Losing Faith in McCarthy...

Mags FTW · Post #1 » by **Mags FTW** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:45 am

Cold as hell, the ball is hard as a rock, Crosby has already shanked one, you're up against a clutch ST, and he plays ultra-conservative. Reminiscent of him being the 1st coach in NFL history to settle for a 50+ yard FG attempt in the MIN game. Add to that the goofy playcalling at the end @TEN, and I don't know what this guy is thinking.

I think this team can be great next year. A favorable schedule with the NFC West and CLE and CIN and I'm ready to pencil in 4-5 wins off that alone. If the injury gods are gentler that will be huge too. I think TT will feel the heat to make one solid FA pickup and a high 1st should boost our talent. We should be great next year.

But it's all meaningless if your coach has no gonads.

The same plays, over and over. No exotics, no creativity. His idea of a trick play is a screen pass.

I wonder if there is a website that keeps track of audibles because I think that's where we really miss Favre. I may just be dreaming this because it will help my argument but I feel like there were a lot more audibles and run/pass options plays last year.

I dunno. I might just be at my breaking point and overreacting, but this isn't 5-10 talent.

http://www.last.fm/user/DPF55 · Post #2 » by **Buck You** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:46 am

Conservative play calling baby, the McCarthy rule book. God damn man, take a freakin chance you fat woosy.

LUKE23 · Post #3 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:53 am

I don't think I've ever been less worried about a 5-10 team than I am right now. And if people want to call me out on homerism, that is fine, but I don't think it is. All we need is better health, a good draft, and year 2 of Aaron Rodgers.

Division is ours for 2009. Believe it.

Post #4 » by **ReasonablySober** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:54 am

I honestly think the reason he does so is Rodgers. He's treated him with kid-gloves in big spots. I know Aaron's thrown a few bonehead balls, but he's your best player. You have to give him the shot to win the ball game for you. My hope is that this is entirely due to this being Rodgers first year starting and we don't see this nearly as much in the coming seasons.

Mags FTW · Post #5 » by **Mags FTW** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:07 am

LUKE23 wrote:I don't think I've ever been less worried about a 5-10 team than I am right now. And if people want to call me out on homerism, that is fine, but I don't think it is.

I'm right there with you, I think the players and schedule will be on our side. But I worry about the coaching.

El Duderino · Post #6 » by **El Duderino** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:18 am

I think generally McCarthy is a good offensive mind and i like how he carries himself as a head coach, but this year for whatever reason, the guy has played things late in games like a newbie to jail with his butt cheeks clenched together tight. So terrified to have the disaster happen that he ends up inviting on the disaster.

I wouldn't even consider at all canning him though. Get more talent on the defense, can Stock, hopefully replace Sanders with a good defensive mind, and mix in Rodgers being in his second year as a starter, we can easily rebound.

How good we are next year IMO is largely on Thompson, what he does this offseason. After that, what happens on any coaching staff changes.

Mags FTW · Post #7 » by **Mags FTW** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:58 am

El Duderino wrote:How good we are next year IMO is largely on Thompson, what he does this offseason. After that, what happens on any coaching staff changes.

I wouldn't even go that far. First, let's look at the schedule.
http://www.southendzone.com/schedulef/

On pure talent and HFA alone I see 8 wins. Home vs. CHI, DET, SF, SEA, and CIN, and @ DET, CLE, and STL. There is only 1 game (@PIT) where i just kind of chuckle and say "good luck with that one". The other 7 are all winnable. The schedule is on our side.

I don't think TT has to do anything groundbreaking this offseason. Replacing a starter in the draft, and another through FA should be sufficient.

But my whole point is it's all for naught with out proper gameplanning and playcalling.

xTitan · Post #8 » by **xTitan** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:00 am

I am more concerned with what happens to the staff, if Sanders is back I am done with everyone......I think MM has had a brutal year and this team is poorly coached, they are far more talented than the Bears and many teams they played, but are very undisciplined and SOFT.

eagle13 · Post #9 » by **eagle13** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:14 am

Interesting to hear the varied opinions. I just can't quite get a handle on M3. Some good, bad & ugly.
Successes & failures in both coaching & GM. Next year tells the story for both M3 &T2.

