Holmgren or McCarthy

[sschind]

Stress, its effects are palpable

That and I doubt being an NFL head coach leaves a lot of time for a proper exercise regimen, especially if there is a family involved.

 

[Mondio]

That and I doubt being an NFL head coach leaves a lot of time for a proper exercise regimen, especially if there is a family involved.

all true

 

[Mondio]

Nothing against McCarthy, but Favre won three MVPs under Holmgren.


I disagree that GB should have dominated that game on paper. I've posted the team stats for both Denver and GB, and they are very comparable. Denver actually had the #1 offense in the league in both points and yards. Green Bay could have won, but those two teams were very evenly matched.

Favre was almost 10 years removed from his first MVP by the time McCarthy got here and in a season MM had him back to his MVP stats or better in YPA, Total yards, Completion percentage and QB rating. TD's were much better in 1st MVP year though. MM got 16 years in the league Favre, Holmgren had Favre at MVP form in his absolute Prime. I have a feeling MM could have done some damage with 6 or 7 year in the league and no championship Favre as well compared to an already won it and have 16 years under his belt and contemplating retirement yearly Favre that he had to work with.

and I don't care what the stats say. Denver was better at RB and TE. Our defense should have stomped that offense and they got ran over all game.

 

[El Guapo]

Surrounding the 1997 Super Bowl, the Broncos went 13-3 in 1996, 12-4 in 1997, and 14-2 in 1998 for a 39-9 record and two SB trophies in two appearances.

Over the same span, the Packers went 13-3, 13-3, and 11-5 over the same span for a 37-11 record with one SB trophy in two appearances.

That was an equally good team.

 

[Mondio]

They were a fine team, the year we played them, I think we were better at every position except RB and TE and I think our defensive line should have dominated. Instead they got ran over. our offense on their defense we were clearly better. other records are what they are.

People hold the Seattle Game against MM like crazy and going into it, most people didn't give GB much off a shot going to Seattle and winning and there they were dominating them, of course until the end. Going into the Denver GB superbowl, not many gave Denver a chance either, and Holmgren lost that one. They're both conservative coaches. I think people are remembering Holmgren more fondly because of the passage of time. I think they're very similar coaches actually, and both pretty good.

 

[sschind]

They were a fine team, the year we played them, I think we were better at every position except RB and TE and I think our defensive line should have dominated. Instead they got ran over. our offense on their defense we were clearly better. other records are what they are.

People hold the Seattle Game against MM like crazy and going into it, most people didn't give GB much off a shot going to Seattle and winning and there they were dominating them, of course until the end. Going into the Denver GB superbowl, not many gave Denver a chance either, and Holmgren lost that one. They're both conservative coaches. I think people are remembering Holmgren more fondly because of the passage of time. I think they're very similar coaches actually, and both pretty good.

I also think that the steady improvement until they reached the top (two SB appearances) make Holmgren look better. Yeah his first 3 years were all 9-7 but I think we all saw improvement from year to year. It always seemed like they were building on last year. After his last year at 11-5 he left. Who knows what would have happened had he stuck around. Maybe he would have ended up spinning his wheels never making it back to the top like a lot of people are saying about McCarthy.

Side note, my memory has failed me once again. I thought that people were criticizing Holmgren for not having his head in the game during the SB because he was thinking about his next job in Seattle. I was under the impression that he left after that season and not the next. I'm not sure why I thought that.

 

[rmontro]

and I don't care what the stats say. Denver was better at RB and TE. Our defense should have stomped that offense and they got ran over all game.

Denver's offensive line was highly underrated. Not only the stats but the game shows that Denver was just as good. The Packers were heavily favored because they were there before, and because the NFC had won 13 Super Bowls in a row. Denver proved they were no fluke by winning it the year after.

 

[Zartan]

Holmgren no dobut. His assistants were excellent as they went to have success as HCs elsewhere. Also Holmgren had all stars on both sides of the ball. He went to 2 Super bowls almost went to 3 he dident squander the talent of Reggie White and Favre and company.

 

[Mondio]

Side note, my memory has failed me once again. I thought that people were criticizing Holmgren for not having his head in the game during the SB because he was thinking about his next job in Seattle. I was under the impression that he left after that season and not the next. I'm not sure why I thought that.

