Mike McCarthy-how much longer will he get?

quote:

Originally posted by johnnie gray:
to say 1/3 of the roster is on ir is gross exaggeration, to say the least. more than half the guys on ir are fringe players, and a few more were marginal starters.

So what does that say about the guys who were brought in to replace them? Remember, everybody plays in the NFL. If you're dressed you're playing at least special teams. (unless you are Matt Flynn before last week) Everybody likes to complain about s/t, but look who is out there playing. It's a lot of guys who couldn't make a roster on opening day. At this point same could be said for our LBs and DL depth.

I like McCarthy overall, and agree with most that he will get at least another year. If the team is healthy and regresses next year (which I don't think will happen) it might then be time to think about replacement, not now. I just hope they win big before his message gets old and the players lose confidence.

quote:

Originally posted by lambeausouth:

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:
Yes.

How many more years are you willing to give McCarthy to win it all? If you were the GM, is there a timeline you have in mind, Boris?

Seriously. This year, What would the Packers record be if we had Singletary as a HC, Fisher, Darth Hoodie, Childress, Sean Payton, Norv Turner. I can go on.

Do you think the record would be any better with any HC? Worse?

It's tough to win in this league PERIOD, let alone win it all. No matter what his contract length is, as a HC in this league, you're on a year to year basis.

I can only evaluate what MM has done this year. While I believe he is at fault for the Lions loss, he coached a great game last night against a superior team with a backup QB and a rag tag bunch of players on Offense, Defense AND Special Teams.

So I will not sit here and bash MM for doing the very best he can under very long odds & heavy scrutiny from living in the fish bowl that is Green Bay WI.

You want a timeframe? I give him through 2011. I reserve the right to re-evaluate at the end of the 2011 season. Right now, he has to win 2 more games THIS year. Losing to the Giants or Bears is not an option. Especially at Lambeau.

quote:

Originally posted by johnnie gray:
to say 1/3 of the roster is on ir is gross exaggeration, to say the least. more than half the guys on ir are fringe players, and a few more were marginal starters.

Wrong

Barnett, Nick - LB
Bell, Josh - CB
Burnett, Morgan - S
Chillar, Brandon - LB
Finley, Jermichael - TE
Grant, Ryan - RB
Harrell, Justin - DE
Havner, Spencer - TE
Jones, Brad - LB
Martin, Derrick - S
Neal, Mike - DE
Poppinga, Brady - LB
Smith, Anthony - S
Tauscher, Mark - T

Plus Rodgers X 2 games. Matthews X 2 games. Jenkins X 2. (All starters)

You have a 53 man roster. 17 players either on IR or missing significant time that directly affected the outcome of a game.

17/53= 32 % of your roster.

And I'm not even going to include the Donald Lees, Nick Collins, etc who are more starters who've missed time.

The only one buying your delusional 'fringe players'/injuries aren't that significant crap is you.

lmao! nice math. 14 guys on ir, three of whom (smith, bell and havner) were stop-gap players added during the season. and tauscher played terribly when he was in there.

by the way, guys who are not on ir (jenkins, rodgers, matthews) don't count.

powned

I am just saying here but some of those coaches were HCs with other teams before their SB winning clubs. This is MMs 5th overall season. I see your point though. Most of those teams did not have a franchise QB leave right in the middle of the tenure only to bring in another franchise QB. I would say the Pack are on year three here not year 5 in that scenario. Am I wrong? Almost the entire team has turned over in that time short of a few players.

quote:

guys who are not on ir (jenkins, rodgers, matthews) don't count.

So make up fictional, make believe characters in their spots? Don't count. So if Tom Brady were hurt for 2 games, they don't count?

WOW.... I can't even start with the other stuff in your post. Do you think that Tauscher might have been playing poorly because of his injury? Here's your sign.

quote:

Originally posted by TD:

quote:

guys who are not on ir (jenkins, rodgers, matthews) don't count.

