New HC

PackerRuss posted:

Timpranillo posted:

Finish out the season, and clean house.  You can't demand the new guy keeps any coach.  Would be great to keep Pettine, but you have to let a head coach make his own decisions on all assistants.

I agree with you, that the HC is going to want his guys, but I think the organization has to make it known that Pettine stays.  That's why firing MM was such a clusterF@#$

If you’re going to go after a big name coach like Saban or Harbaugh, good luck telling them who their DC is going to be. 

No on Saban. He's old and isn't going to want to uproot to come to GB when he has all the money, prestige, and championships he could ever want. I also don't think he'd want to try to light fires under guys making millions who dog it.

I also don't quite get the Harbaugh love. Better than Michigan Jimmy, but still... 

Henry posted:

Timpranillo posted:

Hundley and Kizer may not be great, but there's a reason they looked as bad as they did...

EXACTLY!  Yeah, Hundley sucked but when McVince thought he could just plug Hundley in and then kept doing the same thing for 4 or 5 games, that was enough for me.  He didn't just flop, he failed in spectacular fashion.  

Does that narrative work with Matt Flynn as well?  

bdplant posted:

PackerRuss posted:

Timpranillo posted:

Finish out the season, and clean house.  You can't demand the new guy keeps any coach.  Would be great to keep Pettine, but you have to let a head coach make his own decisions on all assistants.

I agree with you, that the HC is going to want his guys, but I think the organization has to make it known that Pettine stays.  That's why firing MM was such a clusterF@#$

If you’re going to go after a big name coach like Saban or Harbaugh, good luck telling them who their DC is going to be. 

I totally agree with you, I don't think you bring in a new HC and say, you have to keep the DC.   I'd like the organization say you have to keep Pettine, but I don't think any coach would want to be in that situation.  That's why IMO, this move is such a clusterF@#$, but if you fire MM, you might as well fire Pettine as well. 

  Now, with the firing of MM, it's not just finding the "sexy" new offensive mind, have that coach fill out a new Def staff too.  Luckily our D playmakers are young, so learning a NEW system shouldn't take more than a year or so.  

Was Matt Flynn on the 2017 team?

Henry posted:

Was Matt Flynn on the 2017 team?

I thought the point was that MM sucks, and his playbooks sucks, and it is apparent because when he plays back up QB's, they look like shit?

Maybe, just maybe the guy will like Pettine?   For his expertice , experience and for the fact that he does not aspire to be HC?

Terrified that Murphy is going to gravitate towards a guy like Bruce Arians. Simply terrified about it. 

PackerRuss posted:

Henry posted:

Was Matt Flynn on the 2017 team?

I thought the point was that MM sucks, and his playbooks sucks, and it is apparent because when he plays back up QB's, they look like shit?

It's apparent when you run a "let Aaron handle it offense" with a guy that looked exactly the same as when he came out of college despite his 3 years with a QB guru.  Hundley was just an undeveloped stooge.  McVince calling the same ****ing offense that teams had already figured out with Rodgers under center when running the offense with Hundley was ****ing stupid.  Roll out right and hope Adams makes the catch. Genius.  It took him 4 games to figure out maybe he should run the god damn ball to get better results.  Add in his cadre of failed coaches and you tell me how that was sheer genius.

There's a reason why the word "stale" was bandied about freely.  

Fandame posted:

What else is Rodgers going to say in public? Rodgers has in the past publicly and slyly questioned MM's game plans, said Adams should get his number called far more often, said a few years ago he's bored with the easy throw, "our typical lull," etc., etc. Now that MM is on the street, of course Rodgers is going to be more conciliatory. He's not going to kick a good guy when he's down.

But here's what Philbin/Rodgers should do with MM's playbook:

There’s no etiquette that dictates Rodgers should call him a friend and say he’s going to call him. Thats beyond professional courtesy. I think you and others interpreted what you wanted to hear from Rodgers words, I take him at face value when he says he likes MM and is sad to see him go. I don’t think Rodgers is a bullshitter, I think he speaks his mind.

as much as the current arrangement of Murphy as the top dog sucks it is better than giving the keys to the kingdom to the head coach. At least we have not gone back that far. 

Henry posted:

Not sure what to make of supposed report of Murphy not intending to fire McVince until he did.

Do you have a link?   I keep seeing this referenced here but never seen the report.