Because it was kind of a long time ago already. Where does the time go. I remember things about the game. But i'm sure other things have re-written those memory banks in the past 20 years. I remember his head being Seattle that next year too, but it was that damn non-fumble that kept us from going back.

Denver's offensive line was highly underrated. Not only the stats but the game shows that Denver was just as good. The Packers were heavily favored because they were there before, and because the NFC had won 13 Super Bowls in a row. Denver proved they were no fluke by winning it the year after.

The Packers didn't dominate that game because they turned the ball over and our defense couldn't stop 1 guy.

 

[rmontro]

The Packers didn't dominate that game because they turned the ball over and our defense couldn't stop 1 guy.

Green Bay had one more turnover than Denver. And the Broncos offensive line had a lot to do with Terrell Davis' success. The Broncos were at least as good as the Packers (if not better), I don't see why that is so hard to swallow. Maybe if they could go back and replay the game, GB would win, but that is far from a foregone conclusion. And I see no evidence at all that Denver would get dominated.

 

[Mondio]

well the Broncos beat them that day, that much is obvious LOL. I think it's just funny, MM has the Seattle 2014 game held against him like a pock, when in reality, we were underdogs in that game. Our own fans were just hopping we could keep it close. The rest of the country thought we'd lose, guaranteed. He coached them to a mostly dominating performance for 55 of 60 minutes and we know the rest. on the Flip side, Holmgren seems to be held in higher esteem. when he took team that was a 14 point favorite to beat the Broncos and lost. GB fans thought we'd win, a lot of denver fans thought they'd lose, and the rest of the country, fans and experts alike , were picking GB and heavily so. I made a statement that GB should have won on paper. I'm aware enough that games aren't played on paper.

I remember the game, and their oline had a lot to do with it, of course they did. I still don't believe they should have been able to control the game that way. I said on paper, Denver had 2 guys maybe I would have traded with GB and that was a RB and TE. you disagree? I know how the game played out. I"m not arguing we won or something.

 

[rmontro]

Denver had 2 guys maybe I would have traded with GB and that was a RB and TE. you disagree?

I don't have a problem with that statement, those are the spots where they had a clear advantage. As I said before, I think the reason the Packers were so heavily favored was because the Packers were defending champs and the NFC had won 13 straight Super Bowls. In reality, the teams were pretty evenly matched. It was a close game, after all.

 

[PackerDNA]

I don't see the issue here of who's better- MM or MH- when we have a highly successful NFL head coach right here on our own forums.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't see the issue here of who's better- MM or MH- when we have a highly successful NFL head coach right here on our own forums.

Not to coach you.....but I think you meant...."Coaches"

Or....did you mean "Couch"?

 

[PackerDNA]

Heh...although MM could pass for a couch at times.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Heh...although MM could pass for a couch at times.

I hear he has been working out!

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

 

[Mondio]

I don't have a problem with that statement, those are the spots where they had a clear advantage. As I said before, I think the reason the Packers were so heavily favored was because the Packers were defending champs and the NFC had won 13 straight Super Bowls. In reality, the teams were pretty evenly matched. It was a close game, after all.

it was a close game, but the previous years game wasn't. We blew them away with largely the same rosters.

 

[OldSchool101]

I think Holmgren was slightly better. MM is a good coach but IMO, Holmgren would've produced better results in the same span with another HOF QB like Aaron

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

He did stick with Favre through some pretty rough patches in the beginning and gave him a lot rope. I love the clip where he says something like "put the backup in" then he say "forget it" or something like that.

As far as Rubly goes it was not so much bad play as it was one play. Had he not made that play who knows how long he may have stuck around.

I'm not saying you are wrong as he may well have canned Hundley but I don't necessarily see him as the hard a** towards QBs as you say. I mean he had Favre and after he figured it out how much attention was really paid to any other QB?

The initial relationship was rocky with Favre certainly, and I remember watching a few sideline film shots where Holmgren threatened to call a running play and not let him throw another pass the whole game. I think the thing is you had sort of a bipolar guy with Favre because yes he'd get reckless throwing passes he shouldn't have, but he also had the heroic factor such as leading that comeback against Cincy in the game where Majik man went down. Holmgren just finally decided that he was going to be, as it were "joined to the hip" with Favre and realized if Favre failing was going to cost him his job, so be it. Favre always had problems with decision-making, but I think all that potential that Ron Wolf saw in him and probably some that Holmgren saw in spite of the struggles is why he didn't completely give up on him. Ultimately, we can't know for sure what he would have done with Hundley, but I get a feeling he would've seen his ceiling pretty early and benched or cut him.

