Ding Dong McCarthy is gone

[pbmax]

Like maybe Murph treated MM like he has been treating TT and everyone else? Remember the story about Fat Mike getting some random groundkeeper fired because the guy asked him if they were going to win the superbowl this year?

I forgot about that.

[mraynrand]

Remember the story about Fat Mike getting some random groundkeeper fired because the guy asked him if they were going to win the superbowl this year?

I just fired my housekeeper for asking me this same question today.

[ThunderDan]

Aaron was beyond terrible his first pre-season and his first regular season. It took two years of MM before he became the ARod we know.

"Potential #1 pick" - you are who you are. He wasn't Andrew Luck. He was picked #24 because he was not a sure thing, had jacked up mechanics, etc.

What first year are you talking about? If you are talking 2005 he threw 15 passes in 3 mop up games. In 2006, he threw 15 passes in 2 games and 1 of the games he broke his foot and kept playing because BF had been knocked out of the game.

I am not sure how you can grade those 2 years on 30 passes or his 3rd year either.

His first "real" year he threw for over 4,000 yards.

[Fritz]

But we don't really know what was going on in that locker room when the reporters and cameras weren't around. If the atmosphere was getting toxic what good would it do to keep MM around for the last 4 games seeing we are out of playoff contention?

To me, the Arizona loss may end up being a long-term blessing in disguise. Had Crosby hit that FG, and had the Packers managed to get close enough for Crosby to hit another to win (let's not pretend they would've been able to score a TD), you'd have had to keep MM to see how it played out, especially since the teams ahead of you all lost. You can't ditch a coach when you have the possibility of going on a run, which McCarthy's teams have in the past. In my opinion, a win against Arizona just gives fans some hope, but it's false hope. This team is not good enough, for myriad reasons.

That loss made it feasible to fire McCarthy and get on with the search. And the way the NFL works, the Packers wanted to be in a position to have first pick at the crop of candidates - send out feelers, identify interested parties, come to an "understanding" so that as soon as that coach's team's season's over, he's yours. You're not competing with teams who wait until the end of the season to fire the coach. Sure, that process means you're breaking the NFL's tampering rules, but that happens all the time. It's like the Rooney Rule. People follow the letter but not the spirit.

As for that tweet PB posted about how coaches around the NFL are aghast at how "classless" the Packers' move was, and how that will reduce the number of assistants interested in the GB job, what a load of hooey. There are 32 NFL jobs, and the Green Bay job is one of the better ones. I don't think a single NFL assistant coach (or college coach, if that's what they want) is going to refuse consideration cuz he didn't like the way GB handled the McCarthy firing.

I don't think, like Ishmael does, that this was classless. I don't see anything terribly classy in letting MM twist in the wind with a QB who has disconnected, just so you can fire him one minute after the last game. Green Bay was efffectively eliminated with the Arizona loss; let the man go. He'll get another gig; he may well be more successful in the next few years than the Packers will be. Nonetheless, it was time to move on from McCarthy. He was an excellent coach for many years - my god, that 2016 run was incredible. That team had zero business being in the NFC Championship game, but Rodgers was phenomenal - and MM was part of that. But something happened, and Rodgers has disconnected from his coach. And MM will get an NFL gig again. He'll be fine, maybe even better off than he was in GB the last year or two.

On a side note, I want to disagree with one bit from a Dougherty or Silverstein article that argued the Packers might not be as successful as McCarthy will be with whatever new team hires him. The writer was talking about Green Bay's woes - one of which, he claimed, was that the new coach might want a makeover of the wide receiver position, because he wants a different kind of wide receiver. Yeah, right. No NFL head coach wants three young wide receivers who are tall and fast. "Hey, Gute, get me three or four quick smurfs for that wide receiving corps. Cut those second year guys who are tall and fast - I need the whole position done over."

Looking forward, I think that while firing McCarthy was necessary, and doing it mid-season was smart, I am not sanguine about the future. I am concerned that A-rod is wearing a larger hat size every week, and may not be coachable any more. it reminds me of the worst of the Sherman-Favre relationship, when it was clear Favre just didn't listen to Shermy much at all, and did what he wanted. Sherman knew where his bread was buttered, so what could he do? As a friend of mine said, is Aaron Rodgers turning into Jeff George? None of us know, but he seems to heading that way.

So you have to find a head coach with a big enough ego and personality to get Rodgers to listen and take to the coaching - whatever the new scheme is, as well as convincing him that mechanics do matter and you can't just throw off your back foot all the time. Yet the new coach has to be sure not to try to bulldoze Rodgers, or you'll lose the whole shebang - him and the rest of the team. Nobody wants a bully. Belichek is the only one who has pulled that off. It's not working for Matt Patricia in Detroit, I can tell you that.