Chongo posted:

I know Lincoln Riley is the new big sexy on everyone's lips, but the fact he has zero NFL coaching experience is highly concerning. Dealing with 17-22 year olds is exponentially different than dealing with 21-38 year old professionals.

It takes more than bitchin' new Nikes and travel swag to get guys motivated. I am skeptical of any college HC transitioning to NFL HC, not just The Big Link.

Exactly.   He could be great or he could be the next Chip Kelly.    I'm in favor of Daniels because his resume demands respect.    If Rodgers mentality is really part of the problem, McDaniels just needs to put on his rings and continuously scratch his chin while saying "hmmmmmmmm interesting opinion."

Chip Kelly. Steve Spurrier.  Bobby Petrino. 

Pete Carroll has done OK but he had one previous HC stint in the pros and was also an NFL assistant before duh U$C and his return. 

My bet would be on Bruce Arians or Josh McDaniels.  Would prefer McDaniels as he’s younger and would be able to attract other assistants that are like minded.  Plus anyone that has gone toe to toe with Brady can certainly handle Rodgers.  To a lesser extent, Arians could as well. 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_...gb/green-bay-packers

Mark Murphy on why he's best suited to hire the coach instead of GM Brian Gutekunst: "I've been a player, an athletic director for 17 years, I've hired many many coaches, several football coaches. I feel like I'm a football person, even though I'm in a position of president, and I think this gives the Packers the best chance to have success."

This is why Murphy needs to go. He wasn't hired to make that decision.  The guy is full of himself.  When he left Northwestern there were quite a few who weren't unhappy to see him go.  Frankly, I was surprised the Packers tapped him from what I knew personally.  Name one accomplishment you can point to.  Fitzgerald was at NU before he got there, TT, MM were with the Packers before he got there.  The guy has absolutely nothing to make that statement with such an ego. I said it before, Harlan and Wolf have discussed at length that the key to turning this franchise around was getting upper mgmt out of the football decisions.  This should be Gutes call.

Timpranillo posted:

PackerRuss posted:

Timpranillo posted:

Finish out the season, and clean house.  You can't demand the new guy keeps any coach.  Would be great to keep Pettine, but you have to let a head coach make his own decisions on all assistants.

I agree with you, that the HC is going to want his guys, but I think the organization has to make it known that Pettine stays.  That's why firing MM was such a clusterF@#$

Disagree 10000%. You can’t expect to bring in a guy to run the show but make him take a guy he didn’t choose. 

That's why you bring in a guy who is smart enough to see what he has in Pettine.  Problem solved. 

GratefulPack posted:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_...gb/green-bay-packers

Mark Murphy on why he's best suited to hire the coach instead of GM Brian Gutekunst: "I've been a player, an athletic director for 17 years, I've hired many many coaches, several football coaches. I feel like I'm a football person, even though I'm in a position of president, and I think this gives the Packers the best chance to have success."

This is why Murphy needs to go.

but "I feel like I'm a football person, even though. ."

solid stuff there 

ChilliJon posted:

Terrified that Murphy is going to gravitate towards a guy like Bruce Arians. Simply terrified about it. 

That would be a disaster. As would Harbaugh. 

Pikes Peak posted:

Not a Saban guy but he is the best coach in the land other than Billy,  you have to call the best there is.  Have to.

Not convinced he is the best coach.  The job is considerably easier when you consistently have the top recruiting class in the country and your roster is full of five-star players, so much so that you're able to gray shirt those that don't pan out. 

Some of McCarthy's last words as a Packer were "we're gonna do what we always do..."    You can't make this stuff up!

we're gonna do what we always do...

GratefulPack posted:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_...gb/green-bay-packers

Mark Murphy on why he's best suited to hire the coach instead of GM Brian Gutekunst: "I've been a player, an athletic director for 17 years, I've hired many many coaches, several football coaches. I feel like I'm a football person, even though I'm in a position of president, and I think this gives the Packers the best chance to have success."

This is why Murphy needs to go. He wasn't hired to make that decision.  The guy is full of himself.  When he left Northwestern there were quite a few who weren't unhappy to see him go.  Frankly, I was surprised the Packers tapped him from what I knew personally.  Name one accomplishment you can point to.  Fitzgerald was at NU before he got there, TT, MM were with the Packers before he got there.  The guy has absolutely nothing to make that statement with such an ego. I said it before, Harlan and Wolf have discussed at length that the key to turning this franchise around was getting upper mgmt out of the football decisions.  This should be Gutes call.

 

This.