So make up fictional, make believe characters in their spots? Don't count. So if Tom Brady were hurt for 2 games, they don't count?

WOW.... I can't even start with the other stuff in your post. Do you think that Tauscher might have been playing poorly because of his injury? Here's your sign.

I wish Cameron Wake "didn't count" against us.

He didn't count last week when he pwned the Jets the whole game.

quote:

Originally posted by johnnie gray:
14 guys on ir, three of whom (smith, bell and havner) were stop-gap players added during the season. and tauscher played terribly when he was in there.

So Mark Tauscher not playing well means his IR status suddenly doesnt count despite being a starter?

Seriously you're embarassing yourself.

Thankfully MM and TT IR'd Finley because his injury wouldn't have counted. They better IR Jenkins quick too.

get a clue boys. if you're going to pronounce that "1/3 of the roster on ir" you don't count guys that are not on ir (jenkins, matthews, rodgers) when you make you argument. hell, why not say half the roster is on ir and include collins, colledge and clifton as well. didn't they miss some plays at some point?

anyway, i've said my piece. we disgaree. hopefully the team makes the playoffs and this issue becomes moot.

carry on.

Dear Johnnie Gray

I need to ask you a small favor

I have installed a "stupid" filter on my pc, but for some reason you seem to have overwhelmed its capacity today

Can you please not post any more until I can get an IT guy down here to help me fix it ?

Thanks a million, and I will send you a PM with the "all clear" as soon as the flux capacitor is repaired

quote:

not on ir (jenkins, matthews, rodgers) when you make you argument.

You are right. Please TT IR these players so johnnie gray can be happy. Obviously, injuries don't count unless they are done for the year.

DUM DUM me. Time will tell.

Try mine Satori!! Works great!

Automated Message For "Johnnie Gray"


***This is an automated message generated from The Moron Filter (patent pending)***

We regret to inform you "Johnnie Gray" that your message(s) could not be displayed on the recipient's computer due to the fact you're a moron.

We at www.identifyidiots.com are not without compassion for the intellectually challenged. On our website are numerous links to other websites that could help you emerge from your cesspool of stupidity. Sites such as GEDs-R-Us, Sylvan Learning Center, and Remedial Reading For The Really Regressed, are just a few that we offer. In addition we offer coupons for the LeapPad Learning System and Hooked On Phonics.

We at www.identifyidiots.com sincerely hope you take this opportunity to further (or in your case...START) your education with hopes of becoming a contributing member of society instead of a babbling fool.

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by TD:

quote:

if they do not make the playoffs this year, i will have seen enough.

Really?

Starting halfback out.
Pro Bowl TE out.
Half the defense hurt.
In every game.

I am not a MM homer, but for Pete's sake come up with a better argument than what you did.

Sure the 6 losses by 20 points hurt but Sherman's teams got run over by 20 and 30 points not too mention the biggest choke, screwup in the 2000 millenium at Philly.

OK, I'll play devil's advocate.

MM's coaching rates superb for being in every game.

That being said, the 5 losses WERE ALL WINNABLE. Thus, we are logically LOOKING AT SOME OTHER FACET OF COACHING (if we accept all those games as being winnable).

If it is true that we are talking some other facet of coaching skill and if we require a certain level of skill with respect to that other facet and if MM grades pi$$-poor at that other facet...


Those games were all incredibly winnable and we lost them all. FIVE games and all winnable.

I give him two more games, minimum.

quote:

Originally posted by pablopackerfan:

quote:

The ultimate goal of the Green Bay Packers each year is to win the Super Bowl.

I don't buy it. I'm almost positive it's to piss off half the posters on this board. Period.

Just one more PoS useless post. Cyber-space is inexpensive, but way too expensive for this completely wasted PoS.

Get a life.

So, for all of these 'winnable' games, who's to blame? Does MM get credit for getting his undermanned/injured teams in position to win, or does he take the blame for players not performing? I'm in the camp that MM did what he needed to in most of those games and it's on the players.

