Clemenza approved "What's wrong/right with this organization?"

Oh and here is a retort for the laziest question ever in this conversation.  

Who would take a flyer on an OC from a team with 1-15 record and who didn't want to draft Rodgers?  Or that OC that was essentially benched by the Giants.  That McVay guy sure blows after being hired away from the 2nd stupidest Gruden in football (thanks Deadspin).  McDermott sure is an uninspiring choice.

Yeah, no one out there.  The organization is paid to go find these guys.  We get Alex Van Pelt, Ben MacAdoo, Philbin and Edgar Bennett.  Oh, don't forget the awe inspiring tenure of Tom Clements!  

"Give me a name".

Aaron "Turd Polisher" Rodgers.  When Rodgers retires the old Jewish guys in the Diamond District are going to hire him.  "Such luster!  Your skills are impeccable.  What do you call this turd cut again?  The MacAdoo?"

Why are you hammering this so much? Is it because Dom Capers is gone and there's nothing to b*tch about? You're all worked up about MM being this lousy sack of sh*t because things aren't perfect. He wins though, who fukkin cares if it's Rodgers winning or McCarthy? I don't care if it's YOU at HC, if you're winning then keep doing what you're doing. Stop getting wrapped up in the how we win or what the team looks like. They got the new DC and MM has 1 season to prove his worth, instead of giving this forum a golden shower of your witty McCarthy grievances and telling us the end is nigh, why don't you just let the season play out and see if things have changed? What's the point of hammering anyone who doesn't agree with you if they haven't even played a real game yet? 

It could be he's just as responsible for all the failure yet there he is.   I also read "Vince Lombardi and Bill Belichek" associated with MM.  Yeah, that's insane.  

Quit being a sore loser.  I opened up a thread to openly talk about a major organizational change so it quits spilling all over.  Man, you're sensitive. 

Here's another interesting thought that came to mind.  We talk about franchise QBs but how rare are coaches that actually drive a team's success with almost any personnel?  Lombardi, Belichek, I guess Walsh.  That's a crazy rarity in this league.  

Sore loser? Were we competing? What are you talking about?

Full on hissy.  If you don't want to talk about it then don't. 

MM is like Hundley.  You're fully aware of what he can do and the fact that's what you're going to get.  It's beyond irritating.

Sore loser, christ almighty. I don't think YOU want to talk about anything. All you ever want is b*tch and then tell people how stupid they are if they don't agree. Internet forum discussion champion 20 years running, wins every discussion. 

I sense an "I'm leaving" coming on. 

I've been here since 2002, if your snark hasn't driven me off by now I'm sorry to say it's not going to. 

Okay, Princess.  It's almost like you get upset when I respond to your posts and can't handle invective.  Undoubtedly your continued responses have nothing to do with it.    

Hi, my name is Henry.  Can I get you a pillow or a cup of cocoa?

Don Julio 70 Añejo Claro neat, please.

Now we’re talking!

Henry posted:

Here's another interesting thought that came to mind.  We talk about franchise QBs but how rare are coaches that actually drive a team's success with almost any personnel?  Lombardi, Belichek, I guess Walsh.  That's a crazy rarity in this league.  

I'd add Shula.

Pre SB there were some good ones.

Here's an interesting nugget.  

"Striking" recent changes in Aaron Rodgers game.

Jesus, you guys are making me think about going to the mattresses. 

i think good (great) coach/good (great)QB goes hand in hand. 

Was Belichek really anything special without Brady?  Walsh with Montana, Lombardi had Starr, M3 has Rodgers, Shula had Griese/Marino, Levy with Kelly the list goes on and on. Each arguably the “best” coach of his period also had arguably the “best” QB of his period. 

Gibbs got it done with Williams and Rypien. Great OLs though. 

Funny how great OLs are a consistent narrative throughout NFL success. But I daunt mean to repeat myself. 

