Newhouse

If Sherrod is worse than this POS, we should have cut him yesterday.

Exactly antiworst. That "conservative handling" of injuries extends to their conservative substitution/starter job crap. Why Bishop, who pre-hamstring could be a monster, was on the pines far too long and people like Sherrod and Larrimore are suffering the same fate today. If people aren't performing, get someone else in there.

Sherrod hasn't played in about 2 years, and once again, everyone thinks that now that he can practice, he should be playing ahead of Newhouse.  Newhouse hasn't progressed, but you don't throw someone in there who isn't ready.  Do you honestly think that MM is playing Newhouse because he wants too?  If Sherrod was ready he'd go, he's not ready. There is nothing more to it.  Let's not forget, if he's not ready, they throw him in there, he gets hurt, then everyone would be pissed he'd be a bust.  What the F is everyone smoking?

I was surprised to see Worthy in the game.  Hopefully, he can improve and get healthier from his injury.  

Larabee?

Why someone like Lattimore is sitting on the bench when all he's done is be a beast out there whenever he's had the chance is perplexing. Why Hyde or Banjo play so little is perplexing. Why Daniels doesn't play more is questionable.

These reasons, and for when opposing players start practically calling our D plays, is why Capers has lost my respect. I think MM has probably left his hands off the D thinking not to get in Capers' way, but it's time for MM to dump him if he wants another Super Bowl. And no, right now I don't know who you replace him with, but if TT can dig up a guy like MM who has turned out so well, then he can find a DC.

I think MM has a somewhat questionable history when it comes to recognizing which are the best players to put on the field.

Off the top of my head in the past couple of years....

Desmond Bishop

TJ Lang

Don Barclay

DuJuan Harris

Lattimore - maybe

Matt Flynn this week

all players that proved to be better than the starter that was in front of them.

Hyde at safety could be another example.

I will give credit to whoever decided to move Neal to OLB, that is looking like a very good decision.

all players that proved to be better than the starter that was in front of them.

And all with the benefit of hindsight.

OTA, minicamp, training camp, practices, preseason games, army of scouts and assistants studing film of every player on every snap in practice and in games....plenty of foresight opportunities.

it is a coach's job to evaluate the available talent and put the best players on the field.

So you've watched every practice, studied film, and sat down with MM & his coordinators and discussed every player? Otherwise you have no idea what MM and his coaches had seen for them to make the line-up choices they did. 

No.

I am saying MM and his coaches watched every practice, studied film, and sat down with the coordinators and discussed every player and then chose incorrectly on multiple occasions.

Also...saw

Like I said, you have the benefit of hindsight.

MM needs to get his fat ass into one of Miss Cleo's online ESP classes ASAP.

I am not saying I know better than MM, because obviously I do have the benefit of hindsight. But this is a little different than Monday Morning Quarterbacking a coach's in game decisions or playcalls.

I am saying all coaches in every sport need to evaluate the available talent and put the best players on the field. Only hindsight can prove whether the coaching staff has done a good job or a poor job in the talent evaluation process. The Packers have a few knocks against them in that aspect in recent years. So, IMO, it is not blasphemy to question current roster line up decisions.

TT is part of it, just like every other staff in the NFL, for good or bad. 

Wow, I get it now, MM is not putting the best players on the field. In your list, you mentioned 6 guys out of 45 players over a couple of years.  It's easy to say this guy should have played, but you have no clue.  You'll always be right with hindsight. Maybe your right, maybe your wrong.  

What I can say unequivocally, is that MM puts the players on the field that give the organization the best chance to win games.  If that turns out not to be the case, then I think we need to find a new coach, but until then, or you can show proof that MM is sandbagging or not playing the best players, for whatever reason, then your theory is ridiculous.  

We don't know those reasons, but probably are the same reasons as to why Whisper Goodman isn't our RB right now.  They might show some flashes, but aren't consistent? Maybe they are pure role players and look good doing the one thing they need to do, but horrible at other aspects of their position.  Who knows.  

I'm not going to defend Compers, the D has regressed a bit, some due to injury, some due to scheme, players, etc.  But be careful, what you wish for, in firing Compers.  It's not a stretch to think that he will get picked up, and bring some of his staff to his new job (K Greene, Whitt Jr, Perry, etc).  Some of those guys are good coaches who we would hate to see leave, cause we are getting rid of the general.  

PFF has Newhouse as one of the ten worst OT's in the NFL. The only bright side is that he has gotten better ratings than top 5 picks Eric Fisher (KC) and Lane Johnson (PHI). 

No, you can't say that. Because it is not true. Just take the case of Matt Flynn yesterday.

You can say "MM puts the players on the field that he thinks give the organization the best chance to win games."

IMO he sometimes puts too much faith in what he deems as safer players while a more dynamic player sits on the bench.

It's hard to judge after the fact. Yes we know now that Flynn was the better option, but honestly how is McCarthy supposed to know that at the time? Flynn looked terrible everywhere else, I don't think it was unreasonable for him to not trust Flynn fully. Maybe Flynn looked great in practice and that's your criteria, but I bet Tolzien did too. 

You are right though FS, McCarthy puts in the players HE THINKS gives us the best chance to win. I've never doubted that. He's human though and can be wrong.

McCarthy is stubborn to a fault at times. Whether it be the game plan, the starters, whatever... he does not change easily.

