Fire Capers

[Patriotplayer90]

Did anyone read this article, in which McCarthy "explains" why he sticks with Capers?

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...rthy-defends-decision-stick-capers/101827886/

“I think all of us in life have always gone through experiences in our past that you may have quit on something just to get that fresh, new start, and it feels good but in hindsight it was not the best thing for you,"

I'm not really following what he's afraid of losing by moving on from Dom. You can't get worse than the worst secondary in the league and blowing literally every single playoff game that your team loses.

His answer actually represents my thoughts on McCarthy. I think moving on from him could be good, or it could backfire. But Capers is someone who I really have a hard time imaging being missed.

 

[Dantés]

Did anyone read this article, in which McCarthy "explains" why he sticks with Capers?

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...rthy-defends-decision-stick-capers/101827886/

“I think all of us in life have always gone through experiences in our past that you may have quit on something just to get that fresh, new start, and it feels good but in hindsight it was not the best thing for you,"

I'm not really following what he's afraid of losing by moving on from Dom. You can't get worse than the worst secondary in the league and blowing literally every single playoff game that your team loses.

His answer actually represents my thoughts on McCarthy. I think moving on from him could be good, or it could backfire. But Capers is someone who I really have a hard time imaging being missed.

There is a universal organizational belief in continuity. On the whole, that's a very positive thing IMO. In certain circumstances I see it as a negative, though-- as with Capers. But I don't think they are inclined to pick and choose with a core philosophy. While I would really like them to move on from Capers (and theorize that they might have if they had missed the PO's), on the whole I like the continuity and believe it's a big factor in why they've been so consistently good.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

There is a universal organizational belief in continuity. On the whole, that's a very positive thing IMO. In certain circumstances I see it as a negative, though-- as with Capers. But I don't think they are inclined to pick and choose with a core philosophy. While I would really like them to move on from Capers (and theorize that they might have if they had missed the PO's), on the whole I like the continuity and believe it's a big factor in why they've been so consistently good.

There's another term used to describe those who do the same thing repeatedly and expect different results. And I think we all know why they've been consistently good, and it's got nothing to do with Capers.

 

[Dantés]

There's another term used to describe those who do the same thing repeatedly and expect different results. And I think we all know why they've been consistently good, and it's got nothing to do with Capers.

I hear that maxim thrown around a lot, but it doesn't wash. The Packers have often done the same thing in terms of FO and coaching staff, and gotten different results (let alone expected).

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I hear that maxim thrown around a lot, but it doesn't wash. The Packers have often done the same thing in terms of FO and coaching staff, and gotten different results (let alone expected).

In the past 7 seasons?

 

[Dantés]

In the past 7 seasons?

So what are you saying? If a team goes a few years without a Super Bowl, they're insane to not turn over the FO and/or staff? Even if that same group actually has won a SB?

 

[Mike McCarthy]

Really suprised this thread is only up to 93 pages over the last 5 years.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So what are you saying? If a team goes a few years without a Super Bowl, they're insane to not turn over the FO and/or staff? Even if that same group actually has won a SB?

There's been a ton of turnover in the front office and coaching staff. Key guys left to take promotions. The "continuity" argument does not hold water. McCarthy and Thompson have had to adapt to departures beyond their control one presumes. But they can't when it is in their control?

I'm tired of saying it so I'll use the acronym, FC!, after the season of course. Too late now.

 

[Mike McCarthy]

Some guys are just happy with the participation trophy.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

So what are you saying? If a team goes a few years without a Super Bowl, they're insane to not turn over the FO and/or staff? Even if that same group actually has won a SB?

I think the expectations for a team with an All-time great at QB should be greater than winning a weak division each year, especially since there have been some huge scares with almost missing the playoffs during the past 2. They are barely even squeaking into the postseason now, as they did when they actually won the SB.

And the behavior that you described is that of an organization who wants to win and holds coaches accountable, which we're not seeing here. Nobody has any realistic hope that it will actually be GB's year, as the team remains stagnant or seems to weaken in some manner each year. It's obviously time for change.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Did anyone read this article, in which McCarthy "explains" why he sticks with Capers?