Hungry5 posted:

Henry posted:

Here's another interesting thought that came to mind.  We talk about franchise QBs but how rare are coaches that actually drive a team's success with almost any personnel?  Lombardi, Belichek, I guess Walsh.  That's a crazy rarity in this league.  

I'd add Shula.

Pre SB there were some good ones.

We can probably add Landry to the list. But I cannot think of any modern day coaches other than BB. Maybe Pederson will be that guy??? But, probably not..

I daunt think this will boost your community ranking. 

Was Belichek really anything special without Brady?

Matt Cassel went 11-5 the year Brady went down in the first game.  He wasn't particularly special in Cleveland, but then that's Cleveland.

Henry posted:

Here's another interesting thought that came to mind.  We talk about franchise QBs but how rare are coaches that actually drive a team's success with almost any personnel?  Lombardi, Belichek, I guess Walsh.  That's a crazy rarity in this league.  

Joe Jackson Gibbs. His first time around. Won SB's with Joe Theismann, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien at QB  

Didn't hurt that he had a now HoF GM (Bobby Beathard) and two of the greatest assistant coaches in league history (Richie Petibone at DC and Joe Bugel for the OL). I thought Gibbs running the offense (and he innovated quite a bit) and Petibone the defense was the best such combo until Holmgren and Fritz Shurmur. Damn but Fritz was a great DC. 

PackerBackerDPM posted:

i think good (great) coach/good (great)QB goes hand in hand. 

Was Belichek really anything special without Brady?  Walsh with Montana, Lombardi had Starr, M3 has Rodgers, Shula had Griese/Marino, Levy with Kelly the list goes on and on. Each arguably the “best” coach of his period also had arguably the “best” QB of his period. 

Lombardi and Belichek could/can win with anyone.  As H5 said, Shula is another one.  Shula didn't win anything with Marino at QB either.  Walsh brought in those superstar QBs.  That's what is so impressive.  When they have a hand in or completely control both the player personnel and what's happening on the field it's more impressive.  Getting results with what is put in front of them or simply knowing talent in the first place.

And that's the initial point.  There have been multiple coaches with superstar QBs who are "geniuses" but it's the coach/GM who is the engine of the team, not the QB, that is rare.  MM is nowhere near that caliber of a coach.  He was handed Rodgers and didn't even want to draft him in the first place when he was with the 9ers.  He's not even remotely close to Lombardi, Belichek, Walsh or Shula.  He's nothing without Rodgers.

ilcuqui posted:

Henry posted:

Here's another interesting thought that came to mind.  We talk about franchise QBs but how rare are coaches that actually drive a team's success with almost any personnel?  Lombardi, Belichek, I guess Walsh.  That's a crazy rarity in this league.  

Joe Jackson Gibbs. His first time around. Won SB's with Joe Theismann, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien at QB  

Didn't hurt that he had a now HoF GM (Bobby Beathard) and two of the greatest assistant coaches in league history (Richie Petibone at DC and Joe Bugel for the OL). I thought Gibbs running the offense (and he innovated quite a bit) and Petibone the defense was the best such combo until Holmgren and Fritz Shurmur. Damn but Fritz was a great DC. 

Good point.  Those Redskins teams were impressive.  

I'll be interested to see how McVay fares over the next few years.  Last year was impressive but we've all seen mercurial starts and not so great finishes.  

The reason I posted that article on Rodgers is it highlights a few areas of weakness. 

Player personnel for Rodgers.  Check, TT fired.

Scheme.  Not check.  MM still there with his "scrubbed" playbook.  Seriously, what does that even mean?  Is MM also going to "scrub" tendencies when he locks into a game plan that isn't firing?  When he's on and adaptable, he's a really good OC.  Is that something he'll work on?  The ability to stay flexible?

The whole thing just seems like half-measures.  After seeing the maddening play of a really mediocre team, half measures seems like you're burning another year.  Hearing MM compared to real HCs just chaps my ass. 

I hope Pettine can help put the team over the top.  I'm excited to see it but I don't think this is going to be a quick, one year turnaround. 

