McCarthy admits a mistake, sort of.

[Pokerbrat2000]

There´s no denying not having a designated receivers coach was a terrible idea. Nevertheless the staff should have done something to help receivers separate from press coverage once they realized it being an issue.

No doubt we are in an agreeement here I just wonder if it wasn't a matter of not being able to insert more complex routes for the revolving group of WR's we saw out there, especially in the last half of the season. The same thing would happen if Rodgers went down and Hundley had to step in. The playbook would be simplified to what he knew or was capable of doing. Unless the coaches were completely oblivious to our WR's struggling to gain separation, something we and the media all knew, I just don't see them sitting there saying "nahhhh, lets stick to what's not working". More then I can see them being a bit stuck saying "ok, what group of WR's do we have this week and what can we expect out of them?"

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I just wonder if it wasn't a matter of not being able to insert more complex routes for the revolving group of WR's we saw out there, especially in the last half of the season. The same thing would happen if Rodgers went down and Hundley had to step in. The playbook would be simplified to what he knew or was capable of doing. Unless the coaches were completely oblivious to our WR's struggling to gain separation, something we and the media all knew, I just don't see them sitting there saying "nahhhh, lets stick to what's not working". More then I can see them being a bit stuck saying "ok, what group of WR's do we have this week and what can we expect out of them?"

Well, the coaching staff stuck with what didn't work almost all season long. There's no evidence combination routes would have worked better with last year's receiving corps but it would have been for sure worth a try.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, the coaching staff stuck with what didn't work almost all season long. There's no evidence combination routes would have worked better with last year's receiving corps but it would have been for sure worth a try.

I almost got the impression that at certain points of the 2015 season when the injuries on offense were racking up the offense went into "survival mode". Trying to keep it simple in hopes of gaining some contunity or momentum. Whether this was a concious decision by the coaches based on the health, skills and experience of the personell they had or just an evolution of the situation, I am not really sure. I think we were all groaning and rolling our eyes watching our WR's doing the same thing, continually getting mugged at the LOS and rarely getting separation. But with limited healthy talent, lack of speed and experience, it may have been all the coaches were comfortable doing. But I hear you, if the players were capable of combination routes, then bad decision on the coaches parts for not at least trying.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

we had a receiver on one good leg, a receiver with one good arm, our #1 on IR and a rotation of guys that didn't have much experience. If every person that did play, made 20% more of the plays that were there to be made without anything differently be done other than complete their job, the topic of play calling would never have even come up last year.

That doesn't mean the play calling was good. The scenario you point out would have meant that the Packers had a whole bunch of players suddenly playing almost perfectly. If every person on a team played an almost perfect game then even poor coaches would win a lot of games.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Separate point but I almost sort of feel like McCarthy either A) needs to work on communicating with the media or B) doesn't really under statistics...I'm guessing it's more A but today when he was asked about going for two more often he said there's more to the question than "can we score more than 50 percent". There's not anything else to ask. If you think you can score more than 50%, then you go for it. Am I missing something on this? It's not like the defense is put in a worse position if you miss, you're kicking off either way.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Separate point but I almost sort of feel like McCarthy either A) needs to work on communicating with the media or B) doesn't really under statistics...I'm guessing it's more A but today when he was asked about going for two more often he said there's more to the question than "can we score more than 50 percent". There's not anything else to ask. If you think you can score more than 50%, then you go for it. Am I missing something on this? It's not like the defense is put in a worse position if you miss, you're kicking off either way.

Well, sometimes the situation within a game dictates if it makes more sense kicking the extra point or go for two.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Well, sometimes the situation within a game dictates if it makes more sense kicking the extra point or go for two.

Yes, if the game is tied and there are 3 seconds left, then kick the FG. Other than that, if you think your team has a better than 50% chance of converting, there's not really any other considerations. I guess for those that just want to be difficult you could say you have to calculate the probability of Rodgers getting hurt or the wide receiver running into the field goal stanchion at full speed....

I just can't think of a time, when you're involved in a game where the higher score wins, that you would want to go for the play that gets you fewer points.

This isn't a universal thing, I'm not saying everyone should do it, or even that the Packers should do it (I mean, I'm not saying that with this post although I DO think the Pack should go for two pretty much every time). If the team has a terrible offense, then chances are you don't wanna go for two all the time. If you have the best QB in the NFL then you should probably go for it more than 6 times a year.

