Mike McCarthy-how much longer will he get?

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:

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.

Don't be so hard on yourself binary.

quote:

Originally posted by artis:
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.

Agreed, no doubt they should have made those plays. But where do we draw the line? When the Packers had tons of penalties in prior years, MM said it wasn't an emphasis - until this past off-season and training camp. Suddenly, the penalties started to fall off. This year - and in year's past, we've seen a large number of drops from our WR's. Maybe it's something our coaching staff isn't emphasizing enough?

Anyway, I do agree that those mistakes were on the players, but those are also the types of mistakes that bad teams make. Those are losing plays, the type of plays that eventually get coaches fired.

quote:

Originally posted by artis:

I can't subscribe to this close games stat. There is some small basis for it, but IMO it's a contrived statistic.

Yep, if the famous stat is tweaked to include all games decided by 7 or less, MM's record goes to 12-17. Still far from ideal, but not quite as brutal as everyone's favorite arbitrary stat.

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!

This is where MM falls down -- getting his players to impose their will on the other team. It was something Holmie was great at doing with the Pack. How many times did Holmie's team come out of the locker room in the second half and the whole attitude was, "Just try to stop us. You can't. We WILL win." MM comes out and seems to say, "We're going to outsmart you guys and try to win." You knew Brady and Belichick would score on the drive to take the lead because they willed it and the team followed.

quote:

Originally posted by artis:
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.

And look at which side of the ball those guys are on (except Jordy): the D. Capers, despite having more second-stringers than do the Bills, has put guys in positions to make plays all year long. MM hasn't done that. You know Slocum can't put guys in position to make plays, and MM came up short yet again.

I'm willing to give MM one more year, BUT he 1) has to give up playcalling, 2) fire Slumdum and C-amdone, 3) keep Capers in the fold, 4) needs to instill that will to win, that toughness in his team. I think he can be a well-above-average coach if he does those things.

CJS, agreed. Was it Parcells that said you are what record says you are? It's nice to think how this team "could" be 11-3, 12-2, or better but for a handful of plays, but these are plays that were not made. Plays that players were most often times put in position by Capers or MM to make, and they weren't made. There's a shared responsibility on all these issues. There is no cut and dry individual that should get all the blame. But if your players are in position to make these plays, and they don't, as a HC you should know that eventually it will come back to you. I don't believe TT is near that point, and I think a big part of the reason is the ongoing shuffling of the roster.

Mike McCarthy-how much longer will he get?

I see advertisements about this on late night TV. Is he becoming a spokesman?

Also worth noting, his teams have been competitive in all but two games during his entire tenure with GB (at Chicago in the snow and at New Orleans.) If we’re using Belicheck as the measuring stick, he has two this year alone.

But, IL, I think you get cut a little more slack when you have multiple rings already...

quote:

Originally posted by artis:
CJS, agreed. Was it Parcells that said you are what record says you are? It's nice to think how this team "could" be 11-3, 12-2, or better but for a handful of plays, but these are plays that were not made. Plays that players were most often times put in position by Capers or MM to make, and they weren't made. There's a shared responsibility on all these issues. There is no cut and dry individual that should get all the blame. But if your players are in position to make these plays, and they don't, as a HC you should know that eventually it will come back to you. I don't believe TT is near that point, and I think a big part of the reason is the ongoing shuffling of the roster.

Good post. Ultimately the blame, just like the credit has to be shared.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
Good post. Ultimately the blame, just like the credit has to be shared.

Agree completely too. I just haven't seen people on this board give MM any credit this year. Just the blame. That's why I get heated reading MM criticism. He's done plenty good for this team but you'd never know it from some of these threads.

In the last seven games the Packers were behind only ONCE at haltime. So far for the entire season, the Packers were only down TWICE at halftime (in fourteen games). Regardless of all the pages of commentary on this web site, this is a telling statistic about team personnel and coaching performance and preparation for games.

He will get two more years. With a healthy team next year, expectations will be higher. If he doesn't get to the SB or Champ game... it will be rough on him

He does have to improve (or is it that the team has to improve execution on critical plays?)

I suspect he'd be a genius if the outcome of a couple 4th and 1's were different.

I think MM has to realize, Campen and Slocum are holding him back. He has to bite the bullet and make upgrades at those positions.

I think MM has done a way above average job as coach, but his minion coaches are failing him at critical times.

I bet that dreadlocks boy FB is benched the rest of the season as he made his best block of the year against the Packers on that KO return by a RG from the Cheatriots.

Lets just win the next 2 then worry about schmidt.

This thread embodies everything that's good about X4.

We could use more Wiccan chicks, however.