Bears - MM's fault for the Jones fumble when the Pack is driving for the winning score?

Skins - MM's fault for Crosby hitting the upright?

Lions - MM's fault for Flynn throwing the pick in the end zone?

Pats - MM's fault for the pick 6 or special teams allowing a 300+lb offensive lineman to return a kickoff to the 5?

Atlanta - MM's fault for the Rodgers fumble at the goalline?

I'll put the blame on MM for the poor tackling and he is ultimately responsible for special teams play (although replacing the ST coach would help in that area), but to me he's taken a large number of backups and had them in position to win every single game. The players just haven't made plays when needed.

quote:

Does MM get credit for getting his undermanned/injured teams in position to win, or does he take the blame for players not performing?

This is a common logical fallacy which is only allowing A or B when another possibility just might be A and B.

But, maybe you are right. Maybe MM was just real unlucky. With a population of 5, maybe in every case he had nothing to do with losing those games.

I just looked back at the schedule. Pack beat Lions by 2. Was it that close or did Lions get a late score? I would have to include Packers 4 point win over Vikings. So maybe in close games he is 1-5 or 2-5.

Regardless, I assert the following. Coaching an injury-ravaged team to playing competitive, winnable football games and coaching in such a way that you win most of the close games are two different things.

I give MM an A+ for one of the above skill sets. I am not sure he deserves an adequate grade for the other.

MM is ultimately responsible for what his players do on the field, good and bad. I suspect even if he should miss out on the playoffs this year he's in no real trouble due to the injury situation. Next year will probably be the key to his future in the organization.

quote:

Originally posted by packerboi:

quote:

Originally posted by lambeausouth:
But aren't many of us already calling for at least a few of his coaches to be fired? Slocum, Campen...others??

Firing assts wasn't the point of your thread.

Now you're changing the argument. The title of your thread is Mike McCarthy how much longer does he get?

The assts are a different topic and for the record MM has shown he can and will fire assts (see Bob Sanders) and will replace them with competant ones (see Dom Capers).

Changing HC's is a MASSIVE change. It has huge ramifications and means a crap ton of asst coaches go with him. Damn good ones like Edgar Bennet, Kevin Greene, Robinson, Tom Clements, and maybe even Capers.

Because I'll tell you this. If MM was to be fired after this M*A*S*H Unit of a season AND makes the playoffs doing it, another NFL team will be salivating at picking him up in heartbeat. Mmmmmmm....the Vikings come to mind.

And where do you think all of his asst's will go? Ding ding ding. That's right. Right out the f-ing door with him.

Exactly.

Here's the question turned back on those who constantly call for MM's head. How far would you go to replace a coach? You know a guy like Cowher or Gruden would certainly mean the entire coaching staff is gone and would be causing friction in the front office because they want the juice.

Simple fact, guys like this aren't going to be brought in by TT. Would you fire TT, a guy that has thoroughly proved himself as a talent evaulator and GM to bring a whole new system and start over?

If not, what coach would you bring in to replace MM that wouldn't drive out Capers and his staff? What coach would you bring in that would have a sense a continuity with the front office and the defensive staff or do you think Capers and TT are expendable?

Now, what's easier? Push MM to retool elements of his staff or throw a proverbial monkey wrench in a system that is this close to delivering some real results because of some imaginary timeline?

As far as that list of coaches goes, how many of those guys had previous HC experience before winning with the team they were on? How many inherited teams ready made? Cowher is a genius but gets 14 years. Marvin Lewis and Jeff Fischer still have jobs. The fact that this whole discussion was put into "equation" form is stupid. Football isn't Algebra.

Sort of what Phaedrus said. What do you lay at the feet of the HC, and what doesn't count against him? In most arenas, excluding politics and big business, the guy in charge gets credit when things go well, blame when they don't. Since you can't sort-of fire a HC, is it all about records, subjective evaluation of wins and losses, preparation, execution, or something else? MM certainly isn't responsible for a specific error by an individual player, but he is responsible for signing, training, evaluating, and using him. If there aren't any solid criteria, then it's pointless to argue the point.