I think what sort of makes it tougher to judge is that Holmgren ... well sort of left at a high point in his career here and didn't have as long of a tenure as MM has had so far. What would have happened had Seattle not offered him the keys to the kingdom and we bumped up his contract for a longer term? I don't know. It might however, be fair to say that had Holmgren been here giving Rodgers top-notch defenses like the ones he had with Shurmur, he'd have more than 1 SB ring at this point. At the same time though, Holmgren got to coach in an era where the stupid player safety stuff and Goodellian politics didn't cause injuries. Ahh those good old days when our injury report could be counted on just one hand.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'll also never forget Holmgren going off on Billy Shroeder for committing a personal foul. He was so mad he was shaking and spitting (ok, maybe that's embellishing a bit) Gotta love his passion!

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

 

[LambeauLombardi]

I expected Holmgren to be looked at more favorably than McCarthy, but a little surprised it's by this wide of a margin. I'll still take Holmgren but I'll throw out some of McCarthy's greatest moments.

-Last year's playoff game vs Dallas. Yes Rodgers absolutely dominated but as I'm watching highlights of that game now McCarthy called a hell of a game on offense. Huge underdogs and having to score 30+ with the Dom Crapers led defense, McCarthy might be the person have had the most to do with that win not named Rodgers.
-The 2014 season. That offense was good but not deep at all. Even including tight end, that team didn't have a number 3 receiver behind Jordy and Cobb. Adams was so hit or miss. Including playoffs he only caught more than 2 passes 5 times that season. Boykin was a huge bust that year. Quarless and Richard Rodgers weren't big threats either. He had to depend on Jordy/Cobb along with what Starks/Lacy gave him in the backfield. Considering having that few of productive players, it's great what he did that season.
-MAYBE Brett Hundley, Seneca Wallace, and Scott Tolzein all just suck for this offense. Seneca was decent in Seattle but wasn't he just brought in to practice against the Kaepernick read option? The other two guys we have seen just aren't NFL caliber QB's. When Matt Flynn has played, this team has kept their head above water winning a huge game in Dallas (2013) and playing great vs Detroit (2011) and vs New England (2010). Flynn didn't exactly tear it up outside of Green Bay either, so if he has the right backup MAYBE his system can work. Maybe not too, I don't know the answer to that yet.
-His first true moment of adversity to me was when they lost to an 0-8 Tampa Bay team in 2009 that dropped them to 4-4 (also after losing to Favre's Queens twice). I actually was screaming for Gruden at this time. That team went on to win 7 of 8 the rest of that regular season and we know what happened the year after in 2010. Outside of this year when Turd Ferguson was trying to lead the team at QB, he's usually stepped up in adversity.
-2012 everyone thought that this team was dead at 2-3 (also after the Fail Mary debacle). That team had a lot of injuries that season and ended 11-5 after the 2-3 start.
-As mentioned on here, he got Favre playing at a great level in 2007 after 2 AWFUL years.

Like all of these situation Rodgers has the most to do with the success. Although all of us expect more success with Aaron at QB it takes a confident and upbeat coach to have this type of success. While it definitely could be better, it also could be worse. He's had a lot of down moments that have been mentioned in this thread but he's done some good here in his time.

 

[Packer Brother]

it was a close game, but the previous years game wasn't. We blew them away with largely the same rosters.

True

 

[Mondio]

At no point was I talking about NE. Considering my last 5,6? Posts have been squarely on the Packers and Broncos, not sure how NE got brought up. I don't remember the score from the previous season, but I remember 30-40 points to not very many points. It was part of the reason the Packers were 14 point favorites the following year.

Still not sure what that has to do with NE, but I guess that's what I get for clicking show ignored content

 

[Djepacker]

Because it was kind of a long time ago already. Where does the time go. I remember things about the game. But i'm sure other things have re-written those memory banks in the past 20 years. I remember his head being Seattle that next year too, but it was that damn non-fumble that kept us from going back.



The Packers didn't dominate that game because they turned the ball over and our defense couldn't stop 1 guy.

 

[Djepacker]

Yes I seem to remember some QB choke job giving away 11 points off
Of his stupid turnovers