NFL Off Topic

[ubernoob]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Totally agree. And love the "mediocrity projects." LOL

Grass ain't always greener on the other side.

I think people underestimate the randomness of a single elimination tournament like the NFL playoffs. It's incredibly hard to even make the playoffs. If you have a HC who is getting your team there year in and year out, unless there's a clearly better option available and willing to come in, you don't screw that up. I see the playoffs almost as the lottery. If you consistently enter in the limited field that is the playoffs, eventually your team is going to be drawn.

Packers have a down year next year, maybe another? The hammers can fall. But you don't can a coach who's won you a SB and multiple division titles and kept you on top of the NFC for as long as McCarthy has.

I think you overestimate McCarthy.

I could call plays for that offense and go 8-8 on the back of Rodgers. What happened when McCarthy lost Rodgers? We couldn't win a single game. He's literally a one-trick pony, and that trick is having the best QB in the league.

We all say Rodgers sucked this year, but he still managed almost 4k yards, 31 TDs and 8INTs on almost 61% passing.

You wanna compare that to someone like Minnesota and their QB play (not that I think Teddy is bad in any way) in a league we all say is QB driven?

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: NFL Off Topic

To be consistently in the playoffs or in once every 4-5 years (Redskins)?

Tough one.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: NFL Off Topic

To be consistently in the playoffs or in once every 4-5 years (Redskins)?

Tough one.

Let's frame the discussion differently.


Do you (the group) think Mike McCarthy maximizes the talent given to him? If not, then why should he keep his job?

[roadman]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Packer fans have normally have had it good over the past couple of decades, but I also think some Packer fans forget where we came from the putrid 70's and 80's. I can only think of one division title in 72 from that time frame. Phil Bengtson, Dan Devine, Starr, Greg and Infante, I might be missing a few.

If people want to hang their hat on McCarthy should go, then there should be a clean house attitude and take Ted Thompson with him and start over from scratch.

Maybe someone can draft better than Thompson based on where the Packers draft position have been since he's been in charge.

I'm not sure I'm ready for that type of change, yet.

[ProfessaPackMan]

NFL Off Topic

I think you overestimate McCarthy.

I could call plays for that offense and go 8-8 on the back of Rodgers. What happened when McCarthy lost Rodgers? We couldn't win a single game. He's literally a one-trick pony, and that trick is having the best QB in the league.

We all say Rodgers sucked this year, but he still managed almost 4k yards, 31 TDs and 8INTs on almost 61% passing.

You wanna compare that to someone like Minnesota and their QB play (not that I think Teddy is bad in any way) in a league we all say is QB driven?

We won 2 games with y'all God Matt Flynn at QB that year.

And Rodgers wasn't nothing special this year. He damn near had to work just to get 3800 yds(Detroit is one example when he had to throw 68 times just to hit 330 yards)on the year when before he was always good for 4200-4300 yards.

And he's always going low INT numbers because McCarthy would rather he take the sack(hence why Rodgers has one of the most sacked QBs since he came to the league)as opposed to giving his best Favre imitation.

EDIT: Posted this on Twitter and I'll post it here as well, to get more thoughts on it

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2016/1/1/10697346/mike-mccarthy-and-the-trouble-with-consistency

[Bmore Irish]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Let's frame the discussion differently.


Do you (the group) think Mike McCarthy maximizes the talent given to him? If not, then why should he keep his job?

Who's the replacement though? You can't make a change like that unless you have a homerun hire already in mind. When a coach is consistently heading a contender, you don't move on just to say, "see, we didn't need him."

So to me, in this situation, the question is who's the replacement that's going to instantly push the Packers over the hump? Who are the hot names or up-and-comers that are on the radar? Does this individual bring something as a head coach that they couldn't as an OC?

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Let's frame the discussion differently.


Do you (the group) think Mike McCarthy maximizes the talent given to him? If not, then why should he keep his job?

Who on this has he not made better than what they are/were?

[kaletore11]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I'm 100% sure Payton is not leaving New Orleans.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Who's the replacement though? You can't make a change like that unless you have a homerun hire already in mind. When a coach is consistently heading a contender, you don't move on just to say, "see, we didn't need him."

So to me, in this situation, the question is who's the replacement that's going to instantly push the Packers over the hump? Who are the hot names or up-and-comers that are on the radar? Does this individual bring something as a head coach that they couldn't as an OC?

It's literally the GM's job to answer this question. Keeping a guy around because "well, hiring a new one would be hard" is pretty lazy. And just because we (random forum members) don't know the next bright coaching mind doesn't mean a high ranking team official shouldn't. Their level of knowledge should be higher.


I guess I would just be willing to stomach more risk for the chance at achieving something great. A familiar face is only so valuable to me.


If McCarthy is literally the best the Packers can do, then so be it. I find it hard to believe but as a division rival, I'll take it.

[Bmore Irish]

Re: NFL Off Topic

It's literally the GM's job to answer this question. Keeping a guy around because "well, hiring a new one would be hard" is pretty lazy. And just because we (random forum members) don't know the next bright coaching mind doesn't mean a high ranking team official shouldn't. Their level of knowledge should be higher.


I guess I would just be willing to stomach more risk for the chance at achieving something great. A familiar face is only so valuable to me.


If McCarthy is literally the best the Packers can do, then so be it. I find it hard to believe but as a division rival, I'll take it.