The team needs a talent infusion as well. It's not as awful as some here think, but they do need to draft a talented tight end, a couple offensive linemen, a safety, and a couple outside linebackers. And you're not going to get all-pros at all those positions, especially not in one draft.

It's a difficult position for this organization. You have an all-world quarterback who's increasingly injury-prone and seemingly getting more arrogant all the time, some talent though not enough, and an empty head-coaching job in an organization in which the GM does not have the authority to hire or fire the person he's procuring the talent for. I don't know why Murphy doesn't change the structure back, now that MM is gone. I hope he's not keeping it to save face. Like KY, I don't like the structure. Reminds me too much of the old, old days when Harlan was the president but the GM's were parallel to the coaches and the coaches had lots of say over personnel (Bart Starr picking Rich Campbell over Joe Montana despite the pleas of his scouting department).

I fear it's becoming a dysfunctional organization. I hope I am wrong.

[Patler]

If McCarthy really did tell Murphy that he would quit if Ball was hired as GM, the in season firing may have been Murphy showing McCarthy that respect/loyalty is a two-way street.

[call_me_ishmael]

What first year are you talking about? If you are talking 2005 he threw 15 passes in 3 mop up games. In 2006, he threw 15 passes in 2 games and 1 of the games he broke his foot and kept playing because BF had been knocked out of the game.

I am not sure how you can grade those 2 years on 30 passes or his 3rd year either.

His first "real" year he threw for over 4,000 yards.

Exactly, he looked lost in the preseason and regular season until several years of MM tutelage.

[Fritz]

If McCarthy really did tell Murphy that he would quit if Ball was hired as GM, the in season firing may have been Murphy showing McCarthy that respect/loyalty is a two-way street.

I might have been tempted to hire Ball just for that reason, though that alone is not enough of course to justify hiring someone as your new GM.

So I wonder...was Gute actually Murphy's second choice?

[Carolina_Packer]

McCarthy gave a very kind statement to Glazer on Fox. Thanked the Packers for the chance, was proud of the winning tradition they helped sustain together.

Said it was obvious with one year remaining that anything could happen at the end of the year, but was surprised at the mid season termination.

PB, I've heard other people on social media and TV talk about a "mid-season" termination. I would argue that it's not mid-season. We're now into the 4th quarter to quote a popular way to look at splitting up the season.

I personally think it makes no difference when it was done, if they were going to do it anyway. If the team let him coach out the string just to keep up appearances and honor his body of work, that is not a good enough reason. It may seem like a shock now, but in time the way he left won't matter.

I heard one take that said it works for both sides. MM gets a head start finding his next gig, which I think he will, and the Packers can have a look at Philbin, as remotely as it seems he would be retained, what if the team really responds to him? It can't be completely discounted, although, again, it seems unlikely. This is also a bit of a reset on player expectations. I'm every player inherently gets that they are playing for their jobs, but in a situation like this, it's even more true. They can also talk to college coaching candidates and ex-NFL coaches now as part of their search, long before the soon to be "hot commodities" will be available to speak with.

The most interesting thing to me is will Rodgers, with Philbin calling plays now, be able to improve what has been lacking in the offense this season? Can you imagine if he looks like the AR we are used to seeing for the last 4 games? It would make me say, hmm, but I like a good conspiracy.

[Patler]

I might have been tempted to hire Ball just for that reason, though that alone is not enough of course to justify hiring someone as your new GM.

So I wonder...was Gute actually Murphy's second choice?

I doubt that Murphy gave in to McCarthy on the GM choice. If he wanted Ball over Gutekunst, he would have hired Ball.

McCarthy made a power play and it didn't work out for him in the long run. With the way things went this year, Murphy would have fired McCarthy anyway; but I doubt McCarthy's ultimatum, if it in fact was made won any points with Murphy. If McCarthy was not loyal to and respectful of the job Murphy had to do, why should he receive any favors from Murphy? McCarthy overplayed his place on the org chart and overestimated his perceived value to the organization.

[Rutnstrut]

There really isn't much to speculate on here. Stubby has shit the bed the last 4 or more years. The whole org was lulled into accepting the status quo. That shit isn't going to fly anymore. Will a new coach and shake up pay dividends right away? Who knows, but doing the same shit and just hoping something works sure as hell won't.