 

[Mondio]

That doesn't mean the play calling was good. The scenario you point out would have meant that the Packers had a whole bunch of players suddenly playing almost perfectly. If every person on a team played an almost perfect game then even poor coaches would win a lot of games.

And a receiver on one leg not separating from a defender doesn't mean the ply call was bad. If Randall Cobb is wide open in the end zone but doesn't get thrown the ball, was it a bad play call? If a ball hits you square in the hands for a first down and you drop it, was it a bad play call? These things happened repeatedly last year. These guys know how to design and call an offense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And a receiver on one leg not separating from a defender doesn't mean the ply call was bad. If Randall Cobb is wide open in the end zone but doesn't get thrown the ball, was it a bad play call? If a ball hits you square in the hands for a first down and you drop it, was it a bad play call? These things happened repeatedly last year. These guys know how to design and call an offense.

There's no doubt there were a lot of examples of players completely messing up. That wasn't the case on every failed play though and the coaching staff deserves some blame for the offense struggling as well.

 

[PikeBadger]

Separate point but I almost sort of feel like McCarthy either A) needs to work on communicating with the media or B) doesn't really under statistics...I'm guessing it's more A but today when he was asked about going for two more often he said there's more to the question than "can we score more than 50 percent". There's not anything else to ask. If you think you can score more than 50%, then you go for it. Am I missing something on this? It's not like the defense is put in a worse position if you miss, you're kicking off either way.

I don't think McCarthy's communications with the media is a problem at all. It's very important that he effectively communicates with mgmt, his staff and his players and I don't know of any problems that he has in that regard. I just don't think the offensive coaches did a very good job of adapting and making changes to the obvious problems in the passing game last year.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I don't think McCarthy's communications with the media is a problem at all. It's very important that he effectively communicates with mgmt, his staff and his players and I don't know of any problems that he has in that regard. I just don't think the offensive coaches did a very good job of adapting and making changes to the obvious problems in the passing game last year.

I think you misunderstood my comment (understandable since my prior post had to do with game plan). My comment on communicating with the media had to do with him talking about going for two.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

And a receiver on one leg not separating from a defender doesn't mean the ply call was bad. If Randall Cobb is wide open in the end zone but doesn't get thrown the ball, was it a bad play call? If a ball hits you square in the hands for a first down and you drop it, was it a bad play call? These things happened repeatedly last year. These guys know how to design and call an offense.

I don't recall ever blaming the coaches for everything that went wrong. However, there are numerous examples of the coaches not HELPING the players do better.

 

[Mondio]

I don't recall ever blaming the coaches for everything that went wrong. However, there are numerous examples of the coaches not HELPING the players do better.

so is perfection your solution? considering how successful this team was, and has been, I'd say the coaches have helped the players quite a bit. because they didn't call more 'man beater" routes, they didn't help them? or so some journalist fed to the fans last year? Maybe they should have donated an ACL to Jordy, given Cobb a good shoulder and swapped ankles with Adams? If only they had run some natural pick routes that left a WR open in the endzone, that would have solved it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

considering how successful this team was, and has been, I'd say the coaches have helped the players quite a bit. because they didn't call more 'man beater" routes, they didn't help them?

It´s absolutely mind-boggling that you still can´t wrap your head around the coaches being at fault for not using more combination routes to help the receivers get open as they weren´t able to separate one on one against a defensive back.

 

[Mondio]

boggle away. Combination routes weren't our problem last year. Injuries from the QB to the line to the WR's were. the constant shuffle and the failure to perform and make plays was. Doesn't matter if you run a combination route and you don't throw it to the open man, or the open man doesn't catch it. But hey, call all the plays differently if you want. Let me know when a dropped ball results in a drive extending first down.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

boggle away. Combination routes weren't our problem last year. Injuries from the QB to the line to the WR's were. the constant shuffle and the failure to perform and make plays was. Doesn't matter if you run a combination route and you don't throw it to the open man, or the open man doesn't catch it. But hey, call all the plays differently if you want. Let me know when a dropped ball results in a drive extending first down.

You continue to ignore that on a lot of pass plays not a single receiver was open because of their inability to separate from press coverage. It was the coaches responsibility to alter the scheme in a