Mike McCarthy's record in "close" games

Good Analysis

Many of those losses came by poor clock management, others due to poor execution. When your kicker shanks the game winning field goal or at least to tie it, is it McCarthy’s fault? You also have to wonder if he had the right personel on the field to execute the plays in the 4th Quarter. Clearly 2008 and 2010 were where all his losses came in and ironically, years in which his roster was completely devastated by injuries. With a healthy team for the most part though, he stands with a record of 17-12 (and that includes his first and rebuilding year in 2006).

So to summarize what McCarthy brings record wise, he’s:
17-12 in close games with a fairly healthy roster
5-14 when half of his team is out with injuries

I don’t think there are many coaches out there that can win when you are constantly signing new players that don’t know the system.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 20, 2010 9:45 PM CST reply actions

And to extend this to Rodgers...

I wonder how many wins and losses came on his drives. I remember a lot of losses happening while our defense is on the field. Those were painful, because either we drove to tie or take the lead only to just give it back.

by Bush League All Star on Dec 20, 2010 11:32 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Love the guy but I don’t think Rodgers has ever led a game winning drive while behind at the start of the fourth quarter.

by turnitin.com on Dec 21, 2010 1:23 AM CST up reply actions

He's in his 3rd year as a starter

I’ll give him another 7 years to pile ’em up.

'TAAAAAAANNNK!!!' - Any of Francis, Louis, Bill, or Zoey

by mike_o on Dec 21, 2010 5:59 AM CST up reply actions

THere were a bunch in "08, except the D gave them all away!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 7:01 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs

If you guys are interested

I initially wrote this post with all the scores and times of scores in the fourth quarter to give an idea of how the fourth quarter went. I left it out because it was really long as it was, and the formatting of fan posts is not kind to lots of new paragraphs. I could try to make a Google doc and link it if you guys are interested in that.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 7:06 AM CST up reply actions

He's led several drives late in the 4th quarter that put his team into a tie...

… or gave them the lead. The defense has then failed to hold those leads. Rodgers can get better at that part of the game, but unless he’s playing defense, pinning that rap on him is really misleading.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 8:21 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs

Exactly

Look at the Atlanta game this year as the epitome of this phenomenon.

Or you could check out pretty much all of the second half of 2008 (although I wouldn’t recommend it…)

I think Head Coaches and Quarterbacks get too much credit/blame for their teams performance in close games. More often than not, it’s a defensive stand and/or takeaway that seals a close win, not the QB leading the team to a last second win.

I’d like to see how many of those come-from-behind-wins-after-trailing-going-into-the-4th-quarter compiled by guys like Favre were only sealed when that guy wasn’t even on the field. In contrast, how many times have we had to endure camera shots of an exasperated Rodgers as helplessly watches his defense gave up another late lead or tie that he played his guts out to achieve? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to take anything away from great qbs like Favre and Co. who have a knack for winning those close games, but I do think it’s important to actually look at the issue from a team-wide perspective rather than just the success or failure of one player or coach.

Another issue with these close-game losses is the Packers horrifically bad Special Teams over the last few years. How many times have we seen this team take a late lead (and the momentum) only to give it right back by failing to cover the subsequent kickoff? Or, on the other hand, how many potential game-winning kicks has Crosby missed? Regardless, this issue has to fall significantly upon McCarthy’s head. He is the person who continues to employ Shawn Slocum despite his demonstrable inability to get his ST unit to even reach mediocrity. Dispatching Slocum is long overdue and that’s entirely the responsibility of McCarthy.

by 400metres on Dec 21, 2010 11:39 AM CST up reply actions

Part of winning close games

Is winning with so little time left on the clock that the oppossing quarterback doesn’t have a chance to come back.

But yeah, I pretty much agree. Defensive stands or picks or ST stops usually have just as much to do with a late game win as the offensive drive.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 21, 2010 1:37 PM CST up reply actions

Scoring too early

Part of winning close games Is winning with so little time left on the clock that the oppossing quarterback doesn’t have a chance to come back.

To me, that says that if a quarterback, with his team down by 3 or 4 with 1:50 remaining, has a receiver wide open in the end zone, he should just throw the ball away so the team can run more time off the clock.

Sometimes, you just have to take the score when you can get it, and then your defense needs to do its damn job.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 22, 2010 8:54 PM CST up reply actions

I agree, but its not like we passed up any immediate scoring chances.

The final minute could have been used better, but the sack allowed really screwed up what might have been a late TD drive.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 11:19 PM CST up reply actions

Right, but

this being a review of all the close games in McCarthy’s time in Green Bay, I was referring more to the times (especially in 2008) when we did score in such a situation, and the defense folded like a cheap suit.
Just saying that you cannot pass up such an opportunity to score just because there is enough time left on the clock for the other team to get it back, when there is no guarantee that you will still get the needed score after doing so.
That is what my point was.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 23, 2010 1:44 AM CST up reply actions

I agree! You have to take the points when you can get them for sure. At some point you have to be able to count on your DEFENSE to make a clutch stop as much as you have to count on your offense to make a clutch score. We don’t hear much about this, but our D isn’t very clutch in those end of game situations…

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:28 AM CST up reply actions

Yes

If there’s an obvious scoring oppertunity, you take it. I consider that a given, you never leave points on the field. In a game plan though, there are drills used to drive down the field quickly to score and there’s drills used to drive down the field so you can score with 30 seconds left on the clock.

We always seem to be pushing the field when it may be better to let time run off the clock…. You know what, I’m in a no win argument here. Yes, scoring is good and not scoring is bad and yes you have to be able to rely on your defense, I just think that our offense is good enough to score at will and maybe we shouldn’t be handicapping our defense by giving opposing quarterbacks enough time to mount a comeback.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 23, 2010 10:18 AM CST up reply actions

I just think that our offense is good enough to score at will and maybe we shouldn’t be handicapping our defense by giving opposing quarterbacks enough time to mount a comeback.

I don’t think this point of view is wrong, I just think it’s a lot harder in practice than in theory.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 23, 2010 10:36 AM CST up reply actions

Just sayin...

But we were in perfect position for just such a situation until the Bulaga sack! Would have had just less than a minute to play and a timeout. And I believe we were in the RZ at the time! So leaving 30 sec and scoring was easily w/in reach… Until the sack!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 12:47 PM CST up reply actions

We actually weren't in the red zone, close, but not in

1-10-NE 24 (1:05) (Shotgun) 10-M.Flynn sacked at NE 32 for -8 yards (52-D.Fletcher).

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 23, 2010 12:48 PM CST up reply actions

he has

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 21, 2010 5:03 PM CST up reply actions

In both Bears games in 2009

In the first one he had a 50 yard TD to Jennings with just over a minute left.

In the 2nd one the were trailing by 1 going into the 4th. Packers got an INT that was returned to the Bears 11 and the Packers scored the winning TD. Yes it was a running TD and it was only 2 plays, but it still counts.

by Zundar on Dec 21, 2010 9:40 PM CST up reply actions

+1

by bigbill992001 on Dec 22, 2010 7:05 AM CST up reply actions

meant the +1 for bush league

also, if my math is correct, the D gave up 10 or more 4th qtr. points 21 times in the 48 games posted here. Which goes a long way to substantiating what I and some others believe………..that the D takes a lot of blame in not holding leads and especially in OT games they can’t get a stop.

by bigbill992001 on Dec 22, 2010 7:14 AM CST up reply actions

what I want to know is how many of these losses come against the bears on a blocked fg

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 21, 2010 12:47 AM CST up reply actions

How about that time when we punted from the Texan’s 38 yard line for like 15 yards of field position. Classic.

by turnitin.com on Dec 21, 2010 1:27 AM CST up reply actions

your username gives me flashbacks

and that was a horrible punt

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 21, 2010 2:02 AM CST up reply actions

Or a loss to the Vikings

By 1 point after giving up back to back safeties and on a missed 52 yard FG?

by pharom on Dec 21, 2010 11:56 AM CST up reply actions

You want another one?

Panthers 2008. Tie game…we drive to their one yd line with 2 mins remaining and fail to score 7 (sound familiar? yes MM was coaching then too). So we settle for three. Next thing you know, Delhomme (yes, him!) bombs a 50 something yarder to S Smith at OUR one yd line and of course they score 7 and Merry Christmas.

by Rodgers_for_MVP on Dec 21, 2010 2:29 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks for putting this together!

I’d take he’s a good coach, has potential to be a great coach, but also if Crosby kicks better (even just average) he has at least a few more wins in close games. McCarthy isn’t a guy who can develop the whole team like, he’s really more a glorified QB coach (valuable skill) which is probably why TT hired him over Sean Payton, and also why we almost beat the Pats with Matt Flynn. This team rarely loses ugly but there are too many basic mental errors made that lose these close ones, our receivers drop a lot of balls (WR coach) and ST’s is awful (Slocum) McCarthy is a valuable coach and subordinates should be tweaked (fired).

by ericforeman04 on Dec 20, 2010 9:47 PM CST reply actions

I have to ask

I’d take he’s a good coach, has potential to be a great coach

After 5 years, several with reasonably good teams, this hasn’t happened. At what point are you expecting this maturation process to occur?

by Danwood on Dec 21, 2010 7:53 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Fair question.

I think he declines to admit mistakes too much for him to learn the lessons necessary to become a great coach. He’s a Coughlin type in that way, though certainly not in style his team plays. Coughlin, given a decade of head coaching experience, began to accept the possibility that he might not be doing everything right. That combined with some special leadership provided by a couple of veteran players allowed the Giants to put themselves in a position to win a title. Coughlin’s still not a great coach, but he’s largely stopped getting in his own way the way he used to, which allows him to develop his teams to their full capabilities most years.

That’s about all the hope I have left for McCarthy. In most cases he wouldn’t be here long enough to see if the slow erosion of close game losses and playoff defeats and special teams debacles would finally get past his utter conviction that he’s right about almost everything. But his situation here is developing much like Coughlin’s did in NY: every time the pressure starts to build on him, his team performs spectacularly for a few weeks or half a season. Then when disaster strikes (against the Giants, or the Cardinals), there’s a tendency to rationalize what went wrong because of the positives that happened before.

And it’s happening again this year. The injuries have been rough this year, no doubt. And the wins over the Jets and the Vikings were special. Heck, even the loss last Sunday night was impressive. McCarthy was clearly proud of how his team played (and what message that sends, I’m trying not to consider). The disaster losses to the Lions and the Bucs last year seem to get overlooked in the end. If the Packers miss the playoffs, his apologists will point to the injuries. If the Packers make the playoffs, his apologists will hail it as a triumph and point to the injuries. I’ll even sort of agree with the latter. Sort of. But the former is just wrong. This team, in spite of the injuries, had a chance to be special this year. They didn’t get it done and McCarthy’s the reason.

But in the end it’s what Thompson thinks that matters. This is just a guess, of course, but when you look at the way Thompson runs his roster, it’s easy to conclude that he’s going to keep McCarthy around for a long time even if he thinks McCarthy’s limitations occasionally hold the team back. Thompson’s patient as Job. When he sees a young player screw up, he waits. When they screw up again, he waits. When they screw again and get benched, he waits. He gives up on the guys he chooses very rarely and very reluctantly, until they have so little left or until another guy he’s picked himself needs the spot to develop. With McCarthy, there’s no backup head coach that Thompson fell in love with after hours of scouting. There’s no guy behind him that Thompson wants to see develop.

Thompson picked a relatively young, relatively unproven guy in McCarthy. He’s probably noted McCarthy’s flaws. But as long as McCarthy shows promise and the possibility to develop, Thompson will do what he always does: He’ll wait and watch. That makes McCarthy one of the most secure head coaches in the game, I suspect. And as long has he mixes in streaks like the one last year, or 2007, he’ll get to coach as long as Thompson thinks there’s a chance that he’ll keep getting better.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 8:42 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs

You suspect alot...

Too bad you don’t have any real evidence to support your suspicions! One might conclude your just a suspicious person!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 10:48 AM CST up reply actions

Like you bothered to read it.

Either way, if you don’t suspect any of these things, one my just conclude you’re a yes man who refuses to criticize whomever’s in charge at any given moment. I know being exposed to other people’s ideas makes you uncomfortable, much like McCarthy, now that i think of it.

Oh, and !

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 11:06 AM CST up reply actions

I did read it... All of it!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 11:15 AM CST up reply actions

And don't feel the need to respond to the rest of the garbage!

No reason to stoop to your level and get trashy!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 11:16 AM CST up reply actions

You're right

You totally took the high road calling him a “suspicious person.” If you have a problem with his position, why don’t you offer some counterpoints rather than responding to a well thought out 5 paragraph post with essentially “Well, you’re wrong”?

And no, just saying he has “no evidence” is not a counterpoint.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 11:58 AM CST up reply actions

You casually dismissed a well thought out meta-analysis of the last half-decade of Packer management

with an inexplicable demand that the author “show his work” (despite the fact that he offered plenty of evidentiary support for his point of view), followed by a pointless accusation of paranoia (lol, wut?), and, of course (this is Strohman after all), a bunch of unnecessary punctuation marks (which only exacerbate the “crazy homeless guys shouting at pigeons” quality of your rants).

But in the end, you conclude it is TSSC who’s “trashy”?

Hmmmm. Projection much, Stroh?

by 400metres on Dec 21, 2010 11:59 AM CST up reply actions

Wow GGG

it’s like we’re two outfielders who ran into each other going for the same ball.

At least in this case, we still made the catch, ;~)

by 400metres on Dec 21, 2010 12:04 PM CST up reply actions

And getting the out is the important thing after all :-)

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 12:06 PM CST up reply actions

thought out meta-analysis

LMFAO… That was a joke right?!!! LOL He is a brilliant complainer, I’ll grant him that much! Anything beyond that is, shall we say, open for debate!

BTW – I didn’t call him suspicious… I suggested that some MIGHT think he was suspicious! There is a difference! But don’t let that stop you!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 1:13 PM CST up reply actions

And don't let us stop you from ignoring the post

You keep doing what you do best.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 1:24 PM CST up reply actions

Which includes making statements that clearly state your opinion

while talking out of the other side of your mouth saying “Oh no, I qualified it first. I can’t help it that you took it that way”

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 1:31 PM CST up reply actions

I didn't ignore the post!

I just get a headache from pounding my head against a wall sometimes!!! Forgive me for not feeling like a headache! LOL

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 1:34 PM CST up reply actions

Headaches

I’m pretty sure you give more than you get

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 21, 2010 1:39 PM CST up reply actions

Oh trust me, you feel like a headache

You’ve ignored every post since TSSC’s. Just because you read a post and commented doesn’t mean you didn’t ignore it.

You ignored any possible validity to TSSC’s original post.
You ignored requests for counterpoints.
You ignored that TSSC gave reasons for his view point.

Your idea of winning an argument appears to be whichever persons types one of the following first: “LOL” “LMAO” “LMFAO” or “!!!!!”.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

No

Those dont’ win arguments! Its an attempt by me to keep the mood lite or emphasize MY opinion! But believe what you want, either way I’m done w/ this ridiculous tangent!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions

Well, it’d probably help if you actually responded to what he said. It seems any time someone criticizes McCarthy (are you guys brothers or something?), you simply just make some statement about how stupid the thought is, and then an LOL/LMAO/LMFAO followed by 5+ exclamation point, and to you, that means you’ve won or somehow proven that your thought is right. Even though, many times you don’t even really share your thoughts. You just hide behind your exclamation points.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs

Diagnosis:

exclamation marks as a defense mechanism, love it.

by 400metres on Dec 21, 2010 2:34 PM CST up reply actions

exactly…I called this out a month or so ago too!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:31 AM CST up reply actions

Boo, hooo Cry me a river!!!

Soo I use !!! GET OVER IT ALREADY! And I don’t think McCarthy is perfect and doesn’t make mistakes, but then you guys seem to complain about him ad nauseum! If we win you complain about this playcall and that one… If we lose, you complain that clock mgmt sucked!!! You guys are neverending complainers w/ little basis for it most of the time! All I do is balance you out… Or TRY too!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 12:57 PM CST up reply actions

You guys are neverending complainers w/ little basis for it most of the time! All I do is balance you out… Or TRY too!!!