[Fritz]

I doubt that Murphy gave in to McCarthy on the GM choice. If he wanted Ball over Gutekunst, he would have hired Ball.

McCarthy made a power play and it didn't work out for him in the long run. With the way things went this year, Murphy would have fired McCarthy anyway; but I doubt McCarthy's ultimatum, if it in fact was made won any points with Murphy. If McCarthy was not loyal to and respectful of the job Murphy had to do, why should he receive any favors from Murphy? McCarthy overplayed his place on the org chart and overestimated his perceived value to the organization.

I agree. I was not thrilled with what looked like a power play last offseason, especially with the accompanying remarks about the team needing more talent (via free agency). It appeared, to me at least, that MM was trying to deflect blame.

Again, like KY, I don't like this new power-sharing structure at all. I'm afraid we're heading back to the wildnerness of the 70's and 80's, though of course I do not know that.

[pbmax]

He has had a string of poor strategic organizational decisions with two basic successes since the Super Bowl.

1. He hired the sports science people to help the health of the team. It's a well beaten drum that the Packers are always injured, but they were middle of the pack from the time those guys were hired after a string of terrible seasons in terms of health. I'd give him more credit, but Russ Ball actually oversees this stuff now and I don't know who initiated the change.

2. The no huddle. Introduced it one year, it fizzled and backed off. Came back the next year and it took off. For almost two years it was amazing but it eventually morphed into the extended offense which also petered out. He never regained his offenses' effectiveness after this. though, as Rand notes above, he had help here (Sitton and Lang barely replaced, signing TEs other than Cook).

Poor Decisions

1. Whoever changed the offseason protocol to solve hamstring problems and introduced the year of the shoulder injury. That person should have been fired mid-season.

2. Special Teams. This is a hard nut to crack as there are some very good coaches who always have bad special teams. But this roster was pretty talented in 09 through 2014 and the ST were always on the brink of putrid. Letting Mike Stock convince Ted to give Jon Ryan the boot for Derek Frost was an all time boner. But I tend to think that younger players hurt his cause here.

3. Defense. He pushed Capers to consider more personnel groups to matchup. Which is typical of an HC whose expertise on defense is limited to: "What gives me headaches to prepare for as a play caller?"* This worked in the early stages of all nickel all the time. But it started to backfire in 2011 and never was addressed. The NASCAR defense should have gotten someone fired midseason too.

4. Pushing your luck when you are in a dominant position. Packers were pretty good in 2014 (3rd in DVOA behind Denver and Seattle and ahead of NE) but that was the year of the trick play on special teams. Culminating in allowing a fake field goal TD in the NFCCG because you called a special set for a FG block. It was so obviously vulnerable that the Seahawks prepped a trick play for it. He thought they would need some help versus the Seahawks which we all did, but this idea needed to stay on the shelf in the second half with a lead.

5. Staying conservative when you need first downs. Spent WAY too many years thinking that the old Tony Dorsett rushing stats for the Cowboys (36-4 when Dorsett runs for 100 yards) was a viable approach inside 8 minutes left in a game with a lead. McCarthy was a one dimensional thinker who thought tempo and more cracks with the ball would lead to higher scoring without thinking about the cost to the Defense or the matter of efficiency. He thought that if successful teams ran late, then running MORE Late with a lead would lead to greater success.

6. Blaming personnel when your scheme is failing you. See all of 2017 and 18.

7. Keeping failing assistant coaches.

8. Not adding new ideas to your coaching staff.


* This is also how you get a wildcat offense.

[pbmax]

I just fired my housekeeper for asking me this same question today.

What does the refrigerator tech think about the Packers situation?

(Was it your refrigerator guy that was a source?)

[mraynrand]

Does anyone know if Murphy is overreacting to losing touch of Ted Thompson. Is it possible that he just let Ted pretty much run things only then to discover 'too late' that Ted was losing it? So now he's dedicated to being more involved? Just wondering, because I have no evidence this is the case, but I've seen stuff like this happen in other leadership scenarios. If the new involvement becomes too much, people start looking over their shoulders all the time, expecting to be countermanded. Being more 'in the loop' might hurt the org - (unless of course Gutey likes it and works well with it - that could happen too). Is Lori Nickel still around to get to the bottom of this?

[mraynrand]

What does the refrigerator tech think about the Packers situation?

(Was it your refrigerator guy that was a source?)

The refrigerator delivery guy was DuJuan Harris' high school teammate and personal trainer.

Interestingly, the refrigerator was stocked by Justin Perillo's dietician. I still look back fondly on all that great beer, cheese, and pasta dishes.