In all seriousness, this thread has some of the best posts I've seen at x4. Well done and keep bringing the reasoned arguments, folks!

quote:

Originally posted by Half Empty:
Sort of what Phaedrus said. What do you lay at the feet of the HC, and what doesn't count against him? In most arenas, excluding politics and big business, the guy in charge gets credit when things go well, blame when they don't. Since you can't sort-of fire a HC, is it all about records, subjective evaluation of wins and losses, preparation, execution, or something else? MM certainly isn't responsible for a specific error by an individual player, but he is responsible for signing, training, evaluating, and using him. If there aren't any solid criteria, then it's pointless to argue the point.

First off, it's Packer board. Some come here to discuss others come here to bleed all over the board. Secondly, the only criteria that matter are in TT's head. Thinking we as fans have any kind of input is bull**** but it makes for conversation.

Anyone have a bleach pen?

quote:

Originally posted by johnnie gray:
are you really saying that the loss of derick martin, anthony smith, brad jones and spencer havner have cost this teams wins?

other than grant and finley, the injuries have not siginificantly impacted the team's ability to perform.

in fact, as several posters have noted on this board, the defense has played better since barnett was lost.

most of the other guys were role players who were easily replaced. in fact, neal may have been the biggest loss after grant and finley.

injuries cannot explain the inexplicable losses to washington, miami, the bears and detroit. the packers are significantly better than all four of those teams, injuries or not.

I am not going to say that Smith, Havner, Jones, etc. cost the team wins, BUT you have to look at it for depth purposes. Jones starting OLB, goes down, with Poppinga backing him up, then Poppinga goes down, with Zombo (street Rookie FA) backing him up, then Zombo goes down with Waldren (street FA) backing him up. Did they cost us wins? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact that we have had 4-5 starting OLB's opposite the Kracken hurts our D, anyway you look at it.

Now look at the safety spot, same thing, Bigby, Smith, Burnett go down, which mean Bush and Underwood are on the field more. Did they cost us games? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is they were "role" players who were thrown into the field to become viable back-ups and starters. If it wasn't for Zombo and Shields coming on, we'd be really screwed.

As for the Washington game, that game can easily be explained by an injury. CMIII was eating their lunch, I think he had 2-3 sacks in the first half, they had no answer, and hadn't moved the ball at all. He goes down with a hammy, they pull him for the second half and the game is completely different. It's a different game, when you don't have 2 OLB's.

Man, I was really late to the party on this one....

I recall a stat that the 2001 NE Patriots missed more starter games due to injury than any team in NFL history to that point.

As much as I disliked Mike Sherman he won 51 games through his first 5 seasons while McCarthy has won 44 with 2 more to play. Sherman had won 3 straight division titles and also made 4 playoff appearances. By year 4 and 5 he was getting ripped heavily. MM has managed to dodge a lot of that criticism, not sure why but people seem to defend him much more than they did Sherman.

He has his good points obviously he is a great QB developer. But they have had lousy special teams performance under him year in, year out. They fail to close the deal on a close game. He has poor clock management skills and tends to give up on the run too easily.

The 5-16 record in close games is ridiculous. Yes they were in those games, but to lose these close games at a 76% clip shows that there's something to it. They were saying on the radio that even the players have begun to talk about it.

Look at last night. They had the 2 minute warning and 2 timeouts and they only got off 7 plays in that time frame and never once even got a pass into the end zone.

While I'd like to say can his ass if they don't make the playoffs I wonder who would they get and would it be worth it? The answer is probably no. However, if Slocum and Campen are not fired the day after the season is over we really need to question if he is capable of making the best decisions for this team.

quote:

I recall a stat that the 2001 NE Patriots missed more starter games due to injury than any team in NFL history to that point.

So you think Drew Bledsoe being healthy allows the Pats to win the Super Bowl? How about the infamous tuck rule call?

quote:

MM has managed to dodge a lot of that criticism, not sure why but people seem to defend him much more than they did Sherman.