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...rthy-defends-decision-stick-capers/101827886/

“I think all of us in life have always gone through experiences in our past that you may have quit on something just to get that fresh, new start, and it feels good but in hindsight it was not the best thing for you,"

I'm not really following what he's afraid of losing by moving on from Dom. You can't get worse than the worst secondary in the league and blowing literally every single playoff game that your team loses.

His answer actually represents my thoughts on McCarthy. I think moving on from him could be good, or it could backfire. But Capers is someone who I really have a hard time imaging being missed.

Once again, I truly think that McCarthy would have fired Capers a long time ago if he believed the talent level on defense was any better than the results might indicate over the past six seasons.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Once again, I truly think that McCarthy would have fired Capers a long time ago if he believed the talent level on defense was any better than the results might indicate over the past six seasons.

So is he keeping Capers around to spite TT and his inability to acquire talent via the #1 pick that he spends on defense each and every year? It's not for lack of effort on this end that the defense sucks, so there are serious problems with the system.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So is he keeping Capers around to spite TT and his inability to acquire talent via the #1 pick that he spends on defense each and every year? It's not for lack of effort on this end that the defense sucks, so there are serious problems with the system.

In my opinion the main problem is that the Packers have held on to both Thompson and Capers over the last six seasons although it should be pretty obvious that the draft and develop philosophy doesn't work with the defensive scheme. Unfortunately there's no way to figure out who is mostly to blame for the unit's shortcomings by staying with the status quo.

 

[Dantés]

I think the expectations for a team with an All-time great at QB should be greater than winning a weak division each year, especially since there have been some huge scares with almost missing the playoffs during the past 2. They are barely even squeaking into the postseason now, as they did when they actually won the SB.

And the behavior that you described is that of an organization who wants to win and holds coaches accountable, which we're not seeing here. Nobody has any realistic hope that it will actually be GB's year, as the team remains stagnant or seems to weaken in some manner each year. It's obviously time for change.

While I disagree, I understand that some people are over the current FO. I tend to think that Rodgers and consistent success has created unrealistic standards and expectations, but that's just me.

But I wish that people would ease up on the insanity platitude. If it's really insane to do the same thing and expect different results, and that really applied to football, then logically 31 teams should be turning over the organization every year. Otherwise, they're insane.

The reality is that the most consistently successful teams in the league have continuity.

 

[brandon2348]

Capers has three firsts and two 2nd round picks and a 4th round pick just alone to work with in the secondary.

Perry, Clark and Matthews were high picks along with a cast of supporting picks Daniels, Lowry, Martinez, Ryan, Biegel, Adams etc etc. TT even went out and got him Francois to help solidify the D-Line(which I believe is the strongest position group on roster minus WR)

It's time for Capers to make this **** work or its time to go. Period!

 

[rmontro]

The reality is that the most consistently successful teams in the league have continuity.

That's true, I'm not in favor of flipping the front office every time we have a bad year. But speaking of consistency, the defense has been consistently bad for awhile now, they've been bad for most of the last six years. If Green Bay is supposed to have a winning tradition, I don't understand why failure on that side of the ball is accepted.

We even have a pretty good offense, and that should be taking pressure off the defense. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

Capers has three firsts and two 2nd round picks and a 4th round pick just alone to work with in the secondary.

That doesn't mean that those high defensive picks have been good ones though. And because the team is in the playoffs every year, we're picking low in the rounds, so there's another excuse. But I waffle back and forth on who is more to blame for the defense, Capers or Thompson. Or it could be the both of them. But I would blame TT more for the secondary woes last year, he let our depth go and did nothing to shore it up.

 

[brandon2348]

That doesn't mean that those high defensive picks have been good ones though. And because the team is in the playoffs every year, we're picking low in the rounds, so there's another excuse. But I waffle back and forth on who is more to blame for the defense, Capers or Thompson. Or it could be the both of them. But I would blame TT more for the secondary woes last year, he let our depth go and did nothing to shore it up.

I actually think it's gonna work finally. We will have House and King outside with Randall inside where he belongs. Then they have the flexibility with Jones/Burnett at LB in subpackages allowing defense to be faster in the middle. Aaron Taylor is another guy who could be in the mix here.

