Bills Post Game

[trwi7]

McCarthy said they had "good balance between running and throwing."

**** tard.

[El Duderino]

pp just loves to play the physical defense roughing up our weak offense card though.

I know, it's terrible that way that false narrative keeps hanging around for years now. You'd think people like me (and a zillion other fans and media) would learn by now the game is played with joysticks versus actual guys at the line of scrimmage. At some point we'll figure out how to get that "12:00am" on our VCR's to stop blinking.

The thing is PP, i don't think the overall narrative you and others bring up has been totally false. The Packers have struggled in the past vs good physical defenses and teams. I just don't buy that as the main explanation for the loss yesterday.

In prior seasons the Packers O-Line has been weaker and more prone to getting pushed around vs good front fours in both the passing game and running game. We now have a much better running game though and yesterday, i didn't feel like the Buffalo front four/front seven controlled the game as has happened in the past against teams like San Fran, Seattle, and the Giants playoff loss when Favre was the QB. It was bad passes, dropped balls, and the Bills secondary IMO that decided the game mostly, not getting pushed around up front.

Maybe McCarthy should have called more run plays in the 2nd half and/or maybe he did, but Aaron checked out of them? With the huge freedom which McCarthy has rightly given to Rodgers to audible pretty much whenever he wants, it's near impossible for fans watching to know on any play as to whether Rodgers changed the play call McCarthy sent in. Not just say run to pass either. On any given pass play, the initial call could have Jordy, Cobb, Adams, a TE, etc as the first read of the play, but Aaron decides to throw elsewhere for a variety of reasons. Or Rodgers changes the pass play call to a different one.

Plus, offensive penalties changed down and distance multiple times, especially in the 2nd half. Two holding penalties on quality first down getting runs were killers, especially that bogus call on Sitton in Buffalo territory. A lot harder to call runs on 2nd or 3rd and 7-8 to 10 plus after penalties for holding or false starts.

[paulpressey25]

I just don't buy that as the main explanation for the loss yesterday.

I agree that there were tons of other things we could pin that loss on. Special teams, McCarthy not running enough to counter balance it. And the D really did play reasonably well.

I've just seen enough situations though in both the NFL and the NBA were a tough defense gets in your head, and guys who previously were offensive juggernauts get mentally flustered and can't perform. For whatever reason, none of those guys on offense felt comfortable out there, even though there weren't huge sack totals nor did it seem like Rodgers was running for his life every play, as we've seen in other bad losses.

But that goes to that Belichick strategy from a couple weeks ago that a few New England reporters were talking about. i.e. you don't want to blast Rodgers with the pass rush because he'll burn you. Contain the pocket with four guys and drop seven. Be physical with the WR's and hit them hard. Easier said than done, but Buffalo is probably one of 6-7 teams in the NFL with the personnel to pull that off. And they did.

[humanrefutation]

The Bills have the #1 pass defense according to PFF, so that might be something.

[Be Here Now]

I'm not worried.

Basically every great team has a game like this, and the one's that flirt with perfection and don't really have any **** ups in the reg season have it happen to them in the postseason (packers in 11, pats in 07, colts in 09 etc)

It does piss me off that some guy with a room temp iq is coaching our team during rodgers prime.

[chuckleslove]

It does piss me off that some guy with a room temp iq is coaching our team during rodgers prime.

Did he have a room temp IQ after he outcoached Belichick two weeks ago or only after a loss?

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

McCarthy said they had "good balance between running and throwing."

**** tard.

You've been fiesty lately. Between Kidd and McCarthy being idiots despite having their teams playing at pretty high levels (admittedly low standards for the Bucks), I wonder what you consider a decent coach or even a great coach. I'm sure McCarthy doesn't give much thought to these post-game interviews and wants to keep the team moral up. He's basically downplaying the loss and moving on with the best offense in the league.

[trwi7]

You've been fiesty lately. Between Kidd and McCarthy being idiots despite having their teams playing at pretty high levels (admittedly low standards for the Bucks), I wonder what you consider a decent coach or even a great coach. I'm sure McCarthy doesn't give much thought to these post-game interviews and wants to keep the team moral up. He's basically downplaying the loss and moving on with the best offense in the league.

I don't think Kidd is an idiot. I mean Giannis and Larry should've been in for defense but my main complaint with Kidd stops if L or E go up to him and tell him to stop playing guys like Zaza and Dudley so much.