This is true.

You balance out thoughtful discussion of facts and statistics with !!!!, LMAO, and epic showdowns with internal consistency.

Good job!

by 400metres on Dec 23, 2010 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

guess you just keep up w/ my other thought provoking insights.

So you have to complain that I use !!!. Nothing new here either!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 2:06 PM CST up reply actions

Way to prove me wrong with a completely incoherent retort capped off with an unnecessary exclamation mark. What, did you lose track of your LMAO key?

by 400metres on Dec 23, 2010 5:18 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Whats incoherent about it...

Nothing more than your ramblings… LMAO!!!!!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 6:55 PM CST up reply actions

For starters I have no idea what you meant with that subject line

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 23, 2010 8:06 PM CST up reply actions

Great,

you’ve now reduced yourself to “I know you are, but what am I?”

Keep those “thought-provoking insights” coming….

by 400metres on Dec 26, 2010 12:10 PM CST up reply actions

And your some sage of "wisdom"?

More like a sage if insults!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 1:08 PM CST up reply actions

um, who are you quoting there?

Did I claim to be full of wisdom? No.

Did you claim to make “thought provoking insights”? Yes.

And it’s hilarious that you suddenly get all sensitive about hurling “insults” (although I don’t know where or how I deliberately insulted you except in self-defense.)

Seems to me that all I or anyone else has done in this forum is dare to express an opinion different from yours, which you sarcastically dismiss as nothing more than “complaining” despite it being well thought out and carefully backed up with fact-based analysis.

Seems to me that if you can’t take it, maybe you ought to consider ceasing from dishing it out.

by 400metres on Dec 26, 2010 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Thought provoking!

Actually that was Bob… something on this tread that said I was thought provoking! Not me originally! But I guess you only follow parts of a thread that pertain to you!!! Whereas I focus on the thread as a whole!!! I don’t pick and choose!!! But YOU do!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 7:34 PM CST up reply actions

Whatever dude,

guess you just keep up w/ my other thought provoking insights.

So you have to complain that I use !!!. Nothing new here either!

You’ve been Stroh’d™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 12:06 PM PST up reply actions

by 400metres on Dec 26, 2010 8:38 PM CST up reply actions

Bob47... this thread... Dec 22

Stroh, I generally find your comments to be thought-provoking!!! Like I said, read the entire thread!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 9:08 PM CST up reply actions

way to nitpick

he criticized you in that post

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 26, 2010 9:20 PM CST up reply actions

Your right...

But he also complimented me and I told him I appreciated his candor! And I was just using that as reference that I wasn’t just complimenting myself!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 11:12 PM CST up reply actions

You do understand that nothing is a reference without proper attribution. Why the hell would anyone read that comment, wherein you apparently call your comments “thought-provoking” as anything but self-congratulatory?

And I love how you completely ignore the bulk of Bob’s post and only took away his qualifying compliment.

Stroh, Bob was telling you that he’s disappointed in how childish you were acting with reference to TSSC, etc. and he recommended that you grow up and simply admit you were wrong. For godssakes, he called you a “big pussy”!

But what did you take from his “candor”? HE LIKES ME! HE REALLY LIKES ME!

Wow. Just wow.

by 400metres on Dec 27, 2010 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

WOW just wow!!!

That you can’t wrap your head around the fact that I acknowledged what he said!!! WOW just WOW!!!

If you were a man maybe you could too!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 27, 2010 2:46 PM CST up reply actions

Wha? I'll need a Stroh-to-English translator to decipher this one.

by 400metres on Dec 27, 2010 5:19 PM CST up reply actions

its untranslatable

like talking to a rock

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 27, 2010 8:06 PM CST up reply actions

No one is crying. I just want to let you know that all the !!! marks and LMAO/LOL’s aren’t fooling me. Like I said above, I think you just resort to them when you don’t really have an argument back.

BTW- You still haven’t really even responded to TSSC’s post.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 23, 2010 2:45 PM CST up reply actions

oh dear lord, try this on for size

Too bad you don’t have any real evidence to support your suspicions! One might conclude your just a suspicious person!

I think that fits that comment properly

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 23, 2010 5:20 PM CST up reply actions

Direct quote...

Chris Mortenson… “The Packers are a good football team, a well coached football team!!”

But you all disagree cuz you know… You know alot more about football then he does! LMAO

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 2:42 PM CST up reply actions

Logical Fallacy....

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

   1. Source A says that p is true.
   2. Source A is authoritative.
   3. Therefore, p is true.

by 400metres on Dec 23, 2010 5:13 PM CST up reply actions

So I should trust a rank amatuer over a highly paid Football professional?

I guess that makes alot more sense!!! LOL

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 6:56 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Again,

you criticize without actually reading the material….

by 400metres on Dec 26, 2010 11:53 AM CST up reply actions

Don't need a authority to form my own opinion!!!

I already have that… And usually a very strong opinion at that… Or haven’t you been paying attention to my posts for the past week!!! I just happened to hear a comment made by a highly paid authority on the subject that backed up my position!!! Thought I would share it w/ you since all you care to do in complain about me and my position!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 1:12 PM CST up reply actions

But that's the source of your problem, imo

you’re opinions are certainly strong, but they’re mostly fueled by your own POV and are therefore often easily dismantled under factual analysis.

When that occurs, you don’t just say “oh well, I guess I didn’t know as much about that as I originally thought. Thanks for the spirited debate.” Instead, you resort to personal insults, dismissive sarcasm, and just plain silly stuff like LOL!!! ROFLMA!!!, that might serve to impress a 13 year old, but only annoys and irritates grown men sharing semi-informed opinions.

We all have strong opinions about the Packers or we wouldn’t take our time to post them here. What consistently sets you apart from the rest of us is how you go about doing that in the most rude manner possible.

If you don’t like people “complaining” about you, stop acting like such a troll. I know you’re sincere (therefore not a troll), but you still act like a troll regardless.

by 400metres on Dec 26, 2010 2:11 PM CST up reply actions

Who's opinion...

Isn’t formed by what they see first?!!! I had mine formed long ago… Only used the background of an informed, highly paid professional to back my own opinion up!!! Nothing wrong w/ that, and certainly anyhing you wouldn’t do under opposite circumstances!!! Face it…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 7:38 PM CST up reply actions

views change though

coaches can turn good or bad

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 26, 2010 8:36 PM CST up reply actions

No,

you used a voice of authority to basically say: “see, I’m right and you’re all wrong because Chris Mortenson shares my POV. LOL!!!!”

That’s a ridiculous argument.

What if Mortenson said that Ted Thompson was an idiot to trade Favre? Would that make that retarded POV automatically correct simply because a recognized authority said so?

by 400metres on Dec 26, 2010 8:47 PM CST up reply actions

False!

I said… “But you all disagree cuz you know… You know alot more about football then he does.” I didnt use it to say I told you so or I’m right, your wrong! I used an informed, paid professional to support MY opinion! Let me know when you can do the same!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 9:10 PM CST up reply actions

I said… "But you all disagree cuz you know… You know alot more about football then he does." I didnt use it to say I told you so or I’m right, your wrong!

Yea, you’re right, that’s not at all an illogical appeal to authority to support your argument.

I used an informed, paid professional to support MY opinion! Let me know when you can do the same!!

Dude, like I already told you, I agree with you and Mortenson. I support McCarthy. You’re so clueless you don’t even know what you and I are talking about.

by 400metres on Dec 27, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions

Feel free to find an informed, paid professional that backs up your POV!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 7:43 PM CST up reply actions

Jeepers, thanks

and you should feel free to find the personal decency to treat the opinions of other participants in this forum with respect.

by 400metres on Dec 26, 2010 8:50 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah...

Like you give ME that same respect?! Uhmmm that would be a big “NO”… Works both ways Bro!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 9:12 PM CST up reply actions

knock out this bullshit

you have to give respect to recieve any, and your not giving any right now.

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 26, 2010 9:21 PM CST up reply actions

FALCON PUNCH!

Followed by a boot to the head!

To get punished by the NCAA nowadays, especially if you’re at a major school, you have to be monumentally stupid. -ReadingRambler

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 26, 2010 9:38 PM CST up reply actions

my brother gave me a shirt that said Falcon Kick

best christmas present ever

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 26, 2010 11:32 PM CST up reply actions

Give respect....

Whatever dude… Like I said it work both ways! You havent’ exactly been a beacon of respect either!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 11:14 PM CST up reply actions

Ooops...

Should have been more a reply to 400 meters… But like I said respect is a 2-way street!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 26, 2010 11:15 PM CST up reply actions

Show me one instance where I've disrespected you.

I make a sincere effort to treat everyone in this forum with respect. I don’t make fun of anyone personally and I certainly don’t dismiss opinions as stupid unless the conversation has bascially descended to that level.

You, on the other hand, demean and belittle other posters’ opinions right out of the gate. That’s the whole point of this back-and-forth. It was Bob47’s point too (not that you seemed to notice).

by 400metres on Dec 27, 2010 1:06 PM CST up reply actions

And,

you should know that I’m one of people around here who defends McCarthy more often than not. I don’t think he’s a bad coach at all (although I think he maybe fatally flawed).

What you seem to miss is the fact that it’s illogical for you to assert that simply because Mortenson (who I like and who’s opinion I agree with in this instance completely) is right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong only because he’s an authority on the subject.

That’s an appeal to authority to support your opinion and it utterly fails because it’s a logical fallacy.

by 400metres on Dec 26, 2010 12:02 PM CST up reply actions

I don't think that's a good way to keep the mood lite.

I think they express derision and contempt for people who disagree with you. If you intend otherwise, maybe you should try something else.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 7:31 PM CST up reply actions

^This

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 22, 2010 7:28 AM CST up reply actions

I'm a very new commenter on this blog,

but I’ve been a Packer fan since roughly 1960. Before Junior High, my memories have become blurry.

Stroh, I generally find your comments to be thought-provoking but in this sequence, you’re trying to backpedal out of a mess.

“Too bad you don’t have any real evidence to support your suspicions! One might conclude your just a suspicious person!”

That’s a quote from you. Here’s another one:

“BTW – I didn’t call him suspicious… I suggested that some MIGHT think he was suspicious! There is a difference! But don’t let that stop you!”

With all due respect (and I have quite a bit of respect for your analysis), those are balogna weasel-words. The first quote refers to “one”. We all know that means “you” or “people who share your opinion on this”. Come on.

It doesn’t mean “some people”. If you wanted to be that big of a pussy, you’d have said “some think that”…blah blah.

Look., we’re all emotional. Say what you want to say. If you say something that’s a little off, correct yourself. I can tell you from personal experience that when you find yourself trying to “finesse” your own statements, you’re in trouble.

FWIW, and without any careful analysis, it seems to me that special teams coverage has cost around net -7 every game. Fix that and we’d be 14-0.

by bob47 on Dec 22, 2010 6:15 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs

FWIW, and without any careful analysis, it seems to me that special teams coverage has cost around net -7 every game. Fix that and we’d be 14-0.

It’d be very possible. I think we’d only have a loss or two at most. How many times have we given up a big return after scoring a big TD to change the momentum in games? Almost every time we score a big, momentum changing TD, I find myself instantly holding my breath thinking about what kind of return the kickoff coverage is going to allow.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 10:30 AM CST up reply actions

I appreciate your candor Bob!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 6:37 PM CST up reply actions

BTW – I didn’t call him suspicious… I suggested that some MIGHT think he was suspicious! There is a difference! But don’t let that stop you!

But this perspective of yours gets to the heart of why you can be so irritating. You don’t respectfully disagree with other commentators, instead you employ meaningless rhetoric and then try to run away from it when you get called out. If you didn’t mean to call TSSC “suspicious”, why did you bring up that exact word? And employing a qualifier like “one might conclude…” doesn’t allow you to disown your accusations.

Reminds me of this rhetorical device: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

by 400metres on Dec 21, 2010 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs

He reads it, he just doesn’t allow any of it to change his opinion.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:27 AM CST up reply actions

and one can easily see from any of your posts that everything you say is a flat out assumption

of something you really have no idea about.

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 21, 2010 5:05 PM CST up reply actions

McCarthy's the Reason

That’s the only statement that I have a problem with. You hit a lot of points on the head, but even though the buck does stop with McCarthy, a lot has happened that is out of his control. I think. Let me explain.

Slocum. Who’s fault is this? Is this a McCarthy thing? If so, then yes, all on his shoulders. 100% boo this man. If it’s a TT thing though, it’s hard to put the blame on his shoulder. I absolutely refuse to accept the “We’ve got a lot of injuries and that effects special teams” garbage answer they give. It’s coaching. More specifically it’s Slocum and he’s been there for years. He even survived the DC coaching change.

Injuries: Yes, every team has to play through injuries, but he does seem to have some pretty big ones this year. I think it’s pretty impressive how well we’re playing with 2nd and 3rd and 4th stringers. I know it’s not an excuse but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered at all.

Finally, I suppose I’m actually a TT here. Wait and see. I don’t know what it is, but I think he could be a pretty good coach, he’s just not one yet. He has a lot of flaws, but I think they’re fixable flaws. I suppose I’m willing to give him a pass for another year because of the penalties. I hated the massive amount of penalties we’d have year after year and it seems like after the bears game, they’ve actually gone down considerably. If he can learn there, he has hope. I’m not really a “win now” guy, i’m a “lets win for years and years” guy, and if that takes developing a coach, well then I have a hard time dumping a guy before I know he’s not going to improve. Good HC’s are very very very rare and MM might just turn out to be a good coach.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 21, 2010 1:55 PM CST up reply actions

Developing coaches...

This is something that the Steelers have done! When the hire a young HC and they’ve done it w/ the past 3 HC they’ve had. (Noll, Cowher, and now Tomlin) they accept he will have to learn on the job!

McCarthy isn’t perfect, but he IS good and could be great! The question then is… Is he learning? I would point to the penalties as evidence he IS. We’ve been among the most penalized teams for a couple years. This year we had one (1) game where penalties were a problem! Thats learning…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 2:05 PM CST up reply actions

I agree but he still has other things to improve upon too though. Like our terrible special teams, or constantly coming out flat against lesser, middle of the road teams, and sometimes even losing. The special teams things has been an issue for literally 3 seasons now, and there’s been little to no improvement anywhere aside from maybe the punting game. Like I asked you in another thread, at what point does it become a concern and something that needs to be fixed? Coming out flat is alarming to me as well. Though, that one is harder to pinpoint blame with. It could just be that our guys lack that fire but I kind of doubt it, since we do seem to see it every once in a while.

So, my question is, how long will it take him to improve those things, and at what point does it become just too long? Even with the penalties it took him three seasons of us being close to the most penalized team in the league to fix it.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:19 PM CST up reply actions

Fixes

Once we get a new ST coach, I expect our ST problems to magically disappear. I’m dead serious about this, that’s how much I blame the coach for that one.

Coming out flat against lessor opponents isn’t something that just plagues MM. That’s a league wide problem with every coach out there. The best coach of our era, Bill Billecheck, still has those problems.

I wait until he stops improving. If he’s not getting better and he just plateu’s as a medicore coach, that’s when it’s time to get a new one. As long as he gets better, we get better and I think we’re already pretty good right now. He could be good and I’m willing to put up with a few more years of winning seasons and always being in the hunt for the SB to see if he turns out to be good.

Let me put it this way, I think the biggest crime ever committed by a team was when the SD Chargers got rid of Shottenhiemer (man, did I ever butcher his name) when he was getting him deep into the playoffs year after year. They picked up Norv Turner, thinking he could bring them to the big game, but they’ve only taken steps back since then, not forward. Changing a head coach is a HUGE deal for a team. It’s not like you’re just getting a new LB to fill in for the old guy. It completely changes the dynamic of your team. Swap them out at your own risk. You’re not just talking about getting rid of the offensive line coach or ST coach when you change out a HC. You’re talking about getting rid of pretty much every single position coach, OC and DC when you switch out a HC. I didn’t cry when we lost sherman or Lewis because I wanted a complete overhall of our team. Right now I think we need more tweeking than we need a complete rebuild.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 21, 2010 2:36 PM CST up reply actions

DYNAMIC is the magic word. What is the Packer’s “dynamic” with MM? Here’s another word, “persona”. The Packers persona is becoming a team that blow it in the forth quarter.

