first 15-20 plays is just as likely to be a dud and you have a hugely slow start with a underperforming D.

McCarthy was a far better OC than late era Reeves until the last few years. Moving away from personnel groupings (his one area of true inspiration) and 1.5 years of no huddle lunacy, we are back to a tired offense that can't do much other than throw short or ask the QB to run around, avoid getting hit and find someone late and deep.

[mraynrand]

^ The mismatch between the talent and its use on defense was the biggest problem for late era Capers. He needed talent and managed to squander it away in his scheme. Hayward wasn't all his fault given injuries, but even when he was healthy they just wanted him as a slot guy.

Thompson had some down drafts, that was also a factor. Also very few game changers in this decade (Bach, Adams) and drafting late did not help.

But the first problem is the one good teams solve. Its an organizational issue. Someone has to square the circle between talent acquisition and its use on the field. You aren't this bad at talent acquisition after being very good without an active failure. Thompson and Murphy could have been the Steelers and fiddled around with the coach and his D coordinator to get the lineup they wanted, but they don't like to operate that way.

So it should fall to McCarthy, but he showed how he felt about this issue when he weighed in on the GM hiring process. He wanted FA and not simply draft and develop. His current usage of Aaron Jones is the prime example of the failure to take advantage of what you have so the process can survive.

I mostly agree, especially about the tweaking of coaches aspect. But with respect to Jones, if what we hear and somewhat see is true, there actually is a problem of having him reliably in there (catching, pass pro). But they had a whole off-season. Is lack of progress his fault, their fault, or just a real limitation he has that can't be solved? The third possibility applies to Randall's immaturity, Hayward's injuries, Hyde's speed limitations and cost, and choices they made that just didn't work out (investing in Shields as their shut down corner). It's just not possible to distill all this down to easy finger-pointing at one person.

[pbmax]

I mostly agree, especially about the tweaking of coaches aspect. But with respect to Jones, if what we hear and somewhat see is true, there actually is a problem of having him reliably in there (catching, pass pro). But they had a whole off-season. Is lack of progress his fault, their fault, or just a real limitation he has that can't be solved? The third possibility applies to Randall's immaturity, Hayward's injuries, Hyde's speed limitations and cost, and choices they made that just didn't work out (investing in Shields as their shut down corner). It's just not possible to distill all this down to easy finger-pointing at one person.

Its a fair point that no one explanation covers it all. lack of talent and the lack of flexibility it gives you does this to bad and mediocre teams.

Its a little different in each case. Jones comes down to perception of reliability. His blocking this year has been better but they are not asking him to catch the ball much yet; I just don't think they are convinced he's ready for the Monty/Williams part of the offense even if he might be. And I doubt they wanted to modify the offense for him and have to use a temporary one for two weeks. But the time has come for him. And if there are things he can't do, you find something else. The offense needs talent on the field, not plodding execution.

Hyde could flat out play and several people on the board saw him as a safety. I think they got locked into starters and missed the boat here. Burnett's contract did not help.

Hayward was injuries and then they asked him to play press coverage when he was better at off coverage. Which they had accommodated before with Tramontana.

Shields case hampered them in several respects, can't be anticipated.

Randall is a good question, goes to Sitton a little bit too. How much attitude and clubhouse lawyering are you willing to tolerate? M3 is usually good at avoiding this but I sense his hook has gotten quicker. And I think he definitely asked his new GM to move the guy to alleviate the PR problem of the week. But Randall out of position falls into the Hyde issue. If he has better success elsewhere, is he as animated?

[Rutnstrut]

To pb's point of AR calling his own plays when it gets late in games and they are behind. There were a few times last season when it appeared that he was telling stubby what would be the best play to send in to Hundley. If I remember correctly, one or more of those were OT against the Browns.