ESPN Coaches Poll-Packer's McCarthy 3rd Highest Vote Getter

[LaFours]

The focus of this thread is regarding the national media's obsession with commenting on/bashing the Packers. Don't get me wrong, at this point we deserve it based upon our lackluster performances in Weeks 1 & 2 but there is more to the negative media slant currently affecting the Packers than meets the eye.

The Packers are still a very popular team....thus they are still a very important part of the sports viewing market and must be accomodated as such.

As I looked at ESPN's Week 2 Coaches Poll I noticed that McCarthy was the third highest vote getter. The top two were Minnesota's Brad Childress and Chicago's Lovie Smith (which made the top three from the NFC North...which I also found interesting) and they were rated 1 and 2 respectively. McCarthy, the 3rd highest vote getter as of the time I looked, was 30th. Obviously we as Packer fans pay attention to the sport and our team regardless of their performance. ESPN and other national media outlets know this and in order to keep us coming back for more, they have to at least address the Packers in some way shape or form. Unfortunatley, we suck right now. In addition, there is not much around the corner to suggest that we will bounce back this year and consequently, media darlings are not predicting sunshine in our forecast.

It is what it is and there is not much we can do to change what is being said about our team. What it does do is begin the line of questioning as to why we have fallen on hard times. Many perspectives exist on this:

Sherman sucked at drafting...
TT is incompetent...
MM is in over his head...

...and so on.

But the real key is in what we as fans believe, not what media prognosticators have to say. Do we really beleive that after a season and a half TT is incapable of fielding a competitive team? Do we believe that MM cannot be successful as a HC at this level? And if the answers to these questions are yes, then why is that? Is there something to substantiate our belief that TT and MM are wasting our time or has the media subliminally entered our thought process with their "The Packers can't this" and "The Packers can't that" mediaspeak? It is my contention that we are all being affected by what the media is saying and that the media's disposition on our team is a byproduct of our unwavering interest in both our team and the NFL as a whole. The overwhelming amount of media-based negativity surrounding the Packers exists because of their popularity. We cannot let these media bobbleheads impact our ability to let things run their course as well. Give 'em some time. TT's gonna be ok if given the proper chance. MM's gonna be fine if we give him a fair shake.

I know their are more questions on this team than answers right now. Give the regime time, they'll get it sorted out. In all probability though, it won't happen this year. The sooner we accept that the better we'll sleep on Sunday nights.

[swede]

Interesting Mr. LaFours.

I suppose much of my present disappointment comes from the fact that Brett is still here. I want Brett to do well now. I'd like to see him end his career with the touchdown and yards passing records. It's going to take a pretty good season to get him close. I was hoping for better right now for his sake mostly

Were ARod at the helm and we were going through growing pains I'd be more patient, more upbeat and more willing to take the long view gracefully.

The football product has some real warts on it, and I am wavering on my support for TT ( + 80% ) and not sold on MM and his staff ( + 50% ).

HOWEVER...

If I were as close to the situation as Bob Harlan and John Jones are I MIGHT be feeling very good about the TT and MM duo. Because, despite the losses and the prospect of many more losses in the short term, I'd be able to see how those two are thinking, how they're planning, and how they're reacting to every football day. Were I privy to that I might be very impressed and feel to my core that these are the right two guys to lead our team. Character and quality are elusive traits to identify from a distance, but pretty easy ones to spot in a close working relationship.

How much rope will John jones give TT once he becomes boss? Not much if John Jones has already seen enough. A lot if he likes TT and thinks he's on the right track.

[Noodle]

You are of course exactly right that TT and MM need more time before you can make an educated judgment, beyond "their records suck, ergo they suck."

On TT, my concern is he's not willing to lay down serious coin to get a serious baller. This guy is strictly a Half-Price Store shopper -- look at the Koren Robinson deal. He loves to find bargains, like Manuel, but bargains are often bargains because they ain't all that. I like a bargain as much as the next guy, but sometimes you have to pay a little for talent. Even the famously stingy Pats brought in Dillon. His draft strategy may work out, but I thought I saw that a farily high number of his picks last year are not in the league this year, so his drafting abilities are going to have to get a little better.

I'm way more reserved about MM. TT hired a guy who had never been an HC before, and had a minimal track record as an OC. It's not MM's fault that he's having to do a lot of on the job training. So I'm making no judgments at all until the end of this season, and likely the next as well.

[MJZiggy]

How much rope will John jones give TT once he becomes boss? Not much if John Jones has already seen enough. A lot if he likes TT and thinks he's on the right track.

John Jones was in on TT's hiring from the start and it was made sure that the two would have a good working relationship before TT was brought on board. I'm sure he's well-versed in TT's philosophy and what he's trying to accomplish.

[Packnut]

Coaching Staff

Does anyone else but me find this re-occuring theme in this forum about how MM and his staff need time to learn very disturbing? Since when did we start a coaching policy of "on the job training"?