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 8:21 PM CST up reply actions

Dynamic

We’re a high flying offense with a killer defense and poor special teams. We have the weapons to kill you from any point of the field and can score every time we hold the ball. Our defense scores just about as much as our offense, we shut down good quarterbacks and nullify good runing backs. We’re the best damn team in the league. When we’re healthy. When we’re not healthy, we’re still scary as all hell.

As for persona, I don’t give a crap what the media or other fans think about us. ESPN continually trys to steal our thunder (true frozen tundra, true title town. Kiss my butt you ESPN hacks). The part we play is contenders, every year. Things can turn sour at the drop of hat and yeah, that sucks, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have the ability and talent to go to the big bowl.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 23, 2010 10:29 AM CST up reply actions

ST

The ST were pretty good the one year, maybe the year we reached the NFCCG? Forget which one off hand, so it hasn’t been continual… We’ll see how or when it gets fixed. I still think the ST this year are largely the result of injuries taking our most experienced and best ST players and putting them in a starters role or on IR. Regardless of what people think, ST need continuity and development too. But that still doesn’t explain everything regarding the ST. I think next year will tell alot!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 2:41 PM CST up reply actions

I agree with that. My only thing would be that they were still poor in 2009 when we didn’t have a whole lot of injuries. But yeah, next year will be very telling.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:57 PM CST up reply actions

Perfectly said.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:08 PM CST up reply actions

MAYBE HEAVEN CAN WAIT, CAN THE PACKERS?

McCarthy is a good coach. Period. He can come up with a good game plan as he did against the Pats. But it’s those intangibles that separate good from excellent. I , like any fan, wanted MM to succeed. 5 years is a long time, and MM has improved in certain areas, but……..but………but….. His failure to build and maintain a competent OL is huge. Competent: a line that can consistently run and pass block. Last years debacle with Barbre and musical chairs was telling. The line does have talent , but they take plays off, and in the case of Detroit , took the game off. Slocum, thus, MM’s failure on special teams needs no comment. Game management: Not good. Mistakes may have cost the Pack at least two games this year. Play calling requires too much 2nd guessing, but I’ll say that in too many games, his inital plays have prevented rather helped offensive timing. I also think he has neglected the run game. Finally, I question how tough he is on mistake toleration. Somethings not right. The same mistakes are repeated by the same players. I don’t think this leopard will develop new spots. Am I crazy?

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 7:03 PM CST up reply actions

Unless you know McCarthy personally, I doubt you know what intangible he does and doesn’t have!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 11:23 PM CST up reply actions

For decades people close to the game say that teams take on the personalities of their coaches.

What personality do you think GB has?

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 23, 2010 7:44 AM CST up reply actions

Players also have to believe in their Head Coach as well

Most coaches don’t remain with 1 team longer than 3-4 years. McCarthy is still with us and the team still loves playing for him. All it takes is 1 bad decision to set this team back. As long as we have McCarthy, we have a direction with a still very young team that features players that want to play for him.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 23, 2010 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

You are correct to a point. But it’s folly to say intangibles are not a huge part of coaching. The little, almost indefinable things that separate very good from excellence. The fan doesn’t have the up close, in the locker room knowledge, but seeing the results of “intangibles” repeat themselves, then repeat themselves. Got the point? No one thing kills the Packers. It’s an assortment of errors, lapses, penalties and ball bounces. Still, the depth of this team is remarkable, given the injuries. Think about this: rarely does a Billechek team shot themselves.

by marcopo on Dec 25, 2010 2:17 PM CST up reply actions

Intangibles

Are a big part of leadership… Leadership is an absolutely necessary part of being a HC. Lack of leadership results in players not playing for the HC! So if McCarthy is lacking in all these intangibles, it follows that he wouldn’t be a good leader and the players wouldn’t follow him! But thats not the case is it?!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 25, 2010 3:24 PM CST up reply actions

I like this:

Got the point? No one thing kills the Packers. It’s an assortment of errors, lapses, penalties and ball bounces.

It really does seem this way.

"I'm not Nostradamus or anybody, so I don't know. Luckily, this is the worst injury I've had in my career so far."

- Drew Gooden, on the severity of his toe injury.

by Jacob Grinyer on Dec 29, 2010 2:28 PM CST up reply actions

Which could be better said as just simply mistakes. They’ve been killing us forever now.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 29, 2010 5:44 PM CST up reply actions

Just like MM gets credit for binging in a stud DC, he also has to take on an equal share of the blame for the failures of the ST unit!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:30 AM CST up reply actions

He does

I certainly hope he fixes it this offseason. The success and failure of our coaching staff is at the hands of McCarthy. Had our team been healthy, maybe our ST would have been different. IDK, but enough is enough. Our ST is still a joke. I applause Slocum for at least eliminating all the penalties like we had the past couple years, but it’s still awful. I’m sure McCarthy will fix it in the offseason. It’s not the best decision before the season ends though.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 23, 2010 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

C’mon man! After 5 years, how can u be sure it will be fixed? It’s been ground hog day for special teams.

by marcopo on Dec 25, 2010 2:20 PM CST up reply actions

There's no sure in football

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 25, 2010 5:23 PM CST up reply actions

2 of the years were wrecked of injuries though

And that does have a significant hit on ST. ST doesn’t get to practice nearly as often as the offense and defense does and when you have guys coming in and out every week or so, it makes it tough to coach them up.

McCarthy leaves the ST to the ST Coach like he should. He talks about what needs to improve and so on. He did put a big emphasis on reducing penalties this past offseason, more specifically on ST. I think that emphasis really paid off when comparing this season to last season.

Personally I think it’s ridiculous to say that McCarthy should go after 5 years simply because the ST is not good. Even though he has helped field a Top10 offense and defense if not Top 5, it doesn’t matter, because the ST is still struggling. It’s about progress and this team is getting better each year. Heck, we have had so many injuries but even I’m unsure as to where we should draft next!

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Jan 3, 2011 6:34 AM CST up reply actions

He has had some time, so that is a fair question

Not going to lie, it has come across all of our minds more times than you would think. McCarthy is really at an unfair advantage in my opinion when it comes to this, kind of like how some Lions fans are calling for the head of Jim Schwartz already because he hasn’t produced a winning season and also struggles to close out games. In Schwartz’s defense, he’s rebuilding a winless 2008 team and it was a given that it would take some time to accomplish that. In McCarthy’s defense, he had 5 years and only 2 of those years was he given a fair opportunity to deliver a Superbowl.
2006- Rebuilding year and getting his system in place.
2007- Final year of Favre, we made a run, but fell short. This was an opportunity for McCarthy.
2008- Injury wrecked season. Like every other team that faces numerous injuries, they lose more games than they expect. Was also somewhat of a rebuilding year entering the first year of the Rodgers Era.
2009- McCarthy had an opportunity this year, but fell short in the playoffs. The defense got owned in the playoffs, but McCarthy’s offense did its job. With that said though, this was an opportunity.
2010- Another injury ridden season even worse than 2008. This should be a losing season with all the injuries, but it’s not and we are still in the playoff race.

So he only has 2 of 5 seasons of getting a fair chance. McCarthy could very well be the big problem, but it could also be the execution and half the roster being injured. Either way you look at it, there are a LOT worse coaches out there. In addition, McCarthy has 2 years remaining in his contract. I’d say lets see how he does next year or in 2012 (pending a lockout) in hopes that his team is healthy.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 21, 2010 5:53 PM CST up reply actions

I wouldn't say a 2 score game is necessarily close!

But its your exercise, so your rules!! Personally I would have used one score games…

This is pretty typical and what I would expect of his tenure, since he’s had the youngest team in the NFL about every year! Not to mention transitioning from one franchise QB to a young, inexperienced QB… Also just for the record about 8 of those were when his offense scored to tie or gain the lead only to watch Sanders D fail horribly to protect a lead (we all remember how often that happened in ’08 alone)! That was something McCarthy made a correction he had control over when he fired Sanders and hire Capers!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 20, 2010 11:01 PM CST reply actions

It's tough to decide what to use as a "close" game

I picked 10 points because I think that’s boarder-line territory for a team still having a realistic (read: not very large comeback) chance of winning. A touchdown and a field goal to tie seems like a fairly reasonable proposition in a quarter of play.

FWIW, there are only two games above where the score difference was more than 7 and the game did not go into overtime (there are 4 games where the score difference was more than 7 if you count the Arizona wildcard game and Washington OT game this year), which changes MM’s record to 21-25 in “close” games. So in this case it does not make a very large difference.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 7:22 AM CST up reply actions

Small correction

2006 Week 16 vs. Minnesota: Start of 4th quarter: GB trails 7-6. Final: 9-6 W

9-7 final score :)

by Bush League All Star on Dec 20, 2010 11:30 PM CST reply actions

Bah :-P

Thanks for that. I knew I was going to screw up something small like that.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 7:06 AM CST up reply actions

Nice work to put this together.

Rec’d for effort put in.

Soon coming to SBNation: The Peyton's Liberation Army?

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 20, 2010 11:55 PM CST reply actions

Thanks for putting this together

However, I’m not sure you can draw too many conclusions from it without some comparison to the rest of the league. What made me sick to my stomach during the Pats game was when they flashed up the stat that the Packers have the 3rd worst record in games decided by 3 or fewer points. I’m not sure if the period for that stat is just this year or a longer period, but it sure doesn’t look good. Now, the optimist reads that stat and says it means that the Packers don’t get blown out — that in most games they have a chance to win right up until the end and that’s good. The pessimist says that for some reason this group of players/coaches cannot seem to win the closest of the “close games.” I think from now on I am going to choose to be more of an optimist on this issue.

A side question for Greg — I may have missed something, but why did you include the 2009 Wildcard game against Arizona when we trailed by more than 10 going into the 4th quarter?

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 21, 2010 9:57 AM CST reply actions

I was going to initially leave that game out

Since, as you stated, the Packers trailed by more than 10 going into the fourth quarter. However, I felt that since overtime was forced, I didn’t really feel that leaving that game out of my exercise was appropriate. If you prefer, you could think of it as me selecting games where going into the final period (either the fourth quarter or OT) the Packers were ±10 points.

In the big scheme of things, it was one “close” game loss on the road trailing into the fourth quarter. Removing it really shouldn’t change any perceptions about the rest of MM’s results IMO.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 10:31 AM CST up reply actions

That makes sense

I don’t really disagree with including it, but that game felt different to me because we almost pulled off a very unlikely comeback. The way teams play and how coaches call plays changes in those situations compared to tight games with or without the lead.

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 21, 2010 10:41 AM CST up reply actions

If the question is limited to “close games” then it’s debatable whether to include it. But if the question is widened slightly to “how well does MM coach when it matters most” then I’d say this game is central.

We had to come back and scramble make a game of it because we came out and unloaded our gun into our own feet. When that keeps happening, it’s on the coach.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 21, 2010 11:09 AM CST up reply actions

I think

Young teams have to learn how to win the close games! ANd McCarthy is continually given a very young team… At some point that won’t continue to fly as an excuse… Personally, that point is really close if not here already! The core of the team isn’t that young anymore and Rodgers is now at the top of his game! So this is something I will be keeping my eye on… Time to start winning some of these close games! Especially next year when all the injured players will be back!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 10:57 AM CST up reply actions

Injuries! OMG!

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 11:07 AM CST up reply actions

Well, considering the fact that, when Nick Collins went down before halftime, we were playing with 12 of our 22 original starters (11 if you count Johnny Jolly’s suspension)……..with only 5 original starters on defense (again, 4 if you count Jolly), and 7 starters on offense (missing 3 of our 4 main weapons, with only Jennings healthy)

Yes – Injuries.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 12:00 PM CST up reply actions

Well, sure.

I don’t mean to suggest it hasn’t been a bad year for injuries. I’m just sick of hearing it come up every time someone criticizes McCarthy this year.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 12:40 PM CST up reply actions

My problem is

People tending to say – “Don’t blame the injuries……..even with all those injuries, the Packers looked like a good team – until McCarthy blew it with his play calling”

In a post above, you wrote something along these lines:

This team, in spite of the injuries, had a chance to be special this year. They didn’t get it done and McCarthy’s the reason.

And that you completely ignore the fact that, maybe McCarthy is the reason why they had a chance to be special this year, despite playing with a team of 2nd and 3rd stringers?

I know that maybe you just wrote that wrong, and you probably don’t overlook that point, but I’ve seen it so many times here, that I know it is a common thought among the anti-McCarthy portion of the fanbase. That apparently McCarthy is holding back all those 3rd stringers. It’s just ridiculous.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 7 recs

Rack Him...

And a rec’d for your trouble!!!

I had the same thought that maybe McCarthy was part of the reason that all those backups are still competing for a playoff spot! When in reality, all those backups on another team might be about a 4 win team about now!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 1:18 PM CST up reply actions

"Rack him"...

… it’s not 2004 dude.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 6:33 PM CST up reply actions

And +1 isn't old?!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 7:33 PM CST up reply actions

Nobody is criticizing his ability to develop players

Our second stringers are sometimes as good as other team’s first stringers. Let’s take Flynn. I bet SF or Miami or Arizona would love to have him start for them right NOW. And MM’s merit in this is beyond any doubt.

But is he making the most of this talented roster? I don’t think so. We are not having a special offensive year, we are hanging tough there. We are having a special defensive year, yes. But there’s no doubt in my mind that MM has cost us a few games this year with his decision making. I give him credit for developing the team, but coaching is not just prepping players to be NFL ready.

It’s more winning the games I think. And there’s his Achilles heel.

by Rodgers_for_MVP on Dec 21, 2010 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

Well, we had a whole argument on playcalling the other day

I don’t want to get into it too much here, but I’ll just state my case briefly:

Certainly, there have been a few really bad ones (4th and 1 against the Lions being the chief example).

But for the most part, I look at a lot of the playcalls that people point to, and I don’t see a problem with the calls themselves. The problem comes with the execution.

No matter what he calls, if it doesn’t work, people are on here criticizing the play call. If it’s a short yardage situation and he goes with a pass play that doesn’t work, the criticism is “Who the hell goes 3 or 4 wide on 3rd and 1??? Why didn’t he run the damn ball?”

Then, when he gets into a short yardage situation and runs the ball, and the RB gets stuffed as they have done all year, the criticism is “We all know our O-line and RB can’t convert in short yardage/goalline situations! Why didn’t he call a pass???”

You write:
bq. But is he making the most of this talented roster? I don’t think so.

Again – I look at this roster and do not see that talent. With all the injuries they have had, they do not have the talent to be a truly great team. Over half the starting defense is out. Two of our three special, non-QB weapons, were out in the first few weeks. Our QB has been out for 1 and a half games now.

At the start of the year, this team had the talent to be a great team if we had great coaching. The injuries diminished that talent to the point where we had the talent to be a really good team, if we had great coaching. This team is a little bit below “really good” right now. So, in my opinion, that makes the coaching between good and really good. Not great, but definitely not mediocre.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 1:37 PM CST up reply actions

Ok...

… I’m usually pretty hesitant to criticize the playcalling too for the reasons you cite. The 4th and 1 call was a good example where I think criticism is justified.

But there were also two others from the Pats game I just don’t get. The play they called for Quarles on 3rd and 8 has been tried about 8 times this season and it’s never worked. Not once. How often do you call that play in crucial situations before you pull the plug? The other was the decision to pass three times (and then punt) after they’d run the ball down the Pats throat and they still had a lead. They lost the lead on the Pats next possession and never got it back. They had a chance to take the game by the throat and when they did, he reverted FROM his very effective game plan TO his preference, which is throw throw throw.

Am I a play-calling expert? Not at all. But it seems to me, that regardless of the injuries, which are numerous, the Packers had a chance to win a huge game on the road against the likely AFC champion. But when they had the chance to impose their will and lock up the game, McCarthy blew it.