Sherman is/was a much better coach than McCarthy. His teams weren't terribly undisciplined like McCarthy's (despite having #4) and his teams generally played with a swagger that these recent McCarthy teams (2008 being the exception). For some reason the McCarthy era Packers lose close games. Also, home games are no longer have the same feel as a true advantage like they did under Holmgren and Sherman.

McCarthy will be given at least one more year, however, I'd like them to go to a more defensive minded coach that demands a little toughness and discipline in his players. For some reason.. whatever it is.. it is not sinking in with the Packer players.

quote:

His teams weren't terribly undisciplined like McCarthy's (despite having #4) and his teams generally played with a swagger that these recent McCarthy teams (2008 being the exception).

Mike Sherman's close game record.... 14 - 11

Coaching overall 59-43, in the regular season. He also had losses that were completely embarassing such as 48-3 vs the Ravens on Monday night football. He also had a Monday night loss in which my grandmother scored 4 times in 2004 losing to a pathetic Tennessee Titan team 48-27. The biggest staple of the Sherman era, starting out slow every year.

His Playoff record 2-4 including the Packers FIRST ever home loss and the worst playoff loss in franchise history in which his undisciplined team had 8 turnovers losing 45-17 at St Louis.

Dum Dum me.

quote:

swagger

Sherman's teams had swagger? The only game they had swagger was when they beat the Ravens at home in 2001.

How's BJ Raji doing?

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Also, home games are no longer have the same feel as a true advantage like they did under Holmgren and Sherman.

Where are you getting the home field advantage in the Sherman days? He lost the only 2 home playoff games in franchise history, one to a hated division rival.

Sherman's home record

2000 6-2
2001 7-1 home blowout playoff loss to the Falcons
2002 8-0
2003 5-3 Squeeked out a home playoff win, only to choke away a 14-0 lead at Philly a week later
2004 4-4 home playoff blowout to the Vikes
2005 5-3

Overall home record 35 - 13. Postseason 1-2.

Yep, what a bang up job.

The best words that sum up the Sherman era 4th and 26.

quote:

Originally posted by CUPackFan:
I just haven't seen people on this board give MM any credit this year. Just the blame. That's why I get heated reading MM criticism. He's done plenty good for this team but you'd never know it from some of these threads.

I'm on the same side of the bar. Beer?

quote:

Originally posted by TD:
Sherman's home record

2000 6-2
2001 7-1 home blowout playoff loss to the Falcons
2002 8-0
2003 5-3 Squeeked out a home playoff win, only to choke away a 14-0 lead at Philly a week later
2004 4-4 home playoff blowout to the Vikes
2005 5-3

Overall home record 35 - 13. Postseason 1-2.

Yep, what a bang up job.

The best words that sum up the Sherman era 4th and 26.

I still think 4th and 1 summed up Sherman better than 4th and 26.

Yeah. One is worse than the other.

Both are bad.

you get that 1 yard game was over. That was all on Sherman. 4th and 26th was due to 2 players screwing up.

Barnett not dropping deep and sharper doing his ole routine.

The only blame Sherman can get for that is for calling off donatell's original call of the blitz.

Sherman pussied out and hoped his punter who could pin them deep(who sucked in the cold).

The Packers were also up 14-0 right at the end of the 4th quarter. They scored 1 FG the rest of the game.

Sherman lives on.

Sherman was OK as a coach, but the issue was he was Matt Millen like as a GM and that's why he was eventually canned.

McCarthy has a lot of good qualities, but the 5-16 record in "close games" is completely ridiculous. I mean, based on pure luck (alone) you should be able to win 20% of those games. Not so much with MM's teams.

The biggest issue I have is with MM is that his playcalling at times has been atrocious. His red zone playcalling leaves a lot to be desired, and maybe it's best if he bring in a OC to do that.

quote:

Originally posted by TD:
The Packers were also up 14-0 right at the end of the 4th quarter.

And yet they lost.

quote:

Originally posted by TD:

quote:

His teams weren't terribly undisciplined like McCarthy's (despite having #4) and his teams generally played with a swagger that these recent McCarthy teams (2008 being the exception).

Mike Sherman's close game record.... 14 - 11

Coaching overall 59-43, in the regular season. He also had losses that were completely embarassing such as 48-3 vs the Ravens on Monday night football. He also had a Monday night loss in which my grandmother scored 4 times in 2004 losing to a pathetic Tennessee Titan team 48-27. The biggest staple of the Sherman era, starting out slow every year.

His Playoff record 2-4 including the Packers FIRST ever home loss and the worst playoff loss in franchise history in which his undisciplined team had 8 turnovers losing 45-17 at St Louis.

Dum Dum me.

quote:

swagger

Sherman's teams had swagger? The only game they had swagger was when they beat the Ravens at home in 2001.