I'd still like to see Carmicheal of the Saints interviewed.   But no matter who you bring in one of the questions will be, "Are you willing to retain Mike Pettine as DC?" 

And somebody asked about can you talk to assistants of playoff teams?  Yes you can. I think there is a one week window where you can interview coaches while still in the playoffs. This just started a couple of years ago.  

BrainDed posted:

Timpranillo posted:

PackerRuss posted:

Timpranillo posted:

Finish out the season, and clean house.  You can't demand the new guy keeps any coach.  Would be great to keep Pettine, but you have to let a head coach make his own decisions on all assistants.

I agree with you, that the HC is going to want his guys, but I think the organization has to make it known that Pettine stays.  That's why firing MM was such a clusterF@#$

Disagree 10000%. You can’t expect to bring in a guy to run the show but make him take a guy he didn’t choose. 

That's why you bring in a guy who is smart enough to see what he has in Pettine.  Problem solved. 

Rex Ryan anyone?? I kid.

ammo posted:

I'd still like to see Carmicheal of the Saints interviewed.   But no matter who you bring in one of the questions will be, "Are you willing to retain Mike Pettine as DC?" 

And what if it’s the number one guy on your board and he says no to Pettine?  What if Pettine doesn’t want to work for that guy? 

I’d sure hope the Packer braintrust isn’t prioritizing keeping a nice DC over the best HC. 

I never said what answer was a requirement of getting hired. I just said the question may very well be asked. 

There likely a lot of coaches, like Rex Ryan, who probably would have been a lot more successful if they could have solved the QB problem. Ryan took Jets teams led by Mark Sanchez to the AFCC, twice! Not saying I want Rex Ryan, he seems like a nutcase, but it’s interesting to think how much different some coaches would be regarded if they had Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. 

**** no to Saban. 

Just. ****. No.  

I've been on numerous interview committees for coaches, athletic administration, and educational administration. In every case you have some candidates that help themselves through the process and others that hurt themselves, based on your perception of them prior to the entire process. Who would have thought that MM, the OC for the 30th ranked offense would have been our choice before going through the entire process. 

Murphy is the same guy that thought Mikes 1 year extension was the right direction? Asking for a friend. 

Seems like a relevant question for the guy that’s tabbed himself as the right guy to find the next coach. 

The process of Mark Murphy's hiring illustrates a lot of the problems with the current Packer team structure. 

Some people forget that Murphy was only hired because they (meaning Bob Harlan) made the difficult decision to move on from John Jones only days before he was about the take over for Harlan. This was based on some health issues and the feeling that he was not mentally up to the challenges of that job compared to when they decided to hire him. They had groomed Jones for 8 years to take over and then he had his open heart surgery and stroke. Murphy was hired after a much shorter search and without the grooming process that Jones had. If Jones stays healthy, this organization is likely a lot better in the long term. Bob Harlan hired Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson. Thompson hung on about 3 years too long, but he was a great hire at the time. 

Now Harlan wasn't perfect  - he hired Murphy after all. He also participated in what was the single worst coaching hire decision in recent Packer history. That was hiring Ray Rhodes instead of Andy Reid in 1999. We all know why they did it - the organization would have been lambasted by everyone for passing over Sherman Lewis (Reid's superior on the staff) to hire Reid. But Favre would have listened to Reid and GB likely wins another Super Bowl with him. Instead they hire Mike Sherman the next year - who was very similar to Mike McCarthy. A great human being and solid football coach. Both guys ran solid organizations, were highly respected, bungled in-game decisions, and, you could argue, didn't optimize the fact they had HOF QBs playing for them their whole coaching careers. Both guys were loyal to a fault to their assistants sometimes. 

Murphy seems like the kind of guy that will never make the tough decision. It was easy to hang on to TT even though it seems a lot of people thought he had lost his fastball about 4 years ago. Bob Harlan would have likely eased him out a few years earlier. Instead, it resulted in letting Russ Ball have too much influence. Now he fires MM when it's the relatively easy thing to do. Instead of getting the hell out of the way and letting Gute hire his own coach, he's going to make the decision? This likely means making sure they get a "name" even if it's not the best guy. 

They really need to can Murphy. 

Connection between Sherman and McCarthy? 

Philbin.

Grave Digger posted:

There likely a lot of coaches, like Rex Ryan, who probably would have been a lot more successful if they could have solved the QB problem. Ryan took Jets teams led by Mark Sanchez to the AFCC, twice! Not saying I want Rex Ryan, he seems like a nutcase, but it’s interesting to think how much different some coaches would be regarded if they had Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. 