Great info there that I missed, especially adding in Gibbs. 

I do think watching Pederson and McVay develop will be interesting based on last year they would be high on the wish list when the inevitable happens. 

Henry posted:

Here's another interesting thought that came to mind.  We talk about franchise QBs but how rare are coaches that actually drive a team's success with almost any personnel?  Lombardi, Belichek, I guess Walsh.  That's a crazy rarity in this league.  

I think a guy named Starr had a lot to do with Lombardi's success.  As well as Bob, Fuzzy, Jerry and Forrest.  And he won 1 year without Taylor and Hornung,  And almost the same 11 on D.  So to say Lombardi won with almost  any personnel is not quite true. 

Henry posted:

PackerBackerDPM posted:

i think good (great) coach/good (great)QB goes hand in hand. 

Was Belichek really anything special without Brady?  Walsh with Montana, Lombardi had Starr, M3 has Rodgers, Shula had Griese/Marino, Levy with Kelly the list goes on and on. Each arguably the “best” coach of his period also had arguably the “best” QB of his period. 

Lombardi and Belichek could/can win with anyone. 

Except Cleveland.  Nobody wins with Cleveland. 

PackerBackerDPM posted:

i think good (great) coach/good (great)QB goes hand in hand. 

Was Belichek really anything special without Brady?  Walsh with Montana, Lombardi had Starr, M3 has Rodgers, Shula had Griese/Marino, Levy with Kelly the list goes on and on. Each arguably the “best” coach of his period also had arguably the “best” QB of his period. 

Lombardi & Belichek to me stand head & shoulders above the others based on the fact that both Starr & Brady were not highly coveted QBs before they were coached by these 2. Of the 2, Lombardi's work  is even more impressive....he took a third string QB on a last place team & built a dynasty. 

Yea...no.  Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Bart Starr, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, etc. would be great quarterbacks regardless of who their coach is/was.  

Romeo Crennel?

Pakrz posted:

Yea...no.  Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Bart Starr, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, etc. would be great quarterbacks regardless of who their coach is/was.  

Starr was an awful QB before Lombardi got him. 

Now... you want to talk about a great coaching job IMO.  Mike Holmgren being able to harness Favre's talent and win football games in spite of his many flaws.  Without Holmgren, I don't think he's in the HOF.... not even close.

I agree with that. 

Bill B. told Malcom Butler to park his ass on the bench in a SB to prove Tom wasn’t enough to beat a backup after Brady convinced Kraft to ship Jimmy G to the west coast. 

Pakrz posted:

Yea...no.  Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Bart Starr, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, etc. would be great quarterbacks regardless of who their coach is/was.  

I'm not sure how great Montana would have been without Walsh. The West Coast offense that Walsh developed was based on specific numbers of steps for both the QBs and the WRs. Montana was a perfect fit in terms of the precision required and he was good as college QB at Notre Dame, but there was a reason he lasted until the 3rd round. He didn't have the arm strength that most of the other guys on your list did. 

ChilliJon posted:

Bill B. told Malcom Butler to park his ass on the bench in a SB to prove Tom wasn’t enough to beat a backup after Brady convinced Kraft to ship Jimmy G to the west coast. 

Oh schyt.

Next it's gonna be pictures from the movie set that they staged the moon landings from. 

Pakrz posted:

Now... you want to talk about a great coaching job IMO.  Mike Holmgren being able to harness Favre's talent and win football games in spite of his many flaws.  Without Holmgren, I don't think he's in the HOF.... not even close.

Agree whole heartedly. Favre had as much chance to be Jamarcus Russell as he did a HOFer before Holmgren. If Holmgren would have kept his ego in check and stuck with Favre, the Packers win 2-3 more Super Bowls. It was clear in 1998 that Holmgren had one foot out the door and Favre's interception numbers went way up that year. Favre was never the same once Holmgren left - except for one year in Minnesota when he felt he had something to prove. 

..until that interception.

Thanks, Ted.