My point is not that it'd be hard to find a new coach, but incredibly risky to make the change. But you answered that part of it already, which is that it's a risk that you think would be worth taking.

Difference of philosophy. I don't see the need for a team in the position the Packers are in to take that risk.

Hue Jackson, Adam Gase, I'm sure there are many other names that are likely to get a shot at HC next season. I just don't know when, if ever, the kind of move being discussed really worked out.

[ubernoob]

Re: NFL Off Topic

We won 2 games with y'all God Matt Flynn at QB that year.

And Rodgers wasn't nothing special this year. He damn near had to work just to get 3800 yds(Detroit is one example when he had to throw 68 times just to hit 330 yards)on the year when before he was always good for 4200-4300 yards.

And he's always going low INT numbers because McCarthy would rather he take the sack(hence why Rodgers has one of the most sacked QBs since he came to the league)as opposed to giving his best Favre imitation.

EDIT: Posted this on Twitter and I'll post it here as well, to get more thoughts on it

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/20...th-consistency

I know he wasn't special, and I'm saying "not special" for him is putting up those kind of numbers. Him alone pretty much guarantees us a winning season if he stays healthy for the year.

That article is saying the same thing as a few of us here. It's basically saying "we know what McCarthy is at this point. If you want to be good, but not great, stick with him. If not, figure out where to go from here."

If you think about it, now would be somewhat of the time to start thinking about it. McCarthy's negatives at this point outweigh his positives on gameday - looking from the outside in.

What head coach would turn down a chance at a job that says "Hey, you get Aaron Rodgers still in his prime, Fat Eddie, a returning Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, etc." at this point? The list of ones that would is very, very short.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Let's frame the discussion differently.


Do you (the group) think Mike McCarthy maximizes the talent given to him? If not, then why should he keep his job?

I don't know what its like for a coach to be around longer than 3 or 4 seasons so I'm not the best judge for what other, more successful teams should do as far as risk management is concerned.

[roadman]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I know he wasn't special, and I'm saying "not special" for him is putting up those kind of numbers. Him alone pretty much guarantees us a winning season if he stays healthy for the year.

That article is saying the same thing as a few of us here. It's basically saying "we know what McCarthy is at this point. If you want to be good, but not great, stick with him. If not, figure out where to go from here."

If you think about it, now would be somewhat of the time to start thinking about it. McCarthy's negatives at this point outweigh his positives on gameday - looking from the outside in.

What head coach would turn down a chance at a job that says "Hey, you get Aaron Rodgers still in his prime, Fat Eddie, a returning Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, etc." at this point? The list of ones that would is very, very short.

From that perspective, anyone could coach better than McCarthy.

We could go back and rip on Thompson for not drafting speedy WR's that can get open(see Bruce Arian's after game comments) or for drafting a mediocre backup OL and not spending anything outside of his home grown product of players he drafted on FA.

Might not be all McCarthy, but he will receive the lions(no pun intended) share of the blame.

[The JareBear]

Re: NFL Off Topic

So now that I'm not drunk anymore I've sat down and tried to analyze this qb situation as objectively as possible.

I understand that making the switch gave us a spark. The crowd was dead, the team seemed lethargic, things weren't going well. There was a clear difference when manning entered the game.

I understand that a couple things that happened were direct results of mannings presence, including two offsides penalties and manning checking into two runs that broke long as result of his audible at the LOS.

I understand that manning completed short passes (maybe one you could call intermediate) but he did throw spirals consistently which is rare for him, and had decent zip on each pass.

I don't understand why our blocking suddenly got better. Manning had all day on a couple throws, I noticed on the pass he was sacked on (after easily 5 seconds in the pocket) he had RB in helping. Why didn't Brock have extra protection? Why did our run blocking on stock running plays that weren't adjusted at all at the Los get dramatically better? Why is Brock blamed for CJ Anderson and sanders fumble? Why is Brock blames for an INT that went through a WRs hands? What is our future? We can't afford manning next year. We need to ditch him, clady, and ware so we can resign Wolfe, Jackson, trevathan, and Von. We are in a tough spot financially. If Brock is the future how will he improve on the bench? Game reps are infinitely more valuable than practice reps.

I'm just trying to understand. I can understand mannings adjustments (nobody ever said he isn't smart, he's the smartest qb of all time, he just doesn't have physical tools anymore and that's showed up three years straight I the playoffs) making the blocking look better but it happened on plays he didn't adjust too

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

My point is not that it'd be hard to find a new coach, but incredibly risky to make the change. But you answered that part of it already, which is that it's a risk that you think would be worth taking.

Difference of philosophy. I don't see the need for a team in the position the Packers are in to take that risk.

Hue Jackson, Adam Gase, I'm sure there are many other names that are likely to get a shot at HC next season. I just don't know when, if ever, the kind of move being discussed really worked out.

Remember all the love Chip Kelly and the Eagles got from folks because "it was different and outside the box"? People thought they had a step up on the rest of the league after they won the NFC East in the first year and thought his Offenses were going to change the league.

3 years later, he's out of a job and they're no further than when they first hired him.

Hell, it was just 2-3 months ago when folks thought Jay Gruden needed to be fired because of how he handled the QB position. Guarantee you won't find those same people around now, unless you're on Twitter.