Edger Bennet new OC, Clements Assoc HC & will call plays

Rockin' Robin posted:

 

Hungry5, you can play whatever semantics games you want, but it's absolutely clear from my posts back in February that I questioned the judgement of this move at the time. Responses to my original post pushed back on how can MM delegating be "a bad thing", so yes, people correctly interpreted my comments at the time as a criticism. 

What was clear is you didn't understand the moves (not just the OFF switch-up) from a fan perspective of priorities, which makes sense as we aren't in the middle of all that was going on. Questioning that on a message board is fine, but bring something more than I don't get it.

From your page 1 post you asked what had Clements done to warrant his move, which is a valid question and I don't think anyone answered you. So here goes... From what we knew back then Rodgers was a huge fan of Clements and credited him with some development, and we heard often how Clements played a big part in the game-planning for various down-and-distance scenarios. That is what we knew and gave no one any indication Clements would struggle.

Getting back to your stance of I don't get it from last February, why didn't you bring up the fact that Clements failed as an OC in Buffalo years ago?

It's not semantics, it's facts.

One thing I have questioned about McCarthy in the past has been his desire to give his coaches a broader base- moving them around to different position groups as if he were training them to become head coaches. It may be that's necessary to retain assistants but I don't think that's part of his job description and without a compelling good for the team should not be done.

I will say McCarthy's as good a manager as I've seen in his position. In return for his loyalty he gets it back. He tries to put people in a position to succeed and gives them a legitimate chance to do so. If the internet commentariat were treated with the same knee jerk intolerance for error they show to players, coaches, GMs, broadcasters, etc, they'd all be unemployed and homeless. Maybe they are.

Van, down by, river

Henry posted:

But your initial post was complaining about not addressing defense and ST, which is exactly why MM ceded the duties in the first place.  So that's a big reason why people questioned your take.  It comes off more as you're saying defense and ST aren't being addressed.  

Good post. A few quick responses:

1) I agree ST has improved, which has surprised me, and MM should get credit for that.

2) Do we really, think the D has improved? They've certainly looked good the past month, but I've seen this act before when they play lesser QBs. I'm still having a hard time erasing those performances against Rivers, Peyton, and Cam out of my mind. I guess we'll see real soon when they play Palmer.

3) I think the idea that MM had to choose between staying on as OC vs. helping D and ST is a false choice. I understand the point that it's a trade-off between a scenario with MM as OC, Capers as DC, and Zook as ST vs. TC as OC, Capers/Zook with MM helping. But my initial point (which probably could have been clearer) is there's actually a third scenario where MM stays on offense but hires a ST and D coordinator who don't need his day-to-day oversight. I would have much preferred, for example: MM as OC, Fangio as DC, and Seely as ST. That would have upgraded D and ST without sacrificing offense. Now, folks can argue that wouldn't have happened and Seely and/or Fangio wouldn't have come to GB. But the point is there is no indication that was even considered.

Troy posted:

Packer fans are a spoiled bunch.  It doesn't always go perfectly.  When you realize that you will be able to enjoy things better. 

Spoiled and whiny. One Packers fan proclaimed that the 2010 Super Bowl win was the worst thing ever, because it meant we could never fire MM. That guy needs to be exiled like Dilweed into Viking Fandom. .

As far as the defense, yes, it is improved but that's not saying they are a top tier defense.  They do enough consistently to help this team win when they aren't abandoned by the offense.

Second, I don't think you would get any argument about hiring competent  DC/OC that didn't need hand holding.  Capers failure always seemed to be in execution and coaching players, not drawing up a game plan.  When MM handed over duties to Clements, Edgar and essentially Rodgers you couldn't imagine it would fail so terribly.  This team is the offense.  And who would've thought the whole offensive coaching staff would've gone down like a house of cards?  Seemingly no discipline or player prep.  

MM assuming a true HC position wasn't the wrong move.  If anything it showed how much this team is incumbent on him and how poor the coaching staff is below him.  I'm sure a big part is working with those that will work best with you.  I don't think that can be dismissed.  Yet, you can't have a bunch of flunkies and yes men either.  I would like to think MM could work with a guy like Wade Phillips.  Capers at one point was a fine DC, I just think things are passing him by.  Add in Clements is just a joke and some closer examination is needed.  

Still, it was the correct thing to do as far as becoming a complete HC.

I commented this collapse had a Sherman feel to it.  I think that stems from some of the refusal to acknowledge the failure at first.  The good thing is MM did adjust.  In fact his handing off of duties in the first place was an adjustment.  He over corrected but is finally bringing things back to center.

Rockin' Robin posted:

I would have much preferred, for example: MM as OC, Fangio as DC, and Seely as ST. That would have upgraded D and ST without sacrificing offense. Now, folks can argue that wouldn't have happened and Seely and/or Fangio wouldn't have come to GB. But the point is there is no indication that was even considered.

So you can see into the future? There are no guarantees that a coaching change would make it better. Why would they consider a change? Who says they didn't have discussions with anyone?

Didn't McCarthy state that one of the main reasons he gave up play calling was so he could focus on the game management? Not so much the defense and special teams prep but the real time stuff. I know he felt things happened during the Seattle game that he might have averted; errors in concentration and execution that a voice different from the position coach might have prevented. 

If this return to "normal" plays out the way my daydreams go, Mike McCarthy will cement his place as a top tier coach.

People have said that Aaron Rodgers makes average receivers look great. What does it say about McCarthy if Rodgers is average without him?

My question is just how much autonomy Clements had. I understand that there are some certain flow of the game and play selection decisions that would fall solely on the decision of the "play caller." Clements might not have called the Starks draw on 2nd and 25, and maybe he was slower getting the plays in.