By the way, that example is exactly I was talking about when I said above that regardless of the injuries, the opportunities for this team to be special were still there. This game. The Atlanta game. The Bears game (when the injuries were much less severe). The opportunities were there, regardless of injuries. And if McCarthy deserves some credit for the games he wins with the roster he has, he damn well deserves blame when they don’t win games that are clearly winnable.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 6:48 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs

That is what I'm talking about all along

By the way, that example is exactly I was talking about when I said above that regardless of the injuries, the opportunities for this team to be special were still there. This game. The Atlanta game. The Bears game (when the injuries were much less severe). The opportunities were there, regardless of injuries. And if McCarthy deserves some credit for the games he wins with the roster he has, he damn well deserves blame when they don’t win games that are clearly winnable

Thank you for seeing what I’m seeing…

Injuries injuries….when you’re at first and goal at the opponent one yd line injuries are not excuses! Twice this season we swung and missed three times under this circumstance – in crucial games that not coincidentally ended up in close losses. It is not excusable that this team, one of the most potent offenses in the league, cannot find a way to convert these situations. It’s not like a holding penalty or false start or sack pushed em back. They were dealt mediocre playcalling.
whew…

by Rodgers_for_MVP on Dec 21, 2010 9:33 PM CST up reply actions

Rec'd.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 9:45 PM CST up reply actions

"Nobody is criticizing his ability to develop players"

I am, but only at a couple of positions where I think the position coach is inadequate and yet enjoys a tremendous amount of job security (see the offensive line discussion below). He develops QBs well, that’s for sure, and it’s a big asset.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 7:18 PM CST up reply actions

Or maybe it’s because Thompson has assembled enough quality depth. In fact, I’d argue if anything, that it’s Capers and the defensive position coaches that have saved us. We’ve lost far more defensive players than offensive players, and the defense has still managed to be one of the best units in the league. Offensively, it’s a different story. We lost Grant and Finley, who are both big parts of the offense but still, this offense was successful before Finley, and before Grant. So why on earth has this offense struggled so mightily? Between Rodgers and the receiving corps (which from a depth standpoint is probably tops in the league), we have plenty of talent to work with.

It’s definitely disappointing that a number of the games we’ve lost this season are because of our offense, and not our defense. It’s totally flip flopped from 2008 and 2009, and that worries me.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:27 PM CST up reply actions

The O-line is the problem with the offense. Which I definitely see as Thompson’s failure (one of the few criticisms of him I agree with), rather than McCarthy’s.

With that O-line, take out the one running back who is actually capable of getting some good runs in Grant (and no, I do not believe any of the RB’s who were available for trade would have really had much of an impact), and take out the most “sure-thing” we have for conversions in the passing game with Finley, and those problems become amplified. Certainly, the receivers have the talent to get it done. But when you can rush four and get great pressure, and only have to focus on those receivers because they won’t be running it, defense gets a whole lot easier.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

And I don’t necessarily disagree with that but the offensive line hasn’t been consistently horrible. They’ve had some good games this season when looking at pass protection. I’m not sure why they seem to be so inconsistent. Maybe it’s the opposition they’re facing, maybe it’s scheme related, or maybe it’s just a motivation type thing. Whatever one it is, I don’t think McCarthy’s game plans help those guys out all the time.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions

But I think, at this point, it is pretty much the only gameplan he can have

Their run blocking is just awful. You can’t run the ball when it seems that absolutely none of our linemen are capable of getting a push on any defensive linemen. There have been, what, maybe two games where they have actually blocked well in the running game?

The pass blocking hasn’t been as bad. But it doesn’t have to be. If they are so bad at run blocking that the defense hardly has to worry about a running game, the linemen can pin their ears back on nearly every play, and the secondary can focus on stopping the pass instead of helping in the run game and possibly biting on the play-action fakes.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 2:55 PM CST up reply actions

Didn't finish that thought.....

So, pretty much, the offensive line really hamstrings our ability to diversify the gameplan. We make at least a token effort to get a running game going, but for the most part, the blocking is so bad that we have to give up on it. So, it becomes a game of whether or not their secondary can cover our receivers. Our receivers are good enough to make this a good offense, but on their own, they are not enough to make it great.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 2:58 PM CST up reply actions

That's crap.

They’ve got a small center and a subpar starter in Colledge, but the rest of those guys should be able to run block. Hell, Wells can too because he’s smart enough to be able to overcome his size. But they can’t run not because the Oline cripples the playcalling, but because McCarthy doesn’t commit to the ground game in summer (and because Thompson saddled him with the worst feature back in the league; that I’ll admit). Sitton’s a beast and Bulaga can run block too. If nothing else, that side of the line should be able to get movement regularly, but they can’t in spite of their inherent ability. Coaching is why.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 6:38 PM CST up reply actions

They just aren’t that good. They’re definitely not the worst line in the league, but they are very poor.

Saying “oh, well the two in the middle aren’t good, but the rest aren’t that bad” doesn’t change my point. Having a center and guard that get consistently pushed back or run right by is more than enough to shut down the run game. Absolutely no push up the middle. And even if you could run exclusively off-tackle, Jackson isn’t fast enough to compensate for the poor line.

I put the blame for this on TT simply not getting a good line. Not that he hasn’t tried, but it simply has not worked. For some reason, for all of his good luck in draft selections, a huge percentage of his bad picks have been on the offensive line.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 6:58 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

I'll give you Jackson.

But I don’t think Wells is as bad as you do. There are lines out there that run effectively with one or more mediocre starting linemen.

I’m not the biggest Thompson fan, but I question whether the fact that the Oline production has been as spotty as it has because of a lack of talent or poor coaching. Thompson hit on Sitton and probably on Bulaga as well. Colledge was a whiff, and Thompson deserves some criticism for the fact that they haven’t managed to replace him yet. But there are guys who have the physical talent that could or should develop, and it hasn’t happened. Spitz is the best example of that. He’s big, built with a decently low center of gravity, and he’s got some nastiness to him. Yet over the last 18 months he’s faded to the point where he might not even be on the team next year. Lang appears to be worse this year than last, which is almost inexplicable. I’m sorry, but that’s not a lack of talent; that’s a lack of player development.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 7:15 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, Campen obviously isn’t a great developer of offensive linemen. Even a guy like Barbre was thought too have excellent athletic ability and strength. If that was the case, then why was he so damn bad? I guess he could be lacking the mental capacity to do so but I think Campen has a lot to do with it too.

Gianconmini is another perfect example too. He was said to have a ton of potential, and perfect size for a RT. Plus, he had 3 freakin’ years to develop! Yet, I don’t remember him ever even getting a chance. That tells me that they didn’t feel he was good enough, which is pretty embarrassing. I’m not sure whether that reflects more poorly on Thompson, for drafting just terrible guys, or Campen, for having no ability to develop those guys that Thompson drafts.

For those reasons, that’s why McCarthy talking about McDonald so much scares the living the shit out of me. I remember reading from a “league source” that McCarthy felt McDonald would be on the field next season as a C, and that supposedly the entire organization was really excited about the kid.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 9:13 PM CST up reply actions

I look at it this way

Thompson never had an opportunity to draft OL high in the draft until this season. The OL just weren’t there when we picked for the most part, unless you want to pass on Raji and Matthews last year! Other than that he’s tried to do his best to find mid to late round gems! Could he have taken players w/ a lower ceiling but could help sooner? Maybe, but since he couldn’t get guys high he went w/ higher ceiling and hoped they would develop! Giacomini being a perfect example… Played 1 year at OT in college. Barbre is dumb as a box of rox!!! Both had high ceilings and higher bust potential!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 11:46 PM CST up reply actions

This is part of the issue I feel

Thompson has been able to get contributors late in the draft or as UFA (off the top of my head Flynn, Brad Jones, Zombo, Tramon, Shields, DeShawn Wynn, Johnny Jolly, Dez Bishop). But he has pretty much failed in that aspect at getting offensive linemen late that can help the team. Now I’m not sure what the cause of that is, maybe he struggles evaluating lineman or it has something to do with positional coaching as TSSC has suggested. But when you look at TT’s track record, it seems like a pretty glaring hole in his drafts.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 22, 2010 7:39 AM CST up reply actions

I wonder if this just speaks to

the difficulty of finding good offensive linemen compared to other positions. I mean, are there other teams that are finding offensive linemen late in the draft or as UFAs? Missing on Colledge was a big miss, and we can’t afford another miss of that magnitude.

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 22, 2010 8:41 AM CST up reply actions

I think he has to struggle to a degree evaluating offensive linemen. Granted, it could be harder for him to find OL too though because of the zone blocking scheme because they have to be athletic, and able to move. So, that could eliminate a lot of the maulers (who usually seem to be the best run blockers), and it also probably means that more of the linemen are going to be undersized, which could put them at a disadvantage.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 10:37 AM CST up reply actions

Maybe its time to dump the ZBS…feels like ever since we’ve brought it in, our Oline has struggled. I know part of that is players but maybe part of that is just a blocking system that doesn’t work well.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:31 AM CST up reply actions

ZBS needs to go.

I am not up on all my ZBS in’s-and-out’s, but doesn’t it rely more on having smaller, more athletic types as opposed to just having big bone-crushers?

by Bush League All Star on Dec 23, 2010 3:46 PM CST up reply actions

Houston

Has the smallest OL in the NFL and the leading rusher in the NFL! Not too mention that Denver operated w/ exactly the same scenario for years. Neither has had much trouble getting the rush game going. WOuld be interesting to know how they ranked in converting short yardage situations!

I think firing the current OL coaches would be a good move and hiring Mark Schlereth who was a pro bowl OG in Gibbs zbs for years! Anyone who could coach it better!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 4:54 PM CST up reply actions

How do you know Schlereth could coach better than our current coaches?

He’s never coached before. He became an analyst basically right after he retired. Just because you were an effective player doesn’t mean you’ll be an effective coach.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 23, 2010 4:56 PM CST up reply actions

I don't...

Just tryin to come up w/ names of guys who might be able to coach it better than Campen… I somehow doubt Gibbs is gonna be coming, so one of his players might! You got any better ideas?

Other than wasting 2 yrs of Rodgers prime transitioning to another blocking scheme!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 10:15 PM CST up reply actions

I would hire someone who has a track record of offensive line coaching

I’d rather not waste 2 yrs of Rodgers’ prime letting a guy who’s never coached cut his teeth.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 24, 2010 10:09 AM CST up reply actions

Gonna have to be a zbs OL coach!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 24, 2010 11:58 AM CST up reply actions

Disclaimer

Schlereth’s father is my insurance agent,
a contemporary of my father as far back as the ’70s. :)

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 25, 2010 2:13 PM CST up reply actions

Regardless of that,

I stand by what I said, just below!

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 25, 2010 2:15 PM CST up reply actions

Schlereth

How do you know Schlereth could coach better than our current coaches?

I think I like his chances, though.
He excelled (not just effective) at playing in the ZBS, just as Kevin Greene (who’d never coached before, either, BTW) excelled at playing OLB in the 3-4.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 25, 2010 2:09 PM CST up reply actions

That’s a fair point, and one I kind of share too. I’m not too concerned about him picking OT’s because like you said, he has had an opportunity to draft one high, and that’s where the majority of the successful ones seem to be drafted.

It does concern me though that our interior is so bad. Seems like he’s whiffed on pretty much every interior guy he has ever taken aside from Sitton (and Spitz too but I think his injury has really hurt him). Quality OGs can be found in the mid rounds, and even a quality C can be found in a 2nd or 3rd.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 10:34 AM CST up reply actions

That's where TT's flubs hurt

I know some of you like the guy, but AJ Hawk is a dud of a #5 pick. That it’s even debated is a sign that the pick was a mistake. Harrell was an absolutely terrible pick (and Shanahan is a nut on draft day, so that Shanahan had eyes on him means nothing.) All that’s ground we’ve stomped all over before. The upshot is that these failed picks forced TT to use subsequent #1 picks on defense rather than offense (Raji, Matthews) You can see the consequences of these in the crappiness of the o-line.

And if your strategy is to pick up late round diamonds in the rough/value picks and develop them into good zone blockers, you need to make sure that there is someone who can actually teach them the ZBS. Campen may be no good, but who is Campen’s boss?

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 24, 2010 4:50 PM CST up reply actions

Campens boss.

Is McCarthy! Thats not even open to debate! He hires and fires his coaches as he sees fit!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 24, 2010 5:45 PM CST up reply actions

Totally with you on Spitz too. I used to think he was probably our best offensive lineman (all around), and now all of the sudden he’s disappeared. Granted, he did have a nasty back/neck injury but even before that in 2009, I didn’t think he looked like anything special at C. I actually thought Wells played better then him in filling in for him, and I don’t think Wells is any more than flirting with average.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 9:15 PM CST up reply actions

Are you proposing the notion of hiring a new Offensive Line Coach?

That may not be a bad idea. While you’re right that the coach doesn’t focus on running the ball as often as he should, the OL hasn’t given him the confidence to it either. 2 times we tried running it in for a TD with our run powering FB (our best option) and the OL failed. It’s things like this that makes McCarthy lose his confidence in the OL’s ability to run block. If we keep on running for no gain which is not unusual in Green Bay, then everyone is criticizing him for not passing when the running game is failing. It’s a lose lose scenario. I disagree mightily on Wells. He is constantly getting beat. Sometimes he’s in the right position though. Him and Colledge are just so inconsistent that it holds back our ability to run the ball as often as we would like. It’s a matter of being consistent and executing.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 21, 2010 9:48 PM CST up reply actions

OL

For the Packers OL to ever be considered above average they at run blocking, they will have to replace Wells, Colledge and Clifton! As long as they start that triumverate on the left side they will never be able to run consistently! All are poor run blockers… Problem is Clifton is clearly the best pass blocker on the team and w/ Rodgers at QB you simply MUST protect him first… Something we can all agree on!

Lang might be a replacement for Clifton or at RT, but I think his best spot is LG. That leaves Center for Wells and an OT as positions that need another replacement!

I expect Clifton back next year, so that isn’t getting fixed soon! Even if we luck into getting an OT high in the draft again!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 11:38 PM CST up reply actions

Definitely agreed on Clifton but there’s no excuse for Colledge being a starter (especially after that terrible season last year). Wells, like some other people have said on here is solid, and smart but just not big enough to get it done.

Hopefully, Lang can replace Colledge at OG because we need to replace him. He’s been horrid for two straight seasons now, and I just don’t see that changing.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 10:40 AM CST up reply actions

Problem is that these guys don’t grow on trees. Take a good look around the league this year. Many teams would kill for Colledge. But in my small mind I imagine linemen who can both pass and run block. Ohhhhh yeah.

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 9:21 PM CST up reply actions

Yep

And if the Packers don’t re-sign him you’ll find that out in a hurry! There be more than a few teams interested in signing him!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 11:25 PM CST up reply actions

They weren't exactly lining up last yere though were they?

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 23, 2010 7:46 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs

Nobody ever does for RFA!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 10:16 PM CST up reply actions

Probably but I’d guess the result would be the same for him else where too.

@ marcopo- It’s one thing to be good at run and pass blocking. It’s another to at least be good at one of them, and Colledge isn’t.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 23, 2010 2:49 PM CST up reply actions

But did teams like the Dolphins, Redskins, Lions, and really the Bears for that matter have the secondary guys to slow us down? I don’t think so. I think Detroit and Chicago have the DL’s to slow us down, but we did ok in pass pro against Chicago and good against Detroit in our first game. Aside from struggling against Wake early on, we were fine in pass pro against both the Dolphins and Redskins. I remember the Redskins getting pressure late in our game but a lot of that had to do with us running a lot of 5 wide, and them blitzing.

I guess my thought is that for whatever reason our offense just isn’t always ready to go. No doubt it’s easy to play our pass game, and most defenses have. I just don’t get why we’ve struggled most on offense against teams who pretty consistently get ripped up week in and week out, and done well against other better defenses.

I also think a great deal of the problem with our running game is McCarthy’s lack of commitment to it.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 9:06 PM CST up reply actions

I certainly agree with your point about MM’s lack of commitment. That translates to lack of practice the run game.

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 9:23 PM CST up reply actions

Unless you believe that the O-line is poorly coached....