Maybe because his QB cost the Packers nearly every playoff loss?

2002 Ram Game - Check
2004 Philly Game - Check
2005 Viking Game - Check

Sherman lost the Packers first two EVER home playoff losses. Then he nearly lost to Seattle at home if not saved by Al Harris' int return.

Sherman also pissed away millions on bonehead GM decisions, and overpaid interior lineman.

Sherman's Special teams were NOT special. He also couldn't find a punter either.

Mike Holmgren's close game record was under .500 for the Packers too. The one think I like about MM's teams is that we have been in nearly EVERY GAME in the last 3 years.

Sherman's teams got shallacked by Tennessee at home with scrubs playing!

IMO, he shouldn't be fired, especially because it would mean a complete reboot of the offense and potentially the defense if Capers felt like he had been passed over and decided to leave.

MM Positives:
Great QB development. Rodgers and Flynn are prime examples.
Hired Dom Capers and lets him do his thing on that side of the ball.
Overall, I like his offense, there's a lot of unique stuff that the Packers do and the passing game is among the strongest in the NFL.
Isn't a jackass like some other coaches.
Has done a good job of overcoming injuries, IMO. The team hasn't quit, that's for sure.
Overall good teams, I rarely feel like the Packers are completely out-coached.



MM Negatives:
It seems like every other game we waste the last couple of minutes in the first half. The dude needs to go back and take clock management 101.

Sherman was hamstrung by Rossley by his own doing. MM is currently hamstrung by Slocum by his own doing.

Play-calling: I don't care why the running game hasn't been as productive as he'd like. He HAS to retain some balance on offense. He finally did that vs the Pats. I also hate the low percentage deep balls on short yardage. Move the chains Mike.

Lack of OL development/efficiency. Campen/MM

Not sure what's up with all of the close losses, but ultimately the buck stops with MM.

Bottom line, I think he's shown to be a good coach. He hasn't been "great", but he could still yet improve. We'll see. I think he should (and will) get at least 2011 to show that he can get it done. I truly think we'd have won at least 2-3 more games this year if one of the following three things had happened health-wise:
1. That we had not lost both Grant & Finley on offense,
2. If our DL hadn't been thinned to this extent and
3. If Matthews/Woodson had been closer to 100%.

...and the season ain't over yet either. Two more wins and we're in. Anything can happen in the playoffs.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
I truly think we'd have won at least 2-3 more games this year if one of the following three things had happened health-wise:
1. That we had not lost both Grant & Finley on offense,
2. If our DL hadn't been thinned to this extent and
3. If Matthews/Woodson had been closer to 100%.

...and the season ain't over yet either. Two more wins and we're in. Anything can happen in the playoffs.

I don't think they'd need both, just one or the other and I think they'd have another 2-3 wins.

Having just one of Grant or Finley dramatically improves our red zone offense. It opens up the playbook. I definitely think we'd have a better record than we do now.

Agreed H5, that's what I meant.

McCarthy is much better than Sherman. You guys are right, we have a lot of good coaches on the staff that we wouldn't want to lose with the notable exception of Slocum. I would get rid of him, and maybe the offensive coordinator. Or maybe just have the offensive coordinator handle playcalling. I would feel much better if McCarthy started to grasp basic strategy. Timeouts, challenges, general clock management.

This team is scrambling to make the playoffs when they should probably be sewing up a bye by now. Very frustrating.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris

Seriously. This year, What would the Packers record be if we had Singletary as a HC, Fisher, Darth Hoodie, Childress, Sean Payton, Norv Turner. I can go on.

Do you think the record would be any better with any HC? Worse?

It's tough to win in this league PERIOD, let alone win it all. No matter what his contract length is, as a HC in this league, you're on a year to year basis.

I can only evaluate what MM has done this year. While I believe he is at fault for the Lions loss, he coached a great game last night against a superior team with a backup QB and a rag tag bunch of players on Offense, Defense AND Special Teams.