The D-Line I belive is going to be pretty darn good. I expect a nice jump from Lowry and I believe we got a steal in Francois. If Clay and Perry can stay somewhat healthy along with the combination of Biegel/Elliott/Frackrell contributing I believe we will see improvement overall on defense.

Also, I expect Aaron Taylor to compete for a roster spot. He would be my pick to make team this year as an UDFA.

 

[Mondio]

I don't know exactly what to make of the defensive woes either. There are so many variables that i think have culminated into what we've seen.

True, we got torched by the 49er's. It was embarrassing. They put 40-50? the next season we faced them in the playoffs again and gave up 23? and Capers had to do it with injury replacements all over that field and we were a rookie Hyde hanging on to an INT away from most likely winning that game. and there was no matthews, no shields, and at one point Perry, on an injured foot, was the ONLY OLB we had available. I know I know, can't use injuries as an excuse, but if you hold them to 23 you should win with the best quarterback in the league right? I thought we only lost playoff games because we couldn't hold teams to under 40?

no need to relive 2104, and again I'll have to apologize, but I just can't lay blame at a defense that gave your offense 6 mother ****ing extra possessions for a trip to go to the super bowl and they couldn't score a TD.

and there were some defensive collapses in there too. I don't care a whole lot about season stats as I think these coaches use at least the first quarter to third just learning the new team and using situations as coaching moments. It will result in some rough patches in hopes it pays off later. In the end, i've seen this team fall short for things I deem to be coaching, players just not making plays, offense, defense and just bad freaking luck.

a lot of times I don't like the way our defense plays and i'm certainly not absolving them from blame, but it hasn't been all defense as the reasons we've come up short. Every thing has seem to come up from star players not finishing to great coaches making head scratching moves, to great offense not being great to defenses that look so porous I could gash them.

So it brings me back, can Dom call a game when it counts? Part of me can't ignore what he's done in the past, and the other part of me can't ignore what's happened in the past if that makes sense.

 

[rmontro]

I thought we only lost playoff games because we couldn't hold teams to under 40?

No one said that was the only way we lose. But you're not going to win many playoff games if you can't hold the opposition to under 40.

You're right, the offense has had letdowns too. The defense isn't solely to blame. But it has been the weak spot more often than not, so it's going to get the negative attention. The defense has failed in record setting ways, repeatedly.

The Seattle game, that was a total letdown, the whole team had a hand in blowing that one. McCarthy took a lot of criticism for playing too conservatively in the second half. There's truth in that, but the majority of time it works. Even the special teams screwed up. So it's not all on the defense. But it's not quite accurate to say that the defense gave the offense six motherloving extra possessions. The offense wasted their positions, but they were going to get most of them anyway. Meanwhile, the defense let the Seahawks run up and down the field on them, making Russel Wilson look like Joe Montana.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Also, I expect Aaron Taylor to compete for a roster spot. He would be my pick to make team this year as an UDFA.

Thanks for pointing him out, I honestly haven't paid any attention to him until I read your post. Like what I read as well as what I saw in this video. The guy looks like can play!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As long as the Packers keep winning and advancing in the playoffs, I'm not fully expecting to see a change to happen until DC or TT call it quits on their own. In my mind, The Packer organization has somewhat become content with where they are in regards to the GM and core coaches. Is that a bad thing? One game or even one play away from a couple of Super Bowl appearances in the last few years. For some fans, it's unacceptable, especially when you have AR as your QB and I understand that logic, it's the place I go to after any game where our defense takes a pounding. But I also understand the logic of "we aren't that far away from being the best and changing your GM and/or your DC could take the team in the other direction." Am I on the fence when it comes to TT? Sure I am. I think it's easy to say "Fire him and bring in someone better". But who? And are you 100% sure he will be better?