… which I happen to think is the case. Campen’s not Slocum, but he’s not great, but he appears to have job security for life under McCarthy. Just like Slocum.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 6:35 PM CST up reply actions

Is our offense w/o Finley and Grant that bad?

I don’t know their rankings off hand but they are moving the ball alot! Scoring become alot harder when you don’t have a RB threat and take out Finley! Our WR are not really great red zone targets. Driver and Jennings are smallish for RZ targets. Jones and Nelson have some size but they don’t high point the ball, just use their frame to try to shield defenders. Finley was the only reciever we have that could really high point a ball and use his frame! So scoring in the RZ would almost be expected to be a problem w/o the 2 best threats in that area, IMO…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 2:50 PM CST up reply actions

I’m saying that in the games we’ve lost, the offense has struggled badly. (Aside from the Patriots and Falcons games) And in most cases, those losses have been to middle of the road teams (Redskins, Dolphins, Lions). It’s puzzling too me. Teams have been lighting the Redskins and Lions up like a Christmas tree, and I wouldn’t say the Dolphins are any more than average on defense.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:56 PM CST up reply actions

.... when you don't have a RB threat...

Oh, are you finally acknowledging that Jackson’s awful?

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 6:38 PM CST up reply actions

I've always said Jackson

Was drafted specifically for his 3rd down role! And every time I mentioned it, people jumped down my throat about it! I thought he might be a little better as an every down back than he has but ALWAYS thought he was really only a 3rd down RB. I never wanted to see him be the featured RB… You must have me confused w/ someone…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 7:43 PM CST up reply actions

I don’t really think he was drafted with the thought of being used solely on third downs though. That’s something you can get at any point in the draft. Wasn’t Jackson a 2nd round pick for us? I’m sure Thompson hoped and thought that Jackson would be an every down runner but he just isn’t.

He is a tremendous 3rd down back though. Probably one of the better ones in the league.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 9:16 PM CST up reply actions

I really do think he was drafted to be a 3rd down RB

Its exactly the role he played in college at Neb. He started only 8 games his entire college career! And he excelled at blocking and recieving too. So while I’m sure they hoped he would become more of a running threat, they really never thought that was going to be his role! Just my opinion tho…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 11:32 PM CST up reply actions

Ah ok. I didn’t know that he only started 8 games in college. I just remember reading that when he was drafted that people within the organization felt he was going to be a guy somewhat similar to Ahman Green.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 10:41 AM CST up reply actions

Ahman

Anyone who thought he was going to be anything like Ahman Green is plain dumb! If you would have watched him run in college you would known he was never going to be anything remotely close to Ahman! Not in running style, nor physicality, speed, cutting ability… Nothing!!! Just cuz they came from the same school doesn’t make them the same type runner! And that is something I never remembered reading about BJ… And I have a nearly photographic memory.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 12:23 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, I never watched him in college. All I really saw of him was the highlights they showed of him on draft day.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 1:39 PM CST up reply actions

DId those highlites you saw say anything reminding you of Ahman?!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 5:09 PM CST up reply actions

I don't think he's suggesting he was similar to Green in running style

Rather that he would be more of an every-down back like Green was for us. Of course I could be reading his comment wrong.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 22, 2010 7:32 PM CST up reply actions

But Jackson wasn't an every down RB at Neb.

He was used there just like the Packers are using him, or were before this year… So to think your getting an every down RB from a guy who’s never done that is kinda dumb!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 11:28 PM CST up reply actions

Probably shouldn't have spent that high of a pick...

… on a third down pick with subpar speed then.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 23, 2010 7:47 AM CST up reply actions

He was rated as a borderline 2nd or 3rd rd pick!

packers got him w/ a very late 2nd. Not like it was a reach or anything!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 3:17 PM CST up reply actions

Then they were wrong, weren't they?

Spending a 2 on a 3rd down back with bad speed is just stupid. There’s too much talent at the position to spend that high of a pick on a guy like that.

Unless of course Thompson thought he was more than that, which I’m pretty sure was the case. It’s not a crime to miss on a pick. Happens about 2/3 of the time to even the HOF GMs. It is pretty foolish to compound the problem by not fixing the mistake.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 23, 2010 3:24 PM CST up reply actions

He ran a 4.5 40 if memory serves. And if he was drafted to be a 3rd down RB he is fulfilling his role to his potential. He’s excellent in that role and if lost you would certainly be complaining about the loss! It would be like Minn losing Taylor and how much have you seen Favre hit this year! So why would it then be a mistake to keep him? Isn’t a late 2nd worth keeping your QB healthy?

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 4:59 PM CST up reply actions

Then we've come full circle...

… and they shouldn’t have spent a 2nd round pick on him. I don’t believe for a second that Thompson knew he was taking a 3rd down back who was slow to the hole when he spent the 2 on him. And that’s fine. Thompson doesn’t have to be perfect and it’s not like Jackson doesn’t have some value. It just wasn’t a good use of a 2nd rounder, and it was foolish in the extreme to keep him as your #2 back and use him in a featured role once Grant went down.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 23, 2010 5:30 PM CST up reply actions

Your opinion... Nothing more!

Just like mine!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 6:59 PM CST up reply actions

"Isn't a late 2nd worth keeping your QB healthy?"

False choice. You’re assuming that the only way to get an assignment sure 3rd down back was the way they got one. That’s not the case. Guys like Jackson can be had late in the draft or even among the street free agents.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 23, 2010 5:32 PM CST up reply actions

false choice?

its a choice either way… No such thing as a false or true choice!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 7:00 PM CST up reply actions

Oh my goodness

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 23, 2010 8:08 PM CST up reply actions

You should probably try

using that new-fangled “Google” all the kids are talking about before saying there’s “no such thing” as something you haven’t heard of before. Let me help you with that

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 23, 2010 8:25 PM CST up reply actions

Its like saying a reverse racist...

Irrelevant… Its a racist either way you cut it!!! Just like a “false choice” is a choice either way you cut it!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 10:20 PM CST up reply actions

...You didn't go to that link did you?

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 24, 2010 10:07 AM CST up reply actions

Don't see how it applies...

I have my opinion and he has his?!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 24, 2010 12:21 PM CST up reply actions

Wow

Ok, I’m out.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 24, 2010 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

Like this

I don’t have a problem w/ taking Jackson in that role in the 2nd rd of the draft! He doesn’t… My opinion, his opinion Were there other choices? Sure… But that wasn’t the argument was it! Otherwise you tell me how it applies!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 24, 2010 1:55 PM CST up reply actions

Because you presented a false choice

That’s why it applies. But whatever.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 24, 2010 4:27 PM CST up reply actions

He ran a 4.54 at the combine BUT

he ran a 4.41 on his pro-day, which is more than decent for a RB.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 23, 2010 8:21 PM CST up reply actions

He must be slower in pads then.

It happens. He’s incredibly slow to the hole, which makes our mediocre run blocking o line look even worse.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 23, 2010 9:19 PM CST up reply actions

I agree with you though

I certainly remember being under the impression that Jackson was drafted as an every-down back, with Green’s departure and he has shown he is not suited for that role. I just don’t think spending a 2nd rounder on an average-to-below-average speed 3rd down back is ever worth it. It’s too bad TT didn’t go for Michael Bush or Ahmad Bradshaw in that draft, but such is life.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 23, 2010 9:28 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah.

You can’t hit ‘em all. I just hope they admit it was a miss and don’t go into next season with Jackson as the feature back or primary backup. Third down back is fine by me.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 24, 2010 2:54 PM CST up reply actions

Not even that. Just simply that I remember reading an article back when we drafted him that compared him to Green. Like I told Strohman, I’d never seen the kid play before. I didn’t know what he could or couldn’t do.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 23, 2010 2:51 PM CST up reply actions

We scored a TON last year even without Finley though. We still have Quarless and Crabtree as tall TEs. I don’t know…I think the running game is definitely hurting us in the red zone though.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:43 AM CST up reply actions

Quarless and Crabtree are rookies

And how did Finley look as a rookie?! Quarless might be someone who can high point a ball but Crabtree certainly isn’t!!! Takes alot more than height to be a good RZ target… Especially when it comes to high pointing the ball. That takes alot of timing, leaping ability, and overall athleticism… Something Crabtree doesn’t have and While I think Quarless will be a good recieving TE, I still haven’t seen him high point any throws!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 12:28 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, Quarless isn’t ready to be a primary target. Still too many drops and mental mistakes but Finley was the same way.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 1:40 PM CST up reply actions

…yet that didn’t stop Havner from being an end zone threat last year in his first year as a TE.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:33 AM CST up reply actions

Under what rock has Donald Lee been hiding? He musta really pissed someone off.

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 9:25 PM CST up reply actions

The same one he hid under last year.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:33 AM CST up reply actions

That’s what I’m wondering too! I think Quarless has great potential but at this point, he just isn’t ready. He’s dropping balls, and he’s not a very good run blocker either. At least with Lee we’d likely get some consistency.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 23, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions

wait wait wait…
So let me get this straight. When things go badly its the players fault for not performing but when things go well its the coaches doing? Sorry man this is just illogical.

McCarthy gets his share of credit for the good when it goes well and the bad when it goes bad but isn’t it ultimately about players stepping up and making plays? Right? Isn’t that what everyone is preaching in the anti-McCarthy threads? Sorry you can’t have it both ways here people…THAT is ridiculous.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:42 AM CST up reply actions

Irony

Many of the game changing mistakes have been made by veterans, not the babes.
WR Jones has singlehandedly lost two games. Against Chicago he fumbled allowing the Bears to score with 8 secs left. Against the Pats, the was in bad position and quit on the route which caused the interception, then couldn’t tackle. Woodson’s failure to make an ez INT cost 7pts. On ST’s penalties and miscues have been made be the old guys. Could go on, but my point is what it is.

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 7:16 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks for these stats

Good work putting these together. It further validates my point that MM is a mediocre coach. Nobody said he’s horrible, but just mediocre. And mediocre coaches don’t win the big game. In the case of a talented team like GBP (in developing which no doubt MM has his unquestionable merit), MM is good enough to coach them to the cusp of greatness (playoff spot) but not further.

These stats are telling. We can talk about injures, special teams, defensive coordinators in the past, kickers, etc etc. Yes, they are factors in losing close games. But what these stats don’t tell us is the little things that win the games – not challenging the right call or challenging the wrong call, the clock management, the playcalling at the critical moments of the game such as opponent one yd line when a TD is a must and we come away with 3 or zero, getting conservative when there’s a lot of time left (remember some 4th qtr dismal performances?). It’s a long list of little things that would have turned a lot of those Ls into Ws.

His backers would defend him as someone who’s a good player developer and players love him (true) and would preach patience (5 years is quite some time I think). As much as I want a new HC, I don’t think TT would do anything this year even if we don’t make the playoffs. However, if MM doesn’t start to fess up, hire a playcaller to call the correct plays, and more importantly use this team to its whole potential, I don’t see how he can be a HC in Green Bay.

by Rodgers_for_MVP on Dec 21, 2010 9:57 AM CST reply actions 4 recs

MM does do a lot of things well. All the people who want him fired need to think about that. People tend to think about firing the HC as a way to get rid of a guy’s bad qualities. But the thing to remember is that everybody you could ever hire will have some good things and some bad things, and another guy might come out lower on balance than what we’ve got in McCarthy right now.

Not saying he should be kept or fired. I’m just saying “think it through, don’t be afraid to give it time.”

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 21, 2010 11:00 AM CST up reply actions

See my post above... 8:57am

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

Nicely put.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 11:08 AM CST up reply actions

Yeppers. Well said.

I really want to believe in McCarthy as The Guy, but damn if reality doesn’t keep punching me in the stomach every time I do.

by 400metres on Dec 21, 2010 12:11 PM CST up reply actions

"more importantly use this team to its whole potential"

See, this is where you and I have a fundamental disagreement. I look at a team that had pre-season Super Bowl hopes, that winds up losing nearly half its players to injury, and I see 8-6 or 9-5, controlling their own playoff destiny in these last two games, as about the best fulfillment of that potential that you could hope for.

Great teams can withstand a handful of serious injuries and still be great. But when you’re talking about the sheer number of injuries, and to some of the most important players on the team, like the Packers have experienced this year, even the great teams with great coaches would have to hope for just being “really good.” The Packers have been on the line between good and really good. So to me, while that isn’t enough to call McCarthy a “great” coach, I will still definitely call him “good,” not mediocre as you label him.

Belichick was commended for changing the makeup of his offense when they got rid of Randy Moss. Now, let’s imagine Wes Welker and Deion Branch going down for the year in the first 6 weeks, Tom Brady missing 1-2 games, and take out 6 of their 11 defensive starters. Do you still see the Patriots, even with the greatest coach, as anything near what they are now? I certainly don’t.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 1:21 PM CST up reply actions

Play Caller

Completely agreed. Calling plays is just to much for him and it shows. He needs to give that responsibility over. You gotta trust in the guys you hired to run your offense.

I just think that all the things you mentioned in that second paragraph are fixeable. I don’t think it’s time to fall on the sword for this guy. He’s a slow learner, I get it, but I still believe being good at challanging the right play, clock management, critical play calling and poor 4th quarter defensive calls are something that comes with experience. Valueable experience he’s getting right now. To throw it away before he reaches his potential and give it to another team is a mistake imo.

That said, would I dump him for Cowher? Hell Yes, but that’s about the only coach I’d rather have.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 21, 2010 2:04 PM CST up reply actions

While I agree he should give up playcalling...

I only think that cuz its a model I prefer… HC as a manager, not a specialist! I don’t agree that playcalling is toomuch for him, nor that it shows!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 2:08 PM CST up reply actions

Ok, I'm going to try to stay level-headed with this

But if you don’t think the play-calling is too much for MM, or that the strain of being HC and calling plays “shows” for him, then why would you want to move him out of that capacity? By saying that you only think he should do it because “that’s the model you prefer” makes it seem like you feel you know better than TT and MM what should be done. Most people that make this argument believe that it is one of the two things you said you don’t agree with.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 2:16 PM CST up reply actions

It is possible to think that bringing in a good OC to play calls may be the best option, without thinking that play-calling is “too much” for McCarthy. It doesn’t have to be “too much” for him, to think that it still could be a benefit to split up his duties.

I for one, take this position. Is he the best play-caller? Certainly not. But I don’t have the level of distrust in his play-calling that many people here have.

I would be for the option of giving his play-calling duties away, but only if we can find a truly good OC who fits the style of offense that we seem best at. Right now, I have no names for who that could possibly be. Do you?

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 2:20 PM CST up reply actions

I guess I may be interpretting his statement about playcalling "showing" for MM differently

I took that to mean that it doesn’t appear to affect his abilities in other aspects of the game. If that’s not what he meant I can understand this viewpoint.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 2:22 PM CST up reply actions

Showing (heheheh)

What I meant is that I think his play calling suffers because as head coach he has to focus on so many other aspects of the game. I also think other aspects of the game may be suffering because he has to focus so much on the offense, mainly his communication with other coaches. Make sense err, no?

I don’t think we need to bring in another OC to do the play calling. Why not give it to our current fellow? I don’t know if he’s good or bad because, well, I’ve never seen him call plays. What I do know is that he’s all about MM’s type of offense, so if he were to take things over, there wouldn’t be a major change in the offense we put out there, which I think isn’t soooo bad.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 21, 2010 2:46 PM CST up reply actions

As for why I would not just give the play-calling duties to the current guy

We know what we have in McCarthy’s offense. At this point, I’d say that the best you could really be hoping for with the current offensive coordinator is a very small improvement over McCarthy. At worst, you’ll get a a guy who has absolutely no idea what he’s doing because he hasn’t called plays before, and it would be a monumental failure. Big risk, very little reward.

For me, like I said, the only replacement option I would really agree with is if we get a truly good, proven OC, who at least sort of fits in with this style of offense. And like I said, I have absolutely no clue who that could possibly be.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah

I’ll wish and wosh on that all day long. I don’t know of anyone and I would prefer to not bring in a new OC, and I agree that if the guy we have now sucks at playcalling that would suck. I just don’t know enough about our current guy to give a solid opinion there.