Two weeks ago he named Tolzien the starter for the next game in the post game presser. Last week he named Tolzien the starter during his day after the game presser. I can see sticking with Tolzien two weeks ago, Flynn wasn't signed yet. But last week? He named Scott the starter before any practices. How much had they really seen of Flynn to that point?

Besides the interceptions, Tolzien appeared to be improving. Yesterday he regressed, though they did score first.

Why would he do this?  And if you believe this, you should be the first one to start a Fire MM thread.  Define "safer" and "dynamic"?  Was Tolzein the safer choice last week?  If Flynn plays bad against the Lions and Tolzein comes in to win the game, was he keeping the more "dynamic" player on the bench because he wanted "safer" players in the game.

It's my observation that MM will play anyone who plays with consistency.  He wants to know what he's going to get, then he can game plan around that.  He's going to give players all the opportunities in practice, but if your inconsistent in your reads/responsibilities, then your not going to get alot of PT.   

Good point, H5.

IIRC during the postgame yesterday MM, said with Flynn in there he was able to go with more no huddle on offense.

Did anybody else catch that?

That struck me as a reason to have a large degree of trust in MF and a reason to get him in the game a little earlier.

PackerRuss, maybe Lattimore or some of the others aren't always consistent, but they are better playmakers who, unless they are a box of rocks, can probably be coached to be more consistent. Sometimes you need to give a little risk to get a lot of reward. And yes, General Dom may leave and take some others with him, but is that the only reason to keep the general? Heck, even Douglas MacArthur was eventually removed from duty. If there are assistants we really want to keep (Greene, etc.) I'm sure we can find a way to do that.   

I caught the no-huddle comment as well (posted in the Poz/Neg thread). Very surprised when I heard that.

 (paraphrasing) Flynn came in and gave us a spark on offense that we needed... we transitioned into some no-huddle, a facet that we haven't worked on in a few weeks.

You haven't worked on it in a few weeks yet were comfortable enough to run it with a guy who you weren't comfortable enough with to start the game?

Damn veteran backups.

Thanks for confirming that H5.

When I heard that yesterday I immediately said "then Flynn should have been the starter!!!!!!!" 

A week of practice should have confirmed his arm strength was acceptable, that was the only real question mark with him.

Fandame, 

Completely agree with the fact that we could keep Comper's assistants with $$$.  I am in no way trying to defend Compers or saying that we should keep him so we don't lose some good young coaches.  

As for the other point, I don't get what the point is to play "playmakers" who might get a sack or TFL but then lose their assignment and give up a 30 yard run play and then a TD, but then recover a fumble.  There is def risk/reward on playing players that aren't consistent, maybe you make a play, and then give up a big play, etc.  

It would seem to me, as the HC, that you would want to minimize your risk as much as possible, even if that means giving up potential rewards.  I would also assume, that the place to show consistency and to fight for PT is in practice, and there isn't a poster on this board that can say they have watched practice, to really know what is going on.  

MF is a special case of a veteran backup.  He is the only veteran backup in the league who could have come in under those circumstances and run the GB no huddle.  Because he did it here before.

I may be talking out of my ass here.... But I have to think MM has viewed the last few weeks to show he was capable of preparing a team to win without Aaron Rodgers. he heard the same "GB is effed without Rodgers" comments all of us did. it had to piss off a coach with his resume to hear his team was sunk without its QB.

MM is an incredibly stubborn SOB. It's a plus and a minus. It would appear he didn't change up the play book much for Wallace, Tolzien, or Flynn. Maybe MM felt the play designs and calls were good enough a backup could step in with little interruption. Hasn't really worked out that well. 

Right or wrong the last 4 weeks are going to force him to look at how he's handled things. Could be a good thing and it could be a bad thing. I don't want him questioning things he's done that have worked because he had a healthy Rodgers in the past. If the last 4 weeks soften the stubborn approach he takes on everything and that's all that changes then maybe something good came out of what we've had to watch the last month. 

To Tolzzzzzzzeins credit...he tried to spike an already dead ball situation...then he was jeenious enough to realize ten seconds left and zero timeouts is a great time to scramble around and not worry about the clock.

And the arm whip before getting under center is not only a thing of beauty...but strikes great fear.

I for one am saddened the Tolzzzzzzein era is over...I think in the offseason once a full diagnosis on his sight and color vision issues are taken care of...He can be a quality practice squad player in the AFL

Excellent point.  

Why not just go with the 16 teams that were in the NFL at the time of the NFL merger?

For the record, that included:

The Atlanta Falcons,  Baltimore Colts (moved back from Indy), Chicago Bears, Cleveland Browns, Dallas Cowboys, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, Los Angeles Rams (moved back from St. Louis), Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers, St. Louis Cardinals (moved back from Arizona), San Francisco 49ers and Washington Redskins.

That may be Chilli - but I don't think it should have taken 4 weeks for McCarthy to realize he needs to modify his approach when he loses a key player. Conversely, when the Packers lose a key defensive player Capers goes to the other end of the spectrum and abandons his game so much that he gets very plain and not aggressive.

It's not hindsight when you call for it prior to it happening..  That's what happened with all those players, except Barclay, that FreeSafety listed.

It's ok to acknowledge that the coach has some flaws.   This appears to be one of MM's flaws. 

It's not hindsight when you call for it prior to it happening..

Yeah you're right, that's called clairvoyance. 

remember that time I called 26 of the first round draft picks correct, the day before, in a sealed envelope I sent to Slayer.

that was awesome

Dum dum.....they're not football fans even.