And I would understand passing if we weren't doing anything running the ball but we were averaging well over 5 yards per carry. And when you consider the fact that the Bills have the best pass defense in the league, Rodgers was having his worst game every and the receivers were dropping balls left and right the situation called for more running.

McCarthy did coach like a **** tard in this game.

[Be Here Now]

It does piss me off that some guy with a room temp iq is coaching our team during rodgers prime.

Did he have a room temp IQ after he outcoached Belichick two weeks ago or only after a loss?

I'm not nearly as big a fan of football as I was during the SB season, so maybe he's gotten better, but did he really out coach Belicheck? From the little bit I saw I thought Brady played like total **** compared to his normal self, and that was pretty much that.

I always got the impression he's a great coach 6 days of the week, but leaves a lot to be desired on game day. He really struggles with in game stuff (time management, challenges, adjusting his game plan from half to half) because he's doesn't seem to be a very intelligent man.

Players do like him which is like half the battle. But if we only win one super bowl during rodgers tenure that's a total disaster imo.

[rilamann]

Mike McCarthy leading the Packers to a Super Bowl win was the coaching equivalent of Trent Dilfer ''leading' the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl in 2000.

Mike McCarthy is the epitome of mediocre,you could do worse in that he's not a terrible head coach but you could also do a lot better.The fact that the players do indeed like him is the biggest thing he has going for himself.I think he's a lot better than Mike Sherman for what that's worth.His biggest negative is he tries to out-think himself and get too cute especially in big games and crucial situations,that stuff doesn't show up in say week 6 when Rodgers is lighting it up vs a team like the Vikings for example but boy does it show up in the big games/playoffs.

Mike McCarthy is good he's just not a big game head coach.

But McCarthy could win 2 more playoff games over the next 10 seasons and you're still going to have that group Packer homers telling you what a great coach he is because of that Super Bowl.

[DH34Phan]

I can't wait till McCarthy tries the slant to Julius Peppers in the playoffs.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

Can we get an official list of what counts as a big game and what doesn't?
It seems like it's only a big game when we lose but it isn't a big game when MM sneaks an onside kick that leads us to victory. It would be nice to go back over the last five years, objectively decide what was a big game and decide how we fared. I just don't understand the people claiming we were outcoached and outplayed in a huge bills game but it doesn't matter we looked great in regular games like the win versus the patriots.

[Newz]

Can we get an official list of what counts as a big game and what doesn't?
It seems like it's only a big game when we lose but it isn't a big game when MM sneaks an onside kick that leads us to victory. It would be nice to go back over the last five years, objectively decide what was a big game and decide how we fared. I just don't understand the people claiming we were outcoached and outplayed in a huge bills game but it doesn't matter we looked great in regular games like the win versus the patriots.

McCarthy isn't a great coach, but he is pretty damn good. I'd say a top 5ish coach in the league.

Fans on message boards like to think the grass is always greener. If you look at the Bucks forum, Packers forum and Brewers forum they will complain about every coach that we have. Hell, there are people who thought Bo Ryan wasn't that good of a coach. Sure, they can't offer alternative guys they'd want to hire unless those guys are totally unrealistic. Sure, those coaches may have positive results or be losing because they lack talent... but that doesn't matter.

Head coaches are just the guy that 'smart fans' like to vent on and say that they could do better than. Then if you put most of them in front of some football footage and asked them to explain it... they wouldn't know what the **** they were talking about. (Granted if you sat me down and asked me to break down plays, I wouldn't know a ton about it either)

McCarthy isn't without flaws... but we could do a lot worse. You look at other franchises in the NFL and they haven't had the sustained success that we have had. Even teams with good QBs tend to rise and fall far more often than the Packers do.

The reason why I posted that McCarthy did such a great job against New England is because no one said anything about it. When we drop 50+ points, no one talks about how great the play calling is... then we have an off day where Rodgers can't hit an open guy, guys are dropping balls and we are playing against a very good defense... all of the sudden people swarm to get to their computers to talk about what a scrub McCarthy is.

It's a joke.

[Reddeye]

I know you guys are a better judge of coaching than Mike Martz, but....

Great football tickles Mike Martz. Outstanding audibles make him squeal. Well-drawn-up plays send him into man-crush mode.

“You want to talk about a great coach?” he asks. “Check out Mike McCarthy.”

His level of preparation is what stands out the most. We watch only 30 seconds of Green Bay’s Week 5 victory over Minnesota before identifying something special.