El Duderino · Post #10 » by **El Duderino** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:42 am

Mags FTW wrote:
El Duderino wrote:How good we are next year IMO is largely on Thompson, what he does this offseason. After that, what happens on any coaching staff changes.

I wouldn't even go that far. First, let's look at the schedule.
http://www.southendzone.com/schedulef/

On pure talent and HFA alone I see 8 wins. Home vs. CHI, DET, SF, SEA, and CIN, and @ DET, CLE, and STL. There is only 1 game (@PIT) where i just kind of chuckle and say "good luck with that one". The other 7 are all winnable. The schedule is on our side.

I don't think TT has to do anything groundbreaking this offseason. Replacing a starter in the draft, and another through FA should be sufficient.

But my whole point is it's all for naught with out proper gameplanning and playcalling.

First of all, i never go over to board and assume this early on or even before a season starts that so and so teams are a near lock to be really go or really bad.

Last year, two of the worst teams in the NFL were the Falcons and Dolphins, going 1-15 and 4-12. Fans seeing those teams on the schedule prior to this year starting had those teams penciled in as easy wins, now both could finish up 11-5. I'm sure prior to the year you didn't have Atlanta beating us at home. Other fans had to see the Packers as a strong possibility of a loss, we'll likely finish 6-10. Even if some may have thought the Browns were a bit overhyped before the year started, who would have seen them on the schedule and thought, that's an easy win? Thought Jacksonville would be one of their easiest opponents they'd face? Who had Seattle chalked up as a cake walk win?

Beyond the schedule. Even if say the schedule does help us get a few more wins, if you have any desire for the Packers to be anything more than a fringe playoff team that maybe gets in the playoffs with 9-10 wins and a first round exit, that defense and particularly the front seven needs an pretty serious infusion of talent. If say a few more breaks had gone our way this year and we played an easier schedule that got the Packers to squeak out the division, we'd very likely get eaten alive in the playoffs because the defense simply lacks enough talent to be a good football team. Sanders is no doubt part of the defensive woes, but among the legit good teams in the NFL, there would be few if any teams that would trade their roster of defensive players for ours.

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #11 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:01 pm

eagle13 wrote:Interesting to hear the varied opinions. I just can't quite get a handle on M3. Some good, bad & ugly.
Successes & failures in both coaching & GM. Next year tells the story for both M3 &T2.

OT: but can someone explain why people call Mike McCarthy M3? I see two Ms there, so shouldn't it be M2 or MM?

Post #12 » by **MickeyDavis** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:08 pm

Mike Holmgren
Mike Sherman
Mike McCarthy

Post #13 » by **paulpressey25** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:43 pm

I put last night's loss on who-ever decided to use the zone blocking scheme and the guy who went out and got the players for that ZBS line. Was it Ted's idea or MM's idea for the ZBS?

Ted certainly takes the blame for the players he's brought in on that O-line. And we've had most of those guys now two and three years so it isn't like TT's O-line draftees need more time (heck Clifton and Tauscher were impact starters as rookies)

Our offensive line has been horrible the last two years at putting together any type of physical running game. Or short yardage game with a running back. The game last night was lost on the FG attempt when it allowed the entire Bears front seven to push 5 yards back into Crosby in a matter of a split second.

You can't play in the NFC North and expect to have a big-time passing attack function in zero degree weather while having no road grader running game. Until TT and MM figure that out, we're going no-where.

LUKE23 · Post #14 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:52 pm

These type of things work in cycles. Last year we had 100% health and made plays at end of games, this year we had horrendous defensive health and couldn't make any. The lines do need to be improved, but this team can and will win the division next year simply with:

1. Rodgers moving from year 1 to year 2
2. Sanders being replaced with a good defensive coordinator, more specifically a less conservative one
3. Less injuries
4. A playmaker added via draft or FA in the front 7, more specifically the defensive line

I agree that MM was conservative at bad times this year, but I expect him to learn from that this offseason as he reviews the close losses. This team will be a playoff team next season.

aaprigs311 · Post #15 » by **aaprigs311** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:58 pm

MM can't win games in the trenches so you can't blame him for everything. That's what it comes down to and that's why the Packers are 5-10. My only knock on McCarthy is that he's too conservative in the redzone, particulary when they're inside the 10.