How's BJ Raji doing?

This is stupid. You realize that McCarthy is 5-16 in close games. 14-11 or 5-16... only you would rather have 5-16. Also, Sherman was 30-10 at home from 2000-2004. Give me the home record of Teddy and Mike at home from 2006-2010. Aren't you busy pissing on Chicken's cheerios still? Because you bring weak ass assumptions in here around me, im gonna stomp on ya.

Raji made some plays last night, hell of a job. He sacked the quarterback once on a good move and the other time he went in completely unblocked (respect). However, we got thrashed on the ground - again - and he is a big part of that run D. Last season, when Raji wasn't the dedicated Nose- we did a hell of a lot better against the run. Yes, we are missing some people.. but no, it shouldn't be as dramatic of a drop off as it has. You will not win the battle with me on this one, Raji needs to step his game up.

The notion of "close games" is entirely arbitrary. And stupid.

quote:

However, we got thrashed on the ground - again

Really? Can you tell me how many rushing yards New England had?

And weak ass assumptions? Like Raji's a bust?

One thing about MM is that his teams for the most part are prepared and IN every game. Sherman's teams got romped enough times to make Jenna Jameson jealous.

2006 3-5
2007 7-1
2008 4-4
2009 6-2
2010 5-1

1-1 home playoff record.

25 - 13. The only game they blew in was the first game in 2006 getting roughed up at home to the Bears. Otherwise, they had a chance to WIN every loss they had in the 4th quarter.

Can you say that about Sherman's teams? They got their arse handed to them countless times at home in THOSE losses, no?

Who gives a crap how many games they were in? The only stat that matters is wins/losses.

Man, some of you sound like Dilly and how he would spout off about a certain Badgers QB- a guy that looked ugly but all he did was win. For some you'd rather have them lose pretty than win ugly.

I hate the Bears as much as anyone but I'd gladly flip flop their record/team right now.

The close losses don't earn you any extra credit in the W/L column. If anything, it should be more frustrating to fans because you were RIGHT THERE and could have won the damn game(s).

Beat Detroit 2 weeks ago and the Packers are in great shape - heck, pick any of those brutal losses like Chicago or Washington and they are in great shape.

If they do miss the playoffs we'll all look back and wonder "what if" they could have won one or two of those close games? I hope it doesn't come to that but it could and that would suck.

quote:

Originally posted by artis:
The notion of "close games" is entirely arbitrary. And stupid.

Well, if the notion is entirely arbitrary a 40 point loss just might be a close game.

Just like the 2005 Baltimore team that was led by Kyle Boller? They beat the Packers 48-3 on Monday Night Football.

Again, MM gets the Packers prepared for the most part unlike mike sherman.

quote:

Originally posted by Tschmack:

I hate the Bears as much as anyone but I'd gladly flip flop their record/team right now.

Seriosly, you'd take their team? Record maybe, but team?? Let's see if you still say this when the Packers beat that team back to back.

Who wouldn't trade records? I would also like to have traded schedules too.

The Bears have great ST's otherwise, they are lucky to be a .500 team.

quote:

Originally posted by Tschmack:
...I'd gladly flip flop their record/team right now.

For the team? Really?!

You must not care much for the Packers' players at all to feel like this.

You were a much more staunch Packer fan than this when I met you. I'd be interested in hearing what's happened since then to make you feel this way.

quote:

Originally posted by lambeausouth: 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.

As I alluded to earlier, I am hoping that he realizes how much of a liability Shawn Slocum is, and sends him packing.

You correctly IMO put some of the responsibility on the players regarding MM. But not Slocum? I don't care if they keep or cut Slocum, but I'd argue that his players need to be held accountable too. On the big OLman kick return, the coverage on that entire right side all had left their lanes and were bunched up in a mosh pit stumblin' bumblin into each other. Even the most incompetent STs coach is not going to instruct his players to leave their lanes at the angles some of those guys took.

MM isn't going anywhere anytime soon. All things considered, I guess I'm OK with that. Can't imagine a coaching turnover this far into TT's rebuild with the reasonable amount of success MM has to his credit. Still think his playcalling lapses are always going to be a hindrance.

I agree that crunch-time playcalling has left a lot to be desired, but I see no reason to presume MM doesn't or can't learn from mistakes and improve from this year to next.

As most folks know, one of the most successful coaches in the league right now had a very tough time of it his first time around as a HC. People get smarter as time passes sometimes and it's foolish to just write that possibility off.

Comparing him to Holmgren or Sherman makes about as much sense to me as comparing boxers of different eras, i.e. huge waste of time and mental energy.

IMO IMHO JMO JMHO