But much of what changed Sunday was philosophical. The commitment to pounding the football. The heavy use of Kuhn over Rodgers. Using some presnap motion and misdirection. Quick hitting plays rather than "hey, you four get open downfield."

Isn't all of that stuff Mike as a head coach could have asked Clements to implement and execute? Was this stuff he would have suggested that was just ignored by TC? I'd be very curious to learn more about that dynamic.

I still think McCarthy may have underestimated his own ability as a playcaller and thought Clements was capable of doing the same thing.  I don't blame MM for hesitating in taking back playcalling responsibilities because I don't think it was out of stubbornness but out of loyalty.  A good manager is loyal to his employees and, similar to a draft and develop strategy for players, he gave Clements enough time to learn and improve, but eventually progress must be shown.  Thankfully MM didn't wait until the end of the season to make the change back.  Onward and upward.

IL Pack fan

I suspect that effective play calling in the NFL involves an element of "art".  An intrinsic feeling of what will be effective, gleaned from observation and experimentation. Jazz-like.

If McCarthy is Thelonius Monk, A Rod is Ornette Coleman.

Clements? Maybe Daryl Dragon.

Ornette says "Man, I can't do nuthin with Muskrat Love"

IL_Pack_Fan posted:

My question is just how much autonomy Clements had. I understand that there are some certain flow of the game and play selection decisions that would fall solely on the decision of the "play caller." Clements might not have called the Starks draw on 2nd and 25, and maybe he was slower getting the plays in.

But much of what changed Sunday was philosophical. The commitment to pounding the football. The heavy use of Kuhn over Rodgers. Using some presnap motion and misdirection. Quick hitting plays rather than "hey, you four get open downfield."

Isn't all of that stuff Mike as a head coach could have asked Clements to implement and execute? Was this stuff he would have suggested that was just ignored by TC? I'd be very curious to learn more about that dynamic.

This is an excellent post and excellent questions. 

MM had a 10 day period after the Hail Mary game to put together a game plan and call sheet. It's clear that time was out to good use.

Add to this that media reports that MM started spending more time with the offense a couple of weeks ago. I suspect that prior to this he was giving Clements, Edgar and Rodgers a wide berth in order to let them do their own thing. IMO Mike started getting back into it as it was apparent there wasn't a satisfactory evolution and improvement, and the more he saw the less he liked.

grignon posted:

People have said that Aaron Rodgers makes average receivers look great. What does it say about McCarthy if Rodgers is average without him?

This might have been the slightly bitter pill that Rodgers seemed to be sucking on after the game Sunday. Players not plays. I would expect a player to have that perspective. It is kind of chicken or egg scenario, but they go hand in hand (plays and players).

CHEEZE posted:

grignon posted:

People have said that Aaron Rodgers makes average receivers look great. What does it say about McCarthy if Rodgers is average without him?

This might have been the slightly bitter pill that Rodgers seemed to be sucking on after the game Sunday. ,,,,stuff...

Huh.  I keep hearing about this, but I heard the interviews and I never for a second got this vibe from Aaron.

Great post otherwise and I agree.

And, to be honest grig, you have an excellent point.

Just because a player is elite, doesn't mean they can't benefit from added opportunities that an elite coach can give them.

Without complete and utter thought, how many elite players are there who had elite coaches? 

Of course this gets back to the aforementioned "chicken and egg" concept.  Does the coach make the player, or vise versa?

I am a firm believer in players not plays, but I also believe that great play opportunities can have an exponential effect on great plays incurred. There is definitely a synergy between elite players and coaches.  There are plenty of examples where one made another and together made history.

TLDR;  I don't think Rodgers is butthurt.  I didn't hear it in the interviews that I saw, which was probably all of them.  I think the Media just struggled to make another point to bitch about this season so they tried to create whatever they could with an insanely weak out of context quote.

F those F'in Fs.

I have football to watch.  

I only say slightly because I did not hear him give MM much if any credit to what was happening on the field.

I took A-Rod's "it's execution" comment more as an attempt to avoid throwing Clements under the bus.

NFL Network's Albert Breer with some thoughts about McCarthy taking back play calling:

3) Packers' problems. With Mike McCarthy taking play-calling duties back in Green Bay last week, I went back to an October conversation I had with the Packers coach about why he'd decided to pass the torch to Tom Clements. And in revisiting his comments, you get some clues as to what he's thinking now. "My goal was for us to play to one another better," McCarthy told me. "We've been so heavily tilted to the offense. It's always been about the offense." He explained that Green Bay's 15-1 season of 2011 (and I wrote about that part of it) was the impetus for the change: He felt like his team wasn't prepared to play the kind of bare-knuckle game the Giants baited the Packers into playing in that season's playoff loss. "As great as it was -- 15-1 and we had a lot of opportunity to be 16-0 -- that's really a team I never wanna be again," McCarthy said. So what's changed? Well, the Packers are middle of the league in total defense and sixth in points allowed. The running game is workman-like, if not explosive. They're balanced. Now, it's their long-standing strength -- Aaron Rodgers and the passing game -- that hasn't been quite strong enough. McCarthy said back in Week 5 that "when you have that common thread that runs through your whole team, it gives you a good chance to be a pretty balanced football team. That's the goal, that's the secret, that's why I did it." Conversely, he said if there was a problem with his play-calling, it was that he was too aggressive. So maybe with the desired balance in place, the Packers need a little more of that aggression now. And, of course, there's the overriding thing here: No one wanted to waste a year of Rodgers' prime due to an experiment.

Story here:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/...olling-without-drama

Everything he stated shows MM gets it.  Yes, the OC/DC has been an issue and you would hope they would be able to act autonomously but then it really isn't MM's team then.  Clements massive failure has given me a new yet begrudging respect for The Wizard (who is still flawed).