I guess what I’m trying to spit out is that it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if he gave up his playcalling responsiblities, but I’m not calling for it.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 21, 2010 3:17 PM CST up reply actions

I think that's a perfectly logical point of view

I saw a comparison earlier today that MM is the new Andy Reid. Both guys rose through the ranks as QB gurus, call their own offensive plays, and have (at best) questionable game management. I’d like to think MM isn’t as bad as Reid and that last part, but I’m not so sure anymore

BTW, I was actually referring to Stroh’s post with my subject line, I had forgotten you’d used that phrasing in your post, but point taken.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 2:54 PM CST up reply actions

Sigh

*Reid on that last part

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 2:54 PM CST up reply actions

And from what the majority of what the experts think.

Reid ranks very high on the coaching totem pole! Not quite on par w/ Belichek but close! So if the comparison of McCarthy to Reid has any merit, one would have to conclude that McCarthy is at worst a good coach and might be a very good coach!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 3:18 PM CST up reply actions

I think his playcalling is fine!

He’s not perfect but he certainly isn’t great! I think game mgmt is more of the area that might suffer a little from his being the playcaller! I apologize if I can’t come up w/ alot of examples, but the NE game at the end might qualify! I don’t proclaim to know what is all involved in game mgmt either!

In the end, IMO, a HC should be more of a manager of all aspects, not a specialist at one… managers can’t focus on one aspect of a business at the expense of the others, he should have an overview role and delegate responsibilities more!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 2:59 PM CST up reply actions

Scratch great for poor!

sheesh… Trying to type too fast for my own good!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 3:19 PM CST up reply actions

Very well said. Like you said, there’s plenty of other problems, but most of those come and go. The one consistent thing seems to be McCarthy. I just don’t think he’s a great clock manager. Seems like there’s just no in between with him. Either he’s too conservative (Eagles week 1), or he’s too petal to metal (Patriots 4th quarter, when he called 3 pass plays in a row, despite us consistently gaining 5 yards on pop on them.)

That said, like other people have said, he has some really good qualities too. I think we’re just going to have to hope that he improves because I don’t see Thompson getting rid of him, until Thompson himself is gone as well.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:34 PM CST up reply actions

Not try to start an argument...

But if you think sometime he too conservative and sometimes you think he’s too risky (for lack of a better word), it could be considered that he’s trying to change it up and keep the D guessing as too what he’s going to do! Which should be considered good play calling, IMO… And that then it might be a simple matter of you complaining that the play didn’t work and your being overly critical? Just sayin…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 3:03 PM CST up reply actions

I just think he struggles to find a middle ground. I listed the Philly game because he got so conservative. I remember him running on 1st and 2nd, and then trying to pass on third. It just seemed like he was just playing to hold on instead of playing to win. Kind of like ok well I’m gonna run on 1st and 2nd no matter what to run clock even though we’re not gaining any yards on them, and then hope that we can convert on third in the long.

In the Pats game, I thought he did the exact opposite. I remember getting the ball in the 4th quarter with around 10 minutes to play. I figured alright, we’ve been running on them all night. So when he came out and threw three passes in a row it was kind of like, wait, what? It just seems like when the passing game starts to get going, McCarthy gets really excited about it, and tends to forget about the run game, which is often times what sets up the passing game (and especially in that game against the Patriots).

But yeah, I could admit that I could be being to over critical. It’s obviously much harder to call plays on the field than it is from your couch. I just think some of these instances people bring up are somewhat of no brainers.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 9:38 PM CST up reply actions

Not if he’s doing those things at the wrong times. For example throwing deep on 4th and 1 with the game on the line after you just threw deep on 3rd and 1 is poor playcalling. In the right instances, its a good call…in that one its a bad bad bad call. :-)

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:47 AM CST up reply actions

Its only the wrong time if it doesn't work!

Otherwise its good playcalling… Keeping the D on its toes and not being able to predict what your going to do from scouting! The Packers like other team do alot of self-scouting for just this purpose… TO keep from being predictable in the same situation!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 12:32 PM CST up reply actions

No, it is an inherently bad call regardless of the outcome

When a bad call works, that does not magically transform it into a good call. It just means we got lucky enough to get away with a crappy call.

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 22, 2010 3:36 PM CST up reply actions

EXACTLY!! A call can be a bad call even if it happens to work. If I walk up to seom dude with a gun and punch him in the face and he actually falls to the ground out cold and I can get away that doesn’t mean it was the right situation at the time. 90% of the time, he shoots me and I die. A dumb play call is a dumb play call no matter what the outcome is!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:37 AM CST up reply actions

I think MM is a great developer, he’s a mediocre (at best) game manager though. He’s inconsistent with how he uses players, his play calls are suspect at some of the most crucial moments, and he doesn’t like to take the blame for those things when they are his fault. I like how Coughlin stepped up after the Giants game on Sunday and took the blame for the punt going to Djax…its a character thing.

I just want him to not be calling plays anymore…

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:46 AM CST up reply actions

I actually completely disagree with you on Coughlin

He ran onto the field to scream at the punter (the guy on the team that’s easiest to blame), that’s him blaming the punter for the play. In the press conference he may have said that it’s on him, but his actions sure paint a different story.

Not to mention he came out and said this in his press conference about the onside kick: “All people up front, again, were told to watch out for the onside kick.” That’s a bunch of crap, all of them were retreating before the kick. If they were told to watch out for it, you don’t think at least one of the five would have stayed near the 10-yard mark? That’s Coughlin placing blame on the players.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 22, 2010 10:59 AM CST up reply actions

Thanks very much for the write-up.

Nice job, and now we’ve got the facts in front of us.

But, here’s the question that matters to me: Do I trust him? Am I confident that he’ll have the team prepared mentally and emotionally, and that he’ll be able to recognize what’s going on mid-game and adjust appropriately?

The answer is “not really” at this point, and it’s quickly becoming a “not at all.”

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 21, 2010 11:03 AM CST reply actions

My problem is that it's so uneven.

The last two weeks are perfect examples. He had a good scheme and his team was ready to play against New England. He had a bad one and a disengaged team against Detroit the week before.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 11:09 AM CST up reply actions

Exactly, and to anybody who says that, that’s not concerning is lying. Period. It’s great that our teams always compete with the big boys, but it’s concerning and somewhat embarrassing that we always seem to let the little guys compete with us, or at least linger around.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:38 PM CST up reply actions

Belichek lost to Cleveland!

So I guess he wasn’t taking the little guys serious enough? Don’t you think? Its human nature on the players part as much as it is the coaches… ANd my guess is that McCarthy spent the better part of the week telling the players not to take Detroit lightly, despite their record! They had proven that their record was definitely decieving!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 3:07 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, you're right. He should be fired.

Laughable.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 6:40 PM CST up reply actions

Clearly you misunderstand...

No Belichek shouldn’t be fired! But by the same token neither should McCarthy! My point was despite what the coaches do in terms of keeping the players focused on a team w/ a losing record, it doesn’t ensure that the players won’t overlook that team!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 7:46 PM CST up reply actions

Actually I was being deliberately obtuse...

… because I think likening McCarthy to Belichek, even in this limited way, is ridiculous.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 9:51 PM CST up reply actions

by the way…how many SB titles does Belichek have now? When McCarthy gets ANY then he can start having the extra cushion that Belicheck gets regarding his job.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:50 AM CST up reply actions

NE was still figuring out their identity too then. They had just traded Moss away and the offense was struggling to come into its own. They weren’t the powerhouse they are now. I don’t think the Browns would come within 20 points of THIS Patriots team.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:49 AM CST up reply actions

Would 8-8 get him fired?

I would think TT would at least consider it, given the Super Bowl hopes of this year. Or does he get a pass because of the injuries?

I am starting to question whether he can get the Pack from a good team to a great team.

I love continuity and MM’s work with quarterbacks. Who would be a suitable replacement?

Sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by White92 on Dec 21, 2010 12:21 PM CST reply actions

I think TT will definitely give him a pass

because of the injuries. But, the really spectacular coaching job is being done on the defensive side of the ball. I don’t know how much, if any, credit McCarthy should get for the defense. But I think the game against NE will score McCarthy some points even if you mostly blame him for not winning it. If the Packers lose the last two in spectacularly bad fashion, then perhaps TT will allow the thought of firing McCarthy to enter his mind. But it will be quickly whisked away!

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 21, 2010 12:26 PM CST up reply actions

But, the really spectacular coaching job is being done on the defensive side of the ball

Agreed. My biggest fear right now isn’t the Pack missing the playoffs (although that would suck), but that they will lose Capers as DC in the upcoming offseason. This year already has enough of that “lost season” feeling to it, but to have the best DC since Shurmur bail right on the cusp of hopefully putting it all together next year would really set this team back, imo.

by 400metres on Dec 21, 2010 12:39 PM CST up reply actions

Credit for the defense?

Well certainly Capers is a top notch defensive coordinator… But as all the anti-McCarthy populace would say… It all falls on McCarthy!!! So given that is was McCarty who hired Capers, you have to then give McCarthy alot of credit for changing defensive Coordinators! Unless you want to have it both ways and give Capers all the credit and absolve McCarthy of any credit, even tho he is the one who brought Capers here!!! LOL

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 1:24 PM CST up reply actions

He absolutely gets credit for bringing Capers here

But that was a single (albeit significant) decision. What I was referring to is how much credit does McCarthy get for Capers performance since he hired him? I still think he gets some, but not much.

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 21, 2010 1:35 PM CST up reply actions

Sure, he gets credit for bringing Capers in, but not the work that Capers has turned the defense into. The credit there falls on Thompson, for providing him good players, and tremendous depth, and Capers because of his excellent schemes.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:40 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

I give him credit for hiring him and TT credit for allowing him to spend the big bucks for a top notch DC. But i mostly give DC the credit for using the guys we have, developing them and making them play great in his system. I give him credit for being creative and innovative. Sure MM gets a little credit, but keep in mind, DC wasn’t his first choice. :-)

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:53 AM CST up reply actions

I just realized with this post

that Dom Capers has the same initial as Defensive Coordinator. I was a little confused at first because you used DC for both, but then a light bulb went on…

So, it’s clear he shouldn’t be a HC, because he would have to change his name to Hector or something!

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 22, 2010 10:47 AM CST up reply actions

DC is D Coordinator

I rarely if ever use intials to identify a person! I use their name… Using someone initials while quick and easy is also demeaning them as a person, IMO!!! I don’t know about Trevors usage but when speaking about someone use their name not initials!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 12:37 PM CST up reply actions

MM & TT

Are the only names I abbreviate.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 22, 2010 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

S-man, once again

you have left me without a clue as to where you are coming from. First, Trevor’s post clearly uses DC in one part to mean defensive coordinator and another part to mean Dom Capers. And, who cares about demeaning Packers coaches — we’re not writing or saying this to them directly and they certainly are not reading this crap!

Not to mention that for many people, using initials is an endearing way to refer to them. It is a more familiar form of their name and therefore demonstrates a comfortable relationship. I think from now on, in the rare instances when I feel the need to refer to you, I will call you s&m. You have far too many “rules” for yourself and others — get over yourself already!!!!!

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 22, 2010 3:33 PM CST up reply actions

!!!!!!

Exactly…he’s just trying to pick fights.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:45 AM CST up reply actions

Not fights... Just went on a tangent!

DC he mentioned is D Coordinator and could be Dom Capers… I explained my thoughts on using initials for someones name! Thats not picking a fight!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 25, 2010 5:56 PM CST up reply actions

Demeaning? Really? On a football blog? sigh…whatever man. Keep working at picking fights with people and being annoying…it seems to be a special skill of yours.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:41 AM CST up reply actions

I highly doubt it.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 21, 2010 12:41 PM CST up reply actions

8-8 should not be a pass.

by Bush League All Star on Dec 21, 2010 1:05 PM CST up reply actions

I don't think so either..

but I’d hate to see them hire someone and regress further. Would you give it to Capers? Try to get Cowher?

Sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by White92 on Dec 21, 2010 1:46 PM CST up reply actions

Cowher

Has only 3 places, at least that he released, that he would consider coaching! Houston, NYG and Miami! Why he mentioned those teams is open for debate since they all have coaches that don’t seem to be going anywhere, except maybe Houston. So one would have to conclude that those are the only places he would go!

Other issue is the offense would totally change under Cowher and you would be looking at a 2 yr transition to a different scheme which would be a waste of Rodgers in his prime!

Cowher for those reasons would be a mistake or simply won’t happen cuz hes not interested!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 1:54 PM CST up reply actions

I'm sure you are right..

But I would think you’d still have to ask the question, right?

Sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by White92 on Dec 21, 2010 2:08 PM CST up reply actions

New York and Miami

For the Giants – if they wind up losing on Sunday and end up missing the playoffs, there is a very good chance he’s gone. If that game against Philly had gone differently (whether they win it, or they lose in a less ridiculous manner), we probably aren’t talking about him. But that loss, combined with missing the playoffs? Easily a coach-killer. The team regressed after the Super Bowl win, getting knocked out after their bye week in 2008, then going 8-8 and missing the playoffs altogether in 2009. If he completes the choke job this year, I’d say 75% chance he’s gone.

With Miami, I personally think Sparano gets one more year. Then again, if he loses at home to Detroit on Sunday, the odds of him getting fired would definitely increase. After somehow winning the division in 2008, they regressed and went 7-9 last year. They added some big free agents in Marshall and Dansby, but if they lose to Detroit, they very well might be looking at 7-9 again, with a Week 17 game against the Patriots (who might be resting at that point, so not as sure of a loss). Going 7-9 two seasons in a row, even with the big free agents? Definitely could be a coach-killer. Right now, I’d say 80% chance he’s still the coach next year, which would drop down to 30% if they lose to Detroit.

by Packers3485 on Dec 21, 2010 2:08 PM CST up reply actions

Giants

I don’t see them firing the HC. But its possible… They tend to not react harshly, but its possible they might.

Sparano won a division w/ a vet QB, since then they’ve not had one. They have a young QB w/ potential, but certainly even at his best he isn’t a Franchise QB!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 2:13 PM CST up reply actions

Sparano doesn’t have half the team the other two guys have. I think he gets a LOT of production out of not very good players. That said, he’s also inconsistent with how he uses his players and this year despite having a great RB tandem he’s chosen to pass a lot despite not having great QBs to run the show. very illogical!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:59 AM CST up reply actions

inconsistent with how he uses his players

You used this to describe McCarthy too… I don’t think you really have any idea about Sparano’s usage of players. What have you watched one game he’s coached in the past couple years? And exaclty what does it mean… you toss it out there like it means something specific and meaningful but I think its a copout!! Truth is you have no idea how Sparano uses his player and neither do I. We don’t watch enough of them to make that judgement!

How has McCarthy been inconsistent? Hasn’t he continually put the ball in Rodgers hands except to run a little to keep teams honest? yeah I would say he’s consistently using his best player to win games!

SO unless your OK w/ McCarthy consistently taking the ball out of Rodgers hands you really don’t have a leg to stand on IMO… But hey that just MY Opinion! I’m sure all your “followers” here will quickly come to your defense…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 12:45 PM CST up reply actions

Hasn’t he continually put the ball in Rodgers hands except to run a little to keep teams honest?

Well, except for that “running a little” part, but that has to do with the general ineffectiveness of the ground game rather than consistency.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 22, 2010 12:48 PM CST up reply actions

Ahh so now you know how much football I watch, which games I watch and with how much consistency huh? Did you contact DirecTV to find out which games on Sunday Ticket I am watching?

What is a copout is you constantly bickering with people while adding SO little in knowledge. You prefer to try to demean people while implying you have all this knowledge but SO rarely actually supply real knowledge or fact. Keep it up man…we all know your game.

I’ve watched plenty of Dolphins games and plenty of Packers games.

What are you talking about with Rodgers anyway? My gosh what a terrible post. Where did I say how he was using Rodgers? Where did I say he took the ball out of Rodgers hands?

The reason no one comes to your defense most of the time is because you have no point to stand on. You never stated a point, you just tried to discredit mine.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:49 AM CST up reply actions

To clarify, I am referring to how Sparano uses the talent he has. The strength of the team is in their running game, Its been illustrated over and over in the past seasons. This year they brought in Marshall and instantly decided to try to be a majority passing game despite having one of the better tandems at RB in the game. Their RBs have complained to the media about it a few times now as well. He is ignoring that he has substandard QBs who aren’t capable of running the kind of power passing offense that he wants them to have. SO rather than using the guys has there he is forcing something on them that just isn’t working.