Should'nt these guys know what they are doing BEFORE they are hired? Ah, I gues I just expect to much...............

[Noodle]

Packnut, I agree, I think TT shouldn't have gone with an all-rookie staff rookie HC, rookie OC, rookie DC). But all I'm saying is I'm not going to blame a rook for being a rook.

[superfan]

You are of course exactly right that TT and MM need more time before you can make an educated judgment, beyond "their records suck, ergo they suck."

On TT, my concern is he's not willing to lay down serious coin to get a serious baller. This guy is strictly a Half-Price Store shopper -- look at the Koren Robinson deal. He loves to find bargains, like Manuel, but bargains are often bargains because they ain't all that. I like a bargain as much as the next guy, but sometimes you have to pay a little for talent. Even the famously stingy Pats brought in Dillon. His draft strategy may work out, but I thought I saw that a farily high number of his picks last year are not in the league this year, so his drafting abilities are going to have to get a little better.

I'm way more reserved about MM. TT hired a guy who had never been an HC before, and had a minimal track record as an OC. It's not MM's fault that he's having to do a lot of on the job training. So I'm making no judgments at all until the end of this season, and likely the next as well.

Noodle, I'm 90% in agreement with you, and I agree with most of the other posters that I'm pretty disappointed in the lackluster approach to FA during this offseason. For the first time in what seems like ages, we had money to spend, and I don't think we got the most we could for that money. Especially considering that we were in pretty much the same "boat" (Ha!) as the team on the other side of the border, and they seemed to do a good job with their spending.

But at the same time I'm mostly in favor of TT's spending philosophies. Think of the names we've gone after in the recent past. Joe Johnson = huge bust. His salary and complete lack of production hurt the team for years. Hardy Nickerson -- I don't think we spent a lot on him, but man was he bad at the end of his career. The jury remains out on Woodson, who was TT's big prize this offseason. So far that doesn't look like a sound investment. And I think TT made at least a decent effort to sign Arrington. Terry Glenn, Wesley Walls -- big names who weren't terrible, but didn't contibute a whole lot either. Many of these guys were signed under Sherman's watch and were signed because of his "win now" philosophy, which has put the team in its present situation.

To me the biggest rip on Thompson is what we did following the latest round of cuts. Of course the players we got have a shot at proving us wrong, but I thought there were a number of other veteran players that should have been pursued and weren't. Chris Liwienski is one example -- the guy will never be all-world, but now he's starting in AZ, and I have to believe he is better than some of the linemen on our roster.

Last year we targeted established veterans to fill holes (Klemm, O'Dwyer, Little, Freeman) and that didn't work out. This year, we seem to be targeting younger guys, and many of us fans are wondering why we aren't going after veterans. Ugh! The GM can't win.

[Noodle]

Superfan, I think you're right about not spending stupid money for yesterday's heroes, like the Skins like to do. You're also right that part of the art of being a GM is picking smart off of waiver wires, camp cut-downs, practice squad guys, and the odd trade or two.

I know this -- without dropping the coin to get Reggie White, we wouldn't have been the team we were in the mid-late 90s. And it wasn't just Reggie -- Keith Jackson, Desmond Howard, Andre Rison, Don Beebe, Frank Winters, dang near the whole D-Line (Sean Jones & Sanatan Dotson in addition to Reggie), Mike Prior, Eugene Robinson, Ron Cox. Oh, and a guy named Brett Favre. Not one of those guys was drafted by GB. So this idea that you can win only through the draft doesn't really work for me.

[cpk1994]

Yes, but Wolf went for those players AFTER he built most of the team through the draft. Guys like William Henderson, Antonio Freeman, Robert Brooks, Dorsey Leavens, Edgar Bennett, Brian Williams, Wayne Simmons, Craig Newsome and Doug Evans. The Pack built a lot of the Super Bowl team throught the draft. Just remember, the Vikings spent $20 Million on thier defense last year and where did it get them? Home watching the playoffs on TV and a team defense ranking as bad as the playoff team the year before that. The shows that Free Agency isn't all that either.

[MJZiggy]

You guys tout the Reggie White-type signing as what we need, but free agency has changed since then and Reggie Whites no longer become available. Teams have learned how to hold onto these players. Do you honestly think that if Reggie were a free agent last year that the Eagles wouldn't have franchised him and then locked him up with a monster long-term deal? You can't look at Brett Favre either because the reason we traded for him is that they had no idea what they had with him in Atlanta. Would the Packers have traded him in '95 when he became a known quantity? Of course not, but the trade that Ron Wolf made was for an unproven quarterback that everyone else saw as a high-risk kid who partied too much and was hard to control. He did not trade for a proven vet. TT just made a number of trades. How do we know that Morency won't turn out to be a stud and before you answer that he hasn't show anything to the Texans, think about what Favre showed to the Falcons when we got him.