When it comes to Capers, I have a little less patience or excuses. Had the Packers not made the playoffs last year, I think he would have been the scapegoat and fired. I have read arguments about whether the defensive woes are due to Capers, TT's abilities to give him talent and injuries and I keep coming back to, the Packer defense really hasn't been all that good for awhile now. I also keep coming back to the fact that a fair number of players on the Packers defense have shown signs of talent, yet they aren't consistent every week. Whether it's a blown coverage, a missed tackle or just the opposing teams OC/QB finding ways to expose the Packers defense, I put that on the coaches. With the amount of draft resources that the Packers have pumped into the defense over the last 6 years, something has to change, either they improve or they find a DC that can field a better defense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But I wish that people would ease up on the insanity platitude. If it's really insane to do the same thing and expect different results, and that really applied to football, then logically 31 teams should be turning over the organization every year. Otherwise, they're insane.

I'm absolutely convinced most teams in the league would have fired their defensive coordinator after the unit struggling for most of the past six seasons, especially while mostly acquiring talent the same way. Unfortunately I think it's unrealistic to expect significant better results with that approach.

 

[Dantés]

That's true, I'm not in favor of flipping the front office every time we have a bad year. But speaking of consistency, the defense has been consistently bad for awhile now, they've been bad for most of the last six years. If Green Bay is supposed to have a winning tradition, I don't understand why failure on that side of the ball is accepted.

We even have a pretty good offense, and that should be taking pressure off the defense. But that doesn't seem to be happening.


That doesn't mean that those high defensive picks have been good ones though. And because the team is in the playoffs every year, we're picking low in the rounds, so there's another excuse. But I waffle back and forth on who is more to blame for the defense, Capers or Thompson. Or it could be the both of them. But I would blame TT more for the secondary woes last year, he let our depth go and did nothing to shore it up.

I've been in favor or letting Capers go for a while now. I think that he and Thompson are philosophically a bad marriage. I also think that he's a "system" coach who struggles to adapt to talent that isn't exactly what he would want in the ideal situation. I tend to put more of the blame on him than on Thompson, but it's impossible to entirely tease out. The bottom line for me is that it is way easier to maintain success while replacing a defensive coordinator than the guy at the top. Like his approach to FA or not, it is unlikely that we fire Thompson and actually get better at that spot. Many fans are quick to criticize his faults, but fail to realize that he's better than the vast majority of the league's general managers.

So basically, I don't think that a commitment to continuity means that they can never make changes. I just get annoyed with the repition of "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results." That proposition is patently untrue and the sort of thing that people throw out because they don't have anything of substance to add. It's like when people say "the eye in the sky doesn't lie" as though that settles an issue because it rhymes or something. Turns out that everyone everywhere does the same thing expecting different results all the time and that the eye in the sky is a lying SOB. But don't let me get me get in the way of the football Confucius.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Like his approach to FA or not, it is unlikely that we fire Thompson and actually get better at that spot. Many fans are quick to criticize his faults, but fail to realize that he's better than the vast majority of the league's general managers.

Thompson was for sure one of the best general managers in the league early during his tenure with the Packers but am not convinced that has been true since winning the Super Bowl six years ago.

 

[rmontro]

Like his approach to FA or not, it is unlikely that we fire Thompson and actually get better at that spot. Many fans are quick to criticize his faults, but fail to realize that he's better than the vast majority of the league's general managers.

There's no question that Thompson is one of the better GMs in the league. But I also believe his stubbornness has cost us a time or two, and there's at least a question that he is losing his touch on the defensive side of the ball. He's poured draft after draft into the D, and it hasn't gotten better.

I don't even necessarily want to get rid of TT, I'd be happy if he just loosened up a little bit and explored other avenues, like trades. Look at all the trades the Pats have made. I don't remember the exact number, but the comparison between Belichick and TT is something like 112 trades to 4. This offseason looks pretty good honestly, it's hard to fault what he's done. Maybe could have gotten us a veteran corner, or added some depth up front, but I don't think he did badly. I don't think it's enough for us to win the Super Bowl this year, there were too many holes.

TT is also not that far from retirement. If they have someone groomed to take over that position (Eliot Wolf?), wouldn't it be better to give him the spot sooner than risk losing him to another team? It kind of irritated me that we lost Holmgren as a coach when maybe Ron Wolf could have stepped down one year earlier to convince him to stay. Of course Holmgren wasn't the best GM, so maybe it was for the best, but who knows what could have happened?