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/12/02/nfl-mike-martz-adam-gase-mike-mccoy-mike-mccarthy-best-offensive-minds/

[Ron Swanson]

I know you guys are a better judge of coaching than Mike Martz, but....

Great football tickles Mike Martz. Outstanding audibles make him squeal. Well-drawn-up plays send him into man-crush mode.

“You want to talk about a great coach?” he asks. “Check out Mike McCarthy.”

His level of preparation is what stands out the most. We watch only 30 seconds of Green Bay’s Week 5 victory over Minnesota before identifying something special.

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/12/02/nfl-mike-martz-adam-gase-mike-mccoy-mike-mccarthy-best-offensive-minds/

Mike Martz sucks as a coach, but he's a great offensive mind. He knows what he's talking about.

[Jollay]

Eh, I think McCarthy is a top half coach. I think TT is still a top third or so GM. Both still deserve a decent amount of criticism, each's flaws can be really maddening.

The question for me, have MM and staff have made Rodgers better? If the answer is yes, and it probably is, that's the main thing.

Concerning this year, I am much happier with MM than I was earlier in the year. At least he's using screens now, and I ASSUME he won't call a debacle like he did the first game in Seattle.

The physical issue remains an issue, but it is a much more complex question than with just physicality. Clearly we're more vulnerable to teams that are physical (especially at corner and on the OL) but those teams also are usually very talented at those spots as well...not just "physical."

[Flames24Rulz]

I know you guys are a better judge of coaching than Mike Martz, but....

Great football tickles Mike Martz. Outstanding audibles make him squeal. Well-drawn-up plays send him into man-crush mode.

“You want to talk about a great coach?” he asks. “Check out Mike McCarthy.”

His level of preparation is what stands out the most. We watch only 30 seconds of Green Bay’s Week 5 victory over Minnesota before identifying something special.

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/12/02/nfl-mike-martz-adam-gase-mike-mccoy-mike-mccarthy-best-offensive-minds/

Mike Martz sucks as a coach, but he's a great offensive mind. He knows what he's talking about.

Martz's offense was obviously pretty damn good at the turn of the century, but I'd venture to think that a ton of offensive coordinators could come up with some pretty mind boggling numbers behind Warner, Faulk, Bruce and Holt. He does deserve a lot of credit for turning around Warner, however.

McCarthy's a top 5 coach in the league, for sure. Who else would you take over him? Belichick, Harbaugh, maybe Carroll?

[humanrefutation]

McCarthy's best asset is his relationship with Rodgers and the way that he rebuilt Rodgers from the ground up into the dynamic QB he is today. They're of a similar mind and oftentimes on the same page. Having that kind of bond is incredibly important, in my view.

[Flames24Rulz]

Eh, I think McCarthy is a top half coach. I think TT is still a top third or so GM. Both still deserve a decent amount of criticism, each's flaws can be really maddening.

The question for me, have MM and staff have made Rodgers better? If the answer is yes, and it probably is, that's the main thing.

Concerning this year, I am much happier with MM than I was earlier in the year. At least he's using screens now, and I ASSUME he won't call a debacle like he did the first game in Seattle.

The physical issue remains an issue, but it is a much more complex question than with just physicality. Clearly we're more vulnerable to teams that are physical (especially at corner and on the OL) but those teams also are usually very talented at those spots as well...not just "physical."

"Top half" coach and "top third" GM...lulz. If you're making those statements, back them up. Name 14 coaches that are better than MM, or 10 GM's better than TT. It's impossible.

[Jollay]

Eh, I think McCarthy is a top half coach. I think TT is still a top third or so GM. Both still deserve a decent amount of criticism, each's flaws can be really maddening.

The question for me, have MM and staff have made Rodgers better? If the answer is yes, and it probably is, that's the main thing.

Concerning this year, I am much happier with MM than I was earlier in the year. At least he's using screens now, and I ASSUME he won't call a debacle like he did the first game in Seattle.

The physical issue remains an issue, but it is a much more complex question than with just physicality. Clearly we're more vulnerable to teams that are physical (especially at corner and on the OL) but those teams also are usually very talented at those spots as well...not just "physical."

"Top half" coach and "top third" GM...lulz. If you're making those statements, back them up. Name 14 coaches that are better than MM, or 10 GM's better than TT. It's impossible.

Yes. I'll get right on that during my lunch break. But in the meantime, thanks for exposing my broad opinion as wrong simply because I don't exactly place each in a scientifically based exact position.

I thought the "or so" in my post might give me a little leeway, but, sorry to offend you.