Rex Ryan would be your guy if you needed a guy to come in for about half a season. His schtick works for a while, he clearly can get guys motivated for the short term. The problem is that crazy only works for about that long. 

Grave Digger posted:

There likely a lot of coaches, like Rex Ryan, who probably would have been a lot more successful if they could have solved the QB problem. Ryan took Jets teams led by Mark Sanchez to the AFCC, twice! Not saying I want Rex Ryan, he seems like a nutcase, but it’s interesting to think how much different some coaches would be regarded if they had Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. 

That's literally the argument you've been trying to refute all year when defending McCarthy!

The Fitzgerald smoke seems like it’s going to be real with someone like Kingsbury as the OC. Ahh, the Murphy ——> northwestern connection.

PackerRuss posted:

Henry posted:

Timpranillo posted:

Hundley and Kizer may not be great, but there's a reason they looked as bad as they did...

EXACTLY!  Yeah, Hundley sucked but when McVince thought he could just plug Hundley in and then kept doing the same thing for 4 or 5 games, that was enough for me.  He didn't just flop, he failed in spectacular fashion.  

Does that narrative work with Matt Flynn as well?  

Flynn was 2-2-1 that year - just enough to allow them to sneak into the 2013 playoffs at 8-7-1. Of course, they had to suffer through Seneca Wallace and Tolzien first. 

In the 2 wins and a tie, guess who they had shoulder the load - Eddie Lacy. 

Tie against Minnesota: 25 carries, 110 yards. 6 catches, 48 yards. 1 TD

Atlanta win; 20 carries for 65 yards. 3 catches for 25 yards and a  TD

Dallas win; 21 for 141, 4 catches for 30 yards. 1 TD.

79 touches for one back during 3 games to keep their playoff hopes alive.

Aaron Jones has 51 touches in the last 3 games - all close losses. 

The press conference with Murphy and Gute was worthwhile to watch.  I don't love the organizational structure, but it sounds like it will be a committee/tag-team approach to hire a new coach.  It was particularly damning to see Gute get a question about the roster quality, and see him say with a straight face that we believe in the guys in the room.  There is a cavalcade of suck at the safety position right now.  There is no coaching that will fix that.  And any talent evaluator thinking that Byron Bell is a starting or even quality backup at RG is laughable.  The evaluation of the roster this Spring and the moves made in the off-season were not good enough.  The front office needs bolstering and the upcoming off-season moves need to be much better.

Orlando Wolf posted:

The Fitzgerald smoke seems like it’s going to be real with someone like Kingsbury as the OC. Ahh, the Murphy ——> northwestern connection.

Fitzgerald would be the worst hire in the history of pro sports. Just a monumentally horrible hire. He has no idea how to develop an offense, he’s a rah rah meathead, Christ. I’d rather Dom Capers, Ron Zook, and Shawn Slocum manage as a triumvirate.  

And Kingsbury appears to be going to USC or the Rams. 

MichiganPacker2 posted:

Grave Digger posted:

There likely a lot of coaches, like Rex Ryan, who probably would have been a lot more successful if they could have solved the QB problem. Ryan took Jets teams led by Mark Sanchez to the AFCC, twice! Not saying I want Rex Ryan, he seems like a nutcase, but it’s interesting to think how much different some coaches would be regarded if they had Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. 

The problem is that crazy only works for about that long. 

 

Michelle Bachman disagrees with you! 

BrainDed posted:

Grave Digger posted:

There likely a lot of coaches, like Rex Ryan, who probably would have been a lot more successful if they could have solved the QB problem. Ryan took Jets teams led by Mark Sanchez to the AFCC, twice! Not saying I want Rex Ryan, he seems like a nutcase, but it’s interesting to think how much different some coaches would be regarded if they had Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. 

That's literally the argument you've been trying to refute all year when defending McCarthy!

I’m fairly certain you’re not using literally correctly. 

listening to the presser yesterday, I think it's ok to have more than 1 smart football guy evaluate a coach, and for who makes the decision he was pretty clear, gutey would be doing alot of the leg work and choosing candidates, mm would be part of the interviews and ultimately selecting, but the way he explained it, 2 heads are better than 1, I am ok with it, a lot of GM's would not be, but I think it works for a publicly owned team.  I think Gutey is special kind of guy, its clear, the old way of doing things is over.