So I will not sit here and bash MM for doing the very best he can under very long odds & heavy scrutiny from living in the fish bowl that is Green Bay WI.

You want a timeframe? I give him through 2011. I reserve the right to re-evaluate at the end of the 2011 season. Right now, he has to win 2 more games THIS year. Losing to the Giants or Bears is not an option. Especially at Lambeau.

I would agree with what you said, Boris.

I can't on one hand commend the Packers for hanging in there, playing hard, and maintaining a more than respectable record with all the injuries they've had, and not give credit to McCarthy. How quickly I tend to forget many of the good things he's done. It's easier to look at the end of the game when a risky play or two don't go our way, and place the blame on the head coach's shoulders. Last night's loss was fresh in my memory. But McCarthy didn't fail to tackle a 300 + lb offensive lineman rumbling down the sidelines, and he didn't throw a pick six. At some point, both praise and criticism needs to be correctly assessed.

No, I don't think any of the coaches you mentioned would have us in a better position than we are right now. In fact, I think other head coaches might have lost this team along the way.

It makes good sense to give him the time he needs. As I alluded to earlier, I am hoping that he realizes how much of a liability Shawn Slocum is, and sends him packing.

quote:

Sherman had won 3 straight division titles and also made 4 playoff appearances. By year 4 and 5 he was getting ripped heavily.

along with the other lackings already posted, his defenses tended to be less than dominant. you give me a dominant defense and I'm doing pretty good. I can live with a less productive offense if the defense is blasting folks and getting turnovers and shutting them down. uggg, just typing this made me remember Bob Slowik and now I have to go heave my lunch.

quote:

Originally posted by The GBP Rules:


The 5-16 record in close games is ridiculous. Yes they were in those games, but to lose these close games at a 76% clip shows that there's something to it. They were saying on the radio that even the players have begun to talk about it.

Look at last night. They had the 2 minute warning and 2 timeouts and they only got off 7 plays in that time frame and never once even got a pass into the end zone.

I can't subscribe to this close games stat. There is some small basis for it, but IMO it's a contrived statistic. For instance, how many of those games were the Packers either tied or in the lead after Rodgers took them down for a score, only to watch the game pissed away by the defense or special teams? Yes they all count as close losses, but people need to weigh the facts and situations of each game and each circumstance, rather than grouping those losses as a whole.

So if you give blame to a head coach for losing by less than 4, you also need to give credit for having his team man up in the 4th quarter to tie or take the lead as well.

The 2 min drill is a highly suspect part of MM's coaching ability, and I don't know if he gave Flynn the options of play calls against the clock. I think he needs to do a better job in that spot, even with Rodgers. But here again- it's lumped into that close loss category, yet you can look at a handful of plays throughout the game last night that completely changed the complexion of the game long before. Had one or more of those plays been made, GB could easily have taken a 2 score lead well into the 4th qtr, and the close loss argument is moot.

artis - one thing about the close games stat is something that was talked about last night: The Packers have not won a single game in 2010 once they were trailing in the 4th quarter.

Coffee is for closers!

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
artis - one thing about the close games stat is something that was talked about last night: The Packers have not won a single game in 2010 once they were trailing in the 4th quarter.

Coffee is for closers!

That is true, but players make or don't make plays, and what I saw last night, in particular with Woodson, Tramon, Shields, Walden, Jordy-they were in position to make big game changing plays, and they came up short. The best thing a head coach can do is practice all week and scheme to put your guys in those very type of positions.

quote:

Originally posted by artis:

quote:

Originally posted by The GBP Rules:




Look at last night. They had the 2 minute warning and 2 timeouts and they only got off 7 plays in that time frame and never once even got a pass into the end zone.

The 2 min drill is a highly suspect part of MM's coaching ability, and I don't know if he gave Flynn the options of play calls against the clock. I think he needs to do a better job in that spot, even with Rodgers. .

I think this is a problem.