Regarding the Packers, I wasn’t referring to how MM uses Rodgers…which would be stupid and ridiculous. I am referring to seeing a lot of screens and outside runs with Kuhn and then inside runs with Jackson despite them having completely opposite skill sets.

So next time try reading what someone posts and commenting on what they type rather than making stuff and then ripping on them for stuff they never said. What a novel idea.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:53 AM CST up reply actions

I don’t think the HC in Houston is safe by ANY means. That team falls apart EVERY year, it might be time for the blame to fall on the HC. I could see the same thing happening in NY if they know they have a shot at Cowher. Coughlin seems to be on the hot seat every year out there…if they miss the playoffs his time could come as well.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 9:57 AM CST up reply actions

IMO, Cowher mentioned those places because none of those teams needs complete rebuilding and have coaches on the hot seat. No one thinks MM is in serious danger. I believe Cowher would jump at GB, but I’m not sure he’s the answer.

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 8:27 PM CST up reply actions

He's not.

He’ll want control over personnel decisions and we shouldn’t give it to him. He’s not a GM.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 23, 2010 7:48 AM CST up reply actions

I don’t know that Cowher would help us that much. He’s a great defensive mind, but we are doing well there. I am sure he’d love to have our defensive unit to mold but unless he brings in a genius OC its not really going to do much for us. Plus is there still room for both Cowher and Capers (or DC as I like to call him I guess) in the same place? Maybe?

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:55 AM CST up reply actions

{"maybe McCarthy's skills in "close" games have regressed, maybe Brett Favre was a better "close" game QB than Aaron Rodgers. It could be any number of things, and I'm not trying to figure out the whys here."

Simple Aaron Rodgers isn’t very clutch.

He’s been very inconsistent in close games, that is all. He’s shown some falshes of brilliance in late games (Against atlanta) but not very often can he be relied on that situation.

by Nfpdawg on Dec 21, 2010 1:26 PM CST reply actions

I'll refer you to a few posts towards the beginning of the comments

Regarding the defense letting teams steal the game away from Rodgers in some of those situations.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 21, 2010 1:27 PM CST up reply actions

The guy is 0-5 in regular season OT

0-1 in the playoffs.

In OT, you score, you win. The defense doesn’t get a chance to let the other guys score again.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 25, 2010 4:06 PM CST up reply actions

You might want to check '08 season

When Rodgers as a 1st year starter gave the Packers at least a tie and many time a lead in the 4th qtr only to be forced to watch his Defense give up the game!!! Happened about 7 times that year!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 21, 2010 1:30 PM CST up reply actions

ah really

im just going by the packers game i watched on tv like when he missed jennings wide open for a TD in overtime but i guess the defense can be faulted too

by Nfpdawg on Dec 21, 2010 1:50 PM CST up reply actions

I would much rather have Aaron Rodgers

than Eli Manning!

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 21, 2010 2:04 PM CST up reply actions

No question there!!!!!!!

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 21, 2010 10:52 PM CST up reply actions

are you referring to the Wild Card game?

if you are, that was not a piece of cake play. It was executed well, but didn’t work.

by Rodgers_for_MVP on Dec 21, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

Well yeah, but that’s just one game. If you go back and look at our games in 2008, many of them were lost by the defense. Like when Rodgers led the team on an 85 yard drive against the Panthers (top team that year), which took up around 10 minutes in the 4th, and got us a 3 point lead. Then, the special teams allow a kickoff return to the Panthers 45. Followed by a 50-54 yard pass to Steve Smith down to our 1 yard line. Or the game against the Vikings in 08’ where he led us down the field, only to have Crosby miss the GW field goal. Same circumstances against the Jaguars, Texans, and Bears too.

Even this season he led us down the field against Washington, and the Crosby booms the game winner off the upright. Then there’s the Falcons game, where he led us I think 90 yards for a game tying TD with around 1:00 minute left. Then the special teams gets called for a facemask enforced at the Atlanta 34, which leads to them getting the ball at the 50, and you know the rest.

So yeah, he might not be some all-star in late game situations, but his record in close games in most definitely misleading.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 21, 2010 2:47 PM CST up reply actions

The Crosby clunker in Minneapolis

That was a 52 yd attempt. I fault the offense more than Crosby for that one.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 25, 2010 4:36 PM CST up reply actions

Excuses

There were some games that worked out that way, but in others Rodgers had a chance.

The Tennessee game, went to OT where Rodgers had a good chance to at least get the Packers a FG attempt. He didn’t get the job done.

In the Metrodome game, Rodgers & the offense didn’t get far enough on the last drive, forcing a 52 yd fg attempt. Rodgers fans will blame that one on Crosby, but you need to give the guy a higher percentage attempt.

Against the Jaguars, Rodgers concluded the last-minute drive with an INT that sealed the victory for the Jags.

* *

Remember Favre’s first action as a Packer? 1:07 on the clock, no time outs, 92 yds to go. Result: TD + extra point for the win.

Chris Jacke missed a couple FGs that game, too. It didn’t matter.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 25, 2010 4:30 PM CST up reply actions

Not true

First of all, it’s ridiculous to compare Rodgers to Favre in the “closer aspect” right now. One has barely 3 years as a starter, the other 20. Of course Favre would seem more of a closer because he had more chances to comeback and crafted the 4th qtr comebacks with experience. Rodgers is still perfecting the skill. Clutch comes with experience, and Rodgers, for the most part in these three years, has done a good job in the clutch. Form the WC game last year, he has shown that he can bring the team back. This year, he brought the team back against Miami and especially in ATL. Rodgers could have absolutely been the difference against Detroit and NE. Most of these close losses, especially this year, are not on him.

by Rodgers_for_MVP on Dec 21, 2010 2:20 PM CST up reply actions

Alright guys, sorry

I was just speaking out of my rear end, going by the packers games I watch on TV and going by the final score instead of watching all of the games lol

by Nfpdawg on Dec 21, 2010 2:43 PM CST up reply actions

Not buying this at all.

Favre did it in that game where he came in for Majkowski, just 3 games into his Packer career. Had it been Rodgers, we’d have heard about how Buckley muffed a punt and Jacke missed FGs.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 25, 2010 4:43 PM CST up reply actions

I think Favre was VERY clutch…moreso than Rodgers isn’t clutch. I’ve seen Rodgers come through many times only to watch the D give the game right back again (reference the ATL game this year…was that Rodgers fault?)

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 22, 2010 10:00 AM CST up reply actions

Except when he was throwing INT's in clutch situations!

Favre was early in his career cuz he had Holmgren but since then he had developed too many bad habits that McCarthy was trying to break but didn’t have time too. From basically ‘99 on Favre hasn’t been very clutch at all.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions

Sigh...you're just trying to make more work for me, aren't you? :-P

Now I want to go look at Favre’s splits in close games…

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 22, 2010 12:52 PM CST up reply actions

It’s not fair to paint it like all he ever did in the 2000s was throw late game INTs. He did have his share of those but he had plenty of great comeback wins too. As much as I don’t like Favre, I’d be the first one to admit that he’s a very, very clutch Qb.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 1:42 PM CST up reply actions

oh sure he had a few…but he had more successes than failures (not even close) AND YOU KNOW IT!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:56 AM CST up reply actions

late 4Q go ahead TDs from '07

Sure, erase the INT in the Giant game. Then erase these, too:

Week 3:

2-10-GB 43 (2:13) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass short left to 85-G.Jennings for 57 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

Week 8:

3. 1-10-GB 18 (14:56) 4-B.Favre pass deep left to 85-G.Jennings for 82 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

Week 9:

2-10-GB 40 (3:13) (Shotgun) 4-B.Favre pass deep middle to 85-G.Jennings for 60 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 24, 2010 5:19 PM CST up reply actions

Are those playoffs?

Didn’t think soo… He always made regular season plays, and some bad one too… But when it was REALLY clutch… When it REALLY mattered (in the playoffs) he didn’t since Holmgren was around!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 24, 2010 5:49 PM CST up reply actions

Need to win those

Take away those 3 and they might not have got to the playoffs. The regular season counts, too.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 25, 2010 3:18 PM CST up reply actions

Look at the times of those scores!

2:13, 14:56 and 3:13.
When Rodgers does the same thing, and the defense and/or special teams gives it back, you guys try to say that means Rodgers isn’t clutch, as well as arguing that he should have run more time off before he scored!
Absolutely idiculous!!!

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 25, 2010 2:25 PM CST up reply actions

14:56 -- in OT

The one in Denver was the first play after the OT kickoff. The other guys did not get the ball back.

Sure. It’s not on the QB — unless it’s Favre. Like him or not, the guy had one of his better years in ’07.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 25, 2010 3:23 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah he did have a great season!

Who the hell do you think should get credit for that?! Or do you think Favre on his own suddenly decided to stop throwing INT’s?! Hell no… McCarthy started trying to make him accountable for his mistakes!!! Sounds like McCarthy is doing his job!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 25, 2010 3:31 PM CST up reply actions

Nitpick

The OT wasn’t obvious from what you posted.
And, even without that one, the entire rest of my argument still stands, and yours is still ridiculous!

Also, BTW, that deep pass to Jennings in OT was a shot that all QBs, good and bad, take, and, for all of them, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
It is a hit-or-miss play that lends no support to the argument that a QB is a clutch player.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 25, 2010 4:01 PM CST up reply actions

I was at that game

and it felt pretty clutch to me. The Broncos should have won that game at the end of the 4th quarter. It looked inevitable that they would win. Shanny screwed that one up big time. Then we win the toss and first play Favre hits Jennings. Game over! All the Packer fans were jumping around high-fiving. I was there with my Bronco-luvin’ father in law. Probably my greatest personal Packer fan memory.

This comment has nothing to do with the debate, just thought I would share. I think both Favre and Rodgers are clutch — I just think Rodgers has an opportunity to show he is more clutch because he generally does not shoot himself in the foot like Favre did quite a few times. Rodgers can be clutch like Brady and Manning are — there is a way to be agressive and also play it safe and Favre did not know that way.

by Ben T on Dec 25, 2010 4:21 PM CST up reply actions

Only the SITUATION was clutch.

That was a low-percentage, drive-starting play that, had Jennings dropped that ball or had that play failed for any of a number of other reasons, it would have been shrugged off and then the Packers would have begun to attempt to mount a more conventional drive to win the game.
As such, it is not evidence of somebody being a ‘clutch player’!

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 25, 2010 5:57 PM CST up reply actions

It's obvious to someone who followed the season

The Denver game in ’07. That should suffice — but some of you are more Rodgers fans than Packer fans.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 25, 2010 4:48 PM CST up reply actions

OK I missed that part the first time, but

everything else I said after that first sentence still stands, especially the part about that particular play being “a hit-or-miss play that lends no support to the argument that a QB is a clutch player.”

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 25, 2010 5:52 PM CST up reply actions

give the guy a semblance of a run game and Finley then see whether Rodgers is clutch. Throw in a place kicker who makes clutch kicks.

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 8:30 PM CST up reply actions

Place kicker was the same in '07

Crosby blows, no doubt about that, but the ’07 team managed to win a few despite him.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Dec 25, 2010 3:24 PM CST up reply actions

I've said many times(I'm sure some of you are sick of hearing it)

that in a lose game, there’s several plays/coaching decisions that would have changed the game around I’m just a fan and I respond to what I see on TV. I see 3 recurring problems with our team. I’m not even gonna get into play calling. If the play works, it’s genius. If it doesn’t? We say WTF?

1. MM has made some mistakes, for sure, but I won’t put the close losses entirely on him. We’ve had fumbles, ints, missed FG, missed tackles, penalties, dropped passes, missed open receivers………..you name it. When was the last time we got 7 pts. on our 1st drive? The team has come out in the 1st qtr.
sluggish on offense waaaaay too often this yr. and THAT I DO put on MM. As someone said above, how many times does a problem have to crop up to recognoze that it needs IMMEDIATE attention?
2. Again, how many fails does it take to realize that ST is a joke for us. Other teams, not all for sure, have excellent ST and that will win you at least 2 games each yr. Hell, ST won us a SB. Desmond was MVP. The days are gone when you can treat ST as an afterthought. Other teams know this and proceed accordingly. Ultimately, I guess you can put THAT on MM as well, since he seems to not want to get rid of Slocum. I read an article a few yrs. ago that said if a team scores a TD on ST or a fumble recovery for a TD or an int. for a TD, that team is going to win the game something like 75-80% of the time. Those are bonus points. How many long runbacks/TD do we have this yr? How many do our opponents have? Yep, I thought so. TD by ST are game-changing/momentum-changing plays. Your whole team gets energized by them.
3. We give up too many 4th qtr. points. There have been several times when AR got a tie/lead in the 4th only to see it slip away. Even in some games where our D played well/lights out, they gave up game-winning/tieing scores late. In 21 of the 48 games listed in this article, our D gave up 10 or more points in the 4th qtr. That’s way too many. You have to close out games. Especially close games, if you want to be elite. Of the 7 OT games listed above, we won a whopping…………ONE! Many times, we never got to touch the ball on offense.
So, what is the answer? Hey, don’t ask ME. I’m not a coach/GM, I’m just a fan that’s sick of losing to lesser teams and close games.

by bigbill992001 on Dec 22, 2010 9:09 AM CST reply actions

1. fumbles, ints, missed FG, missed tackles, penalties, dropped passes, missed open receivers. Those are all player mistakes not coaching mistakes! Not starting more quickly is at least partly responsible for slow starts. He puts together the first 15+ scripted plays! Thats on him.
2. Agree about the ST and D scores playing a huge role in turning the momenum of the games! those are huge momentum swings!
3. Giving up points in the 4th is on the D players and coaches! Sanders was BRUTAL in that regard! Capers seems to have gotten that changed to some extent, tho I dont have his numbers. But it seems he has that mostly under control. Either way thats not on McCarthy, as Capers now and Sanders before had total control over D play calling!

So out of the 3 or 4 points you make, one is really on McCarthy. Players get one (fumbles, ints, missed FG, missed tackles, penalties, dropped passes, missed open receivers), ST and D get one and the D gets another one…

Just pointing blame where it belongs… take it for what its worth!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 1:00 PM CST up reply actions

oops...

1. McCarthy gets blame for slow starts…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 1:02 PM CST up reply actions

My issue with the slow starts is that it could easily be a motivation thing, or attitude that is given off to the team. It just seems like we always come out flat against lesser teams, and then come out ready, and fired up against better teams. Maybe it’s on McCarthy, maybe not. It could just be the players attitudes themselves. We just don’t really know because we’re not in the locker room and at practice. It could go either way really. I personally just tend to think that it’s McCarthy because the players have shown that they can come out fired up and ready to play. But by no means is that bulletproof logic, and I’ll be the first to admit it.

The fumbles, missed assignments, and penalties aren’t directly on McCarthy but you could point to his coaching style as something that could be related to it. By all accounts, he’s a player’s coach. One negative to that though could be that he doesn’t seem to get in guy’s faces when they have a screw up. Obviously guys don’t want to screw up but I’m sure they’re aware to of what kind of leash they have with McCarthy. He doesn’t seem to be the type to pull a guy for making a mistake, and because of that he could lack discipline, which I think probably is a bit of a problem.

The penalties in 2008 and 2009 could be an example of this. I think even Quarless’ play could be a good example of this. I mean how many balls has he dropped now and holding calls has he had on him now? Yet, he’s still out there week in and week out, and usually making all the same mistakes he always does. I’m pretty sure Lee is healthy now (I haven’t heard otherwise), so why not yank Quarless after those mistakes to let him know that those things aren’t acceptable?

I don’t know, I just think the team lacks discipline in general and I think a lot of it could be as a result of McCarthy’s player’s coach attitude.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

BTW- I’m not trying to rip Quarless really. He’s a young guy that needs time to develop, and I hope that he eventually will just like Finley did. I realize that he’s going to make mistakes at this point in his career.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 22, 2010 2:00 PM CST up reply actions

A healthy Finley and Quarless could do some devastation to a secondary. :(

But I will add this.

I think our strength at the receiver position is their ability to run after the catch. I wouldn’t mind using some more speed screens and quick routes to utilize this strength. Would be cool to see some TE screens built into the offense.

I also would like to think that having a good TE frees up the outside deep routes, which Finley tended to do.

by Bush League All Star on Dec 22, 2010 2:16 PM CST up reply actions

I’ve been saying this forever haha! I remember in 2007 when basically all we did was come out into the big 5 and let Favre throw a quick slant to Jennings/Driver/Jones, and then just let them make some guys miss. Even in 2008 it seemed like that was what a lot of our offense was based upon. Too me, in 2009, the offense become more about going deep down field. I don’t know if it’s true or not, just seems like it to me.

I actually thought our game plan against the Patriots was perfect. Lots of short stuff to the receivers and a lot of dump offs to the RB’s (which we should do so much more btw). It was a lot like that against the Bears. Just let them play two deep, and then shred them underneath when they do.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Dec 23, 2010 2:59 PM CST up reply actions

I expect more of that against the Gents pass rush!

Game plan should be the short stuff again cuz the giants rush the QB so well. I also expect a couple screens this week to keep the DL of the giants from pinning their ears back! Have to take each game as a seperate entity. Last week was short stuff cuz thats more in Flynns comfort zone. He doesn’t have the arm to throw the ball too far. The Jones pass was as far as he can throw in somewhat of a line. w/o alot of trajectory. This week our OL needs help to slow the giants pass rush. Its just about matchups and playing to your strengths and attacking weaknesses on a week to week basis! Not using the same plan each week!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 3:15 PM CST up reply actions

I would too.

Something to make the rush ineffective. I think short passing game is two-fold. The front 7 on defense just can’t pin their ears back and go nuts. The running game may open up a little, which a little could help us.

by Bush League All Star on Dec 23, 2010 3:49 PM CST up reply actions

Just so you know

The Giants secondary plays very physical press coverage and play a lot of defensive formations that feature 3 Safeties. Their goal is to eliminate the short passing game.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 23, 2010 5:54 PM CST up reply actions

well its a good thing we have a long passing game then

too bad Rodgers wont have the time to throw

The only glove he needs is a batting glove. - RWShow on Adam Dunn signing.

by blackoutsox on Dec 23, 2010 6:16 PM CST up reply actions

3 safeties?

SO your going to have one of them matched up on a WR? I’ll take that everyday and so will Rodgers! Bring that 3 safety look… I think Rodgers would rip it to shreds!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 7:03 PM CST up reply actions

It's at the expense

of a Linebacker.

And it’s more to bring on the field the best 11 guys, which at this stage of their careers, Grant is >> Bulluck

ATTN BBV: The Giants will not make the playoffs this year. In light of this fact I will now be cheering for the Eagles for the remainder of this season. Please join me. It’s a much better scenario than jut waitning for next year. Go Vick!
\I lost a bet. Please pardon the avatar/signature/

by Willgfass on Dec 23, 2010 7:13 PM CST up reply actions

I don't doubt that...

Certainly a 3rd safety is better than a LB… Doesnt’ change the fact that I’ll take any of our WR matched up on a safety all day long!!! And if its Rolle that gets toasty I’ll have fun gloating over that too… Not like any of us expect you to put your worst 11 on the field. SHeeesh

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 10:23 PM CST up reply actions

It'll be a different look

I’m still trying to key in on everything, but I hear they play a lot of zone coverages too. So I’ve been hearing a lot of press coverage and zone coverage. Probably a balanced defensive scheme that attributes to its successfull defense this year.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 24, 2010 7:10 AM CST up reply actions

...just explaining it

ATTN BBV: The Giants will not make the playoffs this year. In light of this fact I will now be cheering for the Eagles for the remainder of this season. Please join me. It’s a much better scenario than jut waitning for next year. Go Vick!
\I lost a bet. Please pardon the avatar/signature/

by Willgfass on Dec 24, 2010 9:11 AM CST up reply actions

Kinda goes w/o sayin... Didn't need to explain it!

We are the most knowledgable fans in the NFL after all…

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/112387369.html

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 24, 2010 12:08 PM CST up reply actions

I wonder what Bear and Vikings fans think of that article.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Dec 24, 2010 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Most of

‘Duh Bares’ fans probably can’t read and/or understand it. :)
Vikings fans probably think the author is costing them games. :D

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 25, 2010 2:31 PM CST up reply actions

I especially hope the safety matched up on a WR is Rolle!

Rodgers would do to him what Anthony Smith got from Peyton? when he shot his mouth off!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 23, 2010 7:04 PM CST up reply actions

You mean Brady, not Peyton

When Smith was running his mouth while he was still a Steeler.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 24, 2010 7:11 AM CST up reply actions

Thats why there is a ? after the name!

Wasn’t sure if it was Peyton or Brady.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 24, 2010 8:17 AM CST up reply actions

Thanks and rec'd

I agree completely with everything said above. I don’t know if it’s all true, and neither does packallday555, but I think it is a much more constructive way of thinking about player mistakes and how to solve them than simply blaming the players and hoping for better play.

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 22, 2010 3:52 PM CST up reply actions

If you want...

Cetainly anything can be blamed on McCarthy… He is the HC after all… In my opinion I think the slow starts are his fault due to the scripted plays! Clearly they aren’t working the way we or he would like! I don’t see them as being to fired up or other times being lazy or out of it mentally at all. I think they take a very business-like approach to the game and try not to get high or low.

IMO the fumbles etc are all on the players! Its well known McCarthy drill players on ball security. Theres only so much he can do, at some point the players have to play and hold onto the ball. Quarless probably shouldn’t even be playing this year. IF Finley wasn’t injured he wouldn’t be. He’s clearly not ready for the NFL. He has to grow and mature in much the same way Finley did. Problem is we don’t have any other TE that are any kind of a recieving threat! Apparently Lee is completely out of favor w/ the coaching staff, otherwise I would expect he would be used more, but thats a guess!

I just dont see McCarthy as that big players coach. He treats them fair and doesn’t jump on them in public, but that certainly doesn’t mean he won’t in private! I’ve heard he is pretty hard on them behind closed doors!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 5:25 PM CST up reply actions

PAD

If you and Strohman would read my post carefully, you would see that I don’t blame MM entirely. And, I’m not necessarily calling for MMs dismissal. “1. MM has made some mistakes, for sure, but I won’t put the close losses entirely on him.” I give MM partial blame for slow starts, but mostly it’s on the players EXECUTION. I give MM partial blame for ST because he hangs with the same ST coach even as ST has been a disaster. As far as motivation goes, back in the day when college football had 9 reg. season games, Wood Hayes used to say that he could get the team up for maybe 3 games each yr. They would get themselves up for maybe 3 games and the rest was PRIDE. The Packers are a PRO team, they play for $$$ and every guy thinks he’s underpaid. They should get themselves up for most games. Like someone posted above, you think MM didn’t stress to them that they shouldn’t overlook Detroit? I guarantee you he said it more than a few times that week. If you want to say that MM is soft with the players and the team lacks discipline, then that’s another story.

by bigbill992001 on Dec 22, 2010 7:03 PM CST up reply actions

I am going to make at least one more attempt

to address this issue of blaming the players. This time, I will not suggest that you should not blame the players. Go ahead and blame away. However, I will try to encourage you to answer one question: If the players continue to make mistakes throughout the season (and, I might remind you, some of the same mistakes), what should be the team’s strategy to address this issue and where will that strategy come from? My answer to the first part of that question is better coaching and the second part is the coaches. If you have another strategy for how to reduce a widespread problem of player mistakes by this football team, I would love to hear it. I’m not saying it’s an easily fixed problem, but that is the difficult position that a staff of professional football coaches is put in on a daily basis.

Packers "Special" Teams -- you know, like Special Olympics

by Ben T on Dec 22, 2010 3:49 PM CST up reply actions

Agree

Ben, friendly suggestion: please change your signature. I know you’re trying to give us a chuckle, but it’s in poor taste. My two cents.

Completely agree with your point. If players continue to make the same mistakes, like failing to convert golden RZ opportunities, is not their fault as much as it is the fault of directions they are given. If this team’s weakness in the RZ has been gaining that last yard using the wrong methods to achieve it, such as the fullback slam or the QB sneak for example, the coach should instruct them to play to their STRENGTHS, which is obviously the bootleg of a mobile qb, a powerback led by a fullback, or just going with the hot hand that has worked that game, be it quick slants, Bjax, or whatever. Our HC continues to employ over and over tactics that have NOT worked well in the past or in the game itself (he has a penchant to keep using a method that doesn’t work), and that is what’s wrong.

Until our head coach gets a grasp of this – results will be hard to come by.

by Rodgers_for_MVP on Dec 22, 2010 5:35 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks for the heads up,

and I apologize to anyone who took offense to it.

by Ben T on Dec 22, 2010 5:52 PM CST up reply actions

see below on James Jones

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 8:44 PM CST up reply actions

Players have strengths and weaknesses!

Just like coaches! I don’t remember anyone every blaming coaches for Ahman Green fumbling far too often! It just happened to be one of his weaknesses!!! About the only one really… Players nor coaches are absolved from anything. Players need to work on the things they don’t do well and so do players!

Did you blame McCarthy or SHerman every time he fumbled?!! I highly doubt it… Its not too different than say James Jones alleged fumbliing. And I say alleged becuz he’s got this reputation as one, But if you really look at the fumbles his rookie year vs Chicago in the same game, they were FAR more the defender (who has a great history of doing this) knocking the ball out of Jones grasp as he made a difficult catch w/ his hands the way he’s taught! In all other games is his fumbling any worse than say Driver? not by my memory! I remember Driver fumbling about as much and in just as if not more important games!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 5:37 PM CST up reply actions

Strohman, I wasn't trying to give all the blame to MM

1. fumbles, ints, missed FG, missed tackles, penalties, dropped passes, missed open receivers. Those are all player mistakes not coaching mistakes! ……exactly! Never meant to put those on MM. I thought it was obvious.
3. 8 times in 31 games, incl. playoff game, the D has given up at least 10 pts. on Caper’s watch.

     2009 Week 8 vs. Minnesota: Start of 4th quarter: GB trails 24-20. Final: 38-26 L(we score 6,give up 14)
     2009 Week 9 at Tampa Bay: Start of 4th quarter: GB leads 21-17. Final: 38-28 L(7,21)
     2009 Week 15 at Pittsburgh: Start of 4th quarter: GB trails 24-14. Final: 37-36 L(22,13)
     2009 Wildcard Round at Arizona: Start of 4th quarter: GB trails 38-24. Final 51-45 (OT) L(21, 10+3 in OT)
     2010 Week 3 at Chicago: Start of 4th quarter: GB leads 10-7. Final: 20-17 L(7,13)
     2010 Week 5 at Washington: Start of 4th quarter: GB leads 13-3. Final: 16-13 (OT) L(0,10+3) Week 6 vs. Miami: Start of 4th quarter: GB trails 13-10. Final: 23-20 (OT) L(10,7+3)
     2010 Week 12 at Atlanta: Start of 4th quarter: GB tied 10-10. Final: 20-17 L(7,10)
     2010 Week 15 at New England: Start of 4th quarter: GB leads 24-21. Final: 31-27 L(3,10)
All losses(9) and incl. a playoff game, and doesn’t count the last Detroit game L(0,7). Again, we’re talking D here, never meant to put it on MM, thought it was obvious.

by bigbill992001 on Dec 22, 2010 6:30 PM CST up reply actions

My mistake... Really wasn't sure who you place blame on..

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 22, 2010 6:42 PM CST up reply actions

4th quarter points

Giving up points in the forth quarter isn’t always on the defense or coaches. This year James Jones singlehandedly blew two games. Against the Bears he fumbled a reception allowing Chicago to score with 8 seconds left. Against the Pats, Jones made all of the three cardinal mistakes a receiver can make including giving up on the route. This resulted in a pick 6 and the game.

by marcopo on Dec 22, 2010 8:42 PM CST up reply actions

point noted

it’s hard to defend if you turn the ball over deep in your own end.

by bigbill992001 on Dec 23, 2010 2:01 AM CST up reply actions

ya know…we don’t really even need a coach do we…
what I’ve learned from you is that the coach really does nothing. When something goes wrong it has nothing to do with him. Though when things are good its all on him.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 23, 2010 9:57 AM CST up reply actions

we need a new head coach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by fn_cold_ak on Dec 22, 2010 6:29 PM CST reply actions

And you probably need a new "!" key now

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 22, 2010 7:38 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

This is all McCarthyism

'TAAAAAAANNNK!!!' - Any of Francis, Louis, Bill, or Zoey

by mike_o on Dec 22, 2010 11:15 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

Some one should look up MM's record against teams that dress in red

He’s got to attack those teams with a vengeance!

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 23, 2010 10:40 AM CST up reply actions

This meeting of the House of UNAPC activities will now come to order.

Wait, WHAT?

To get punished by the NCAA nowadays, especially if you’re at a major school, you have to be monumentally stupid. -ReadingRambler

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 25, 2010 3:05 AM CST up reply actions

Haha. Rec'd

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is still more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 25, 2010 2:33 PM CST up reply actions

I Don't Know

I’m not sure Coach Mac is super bowl caliber. His track record speaks for itself. I hope he proves me wrong, and that Rodgers proves he can lead a team to the promised land. Super Bowl or bust

by Wade V on Dec 24, 2010 1:32 PM CST reply actions

Bangs head against computer

Good Lord, people, you absolutely destroyed each other. Last time I saw this sort of posterization was Wisconsin’s defense completely shutting down Ohio State in 2009…

To get punished by the NCAA nowadays, especially if you’re at a major school, you have to be monumentally stupid. -ReadingRambler

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Dec 25, 2010 3:06 AM CST reply actions

Want to know the funny part?

MM is not going to get fired. He’s stickin around for another year, at least, so we get to go through this all over again next year.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 25, 2010 7:56 AM CST up reply actions

What's with this "we" stuff?

You all can fight about him all you want. I already said this in another post, but so long as the guys in the locker room trust McCarthy, that’s fine with me.

'TAAAAAAANNNK!!!' - Any of Francis, Louis, Bill, or Zoey

by mike_o on Dec 25, 2010 2:05 PM CST up reply actions

The question isn’t trust.

by marcopo on Dec 25, 2010 2:23 PM CST up reply actions

Sure it it...

Trust, leadership are all part of good coaching! W/o those qualities you can’t expect to have the player playing hard! And we don’t see any of that do we?! Even playcalling calls into account trust! If the players don’t trust his playcalling they don’t respect him to coach them to Wins… Again, no evidence of that from the players!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 25, 2010 3:37 PM CST up reply actions

The "we" stuff

is all of us here on the blog argueing the same points again. Stop being hostile for hostilities sake. I want to keep McCarthy.

I hate the Giants... and kittens.

by Smeefers on Dec 25, 2010 5:27 PM CST up reply actions

Didn't mean to come off as hostile

I’m just annoyed at all the arguing about McCarthy. I’m thankful we have him instead of John Fox or Wade Phillips, guys that obviously lost the respect of their players.

'TAAAAAAANNNK!!!' - Any of Francis, Louis, Bill, or Zoey

by mike_o on Dec 25, 2010 7:43 PM CST up reply actions

The probabilities are that MM isn’t going anywhere. If that the case, all I can do is hope he takes great strides in the off season to improve his coaching. I really hope he become the second coming of Lombardi, but I don’t see it happening.

by marcopo on Dec 25, 2010 2:26 PM CST reply actions

You left games out

They beat the Eagles 27-20 this year in week 1, on the road.
They beat the Vikings 24-19 in 2008 in week 1, at home.
So right there his record is now 24-26 in close games

by Sheegan on Dec 27, 2010 4:51 PM CST reply actions

If you read my premise

I only counted games in which the score was within ten points going into the fourth quarter or it went into overtime. Both games you listed the Packers led by more than 10 going into the fourth quarter.

Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."

by GoGregGo on Dec 27, 2010 9:17 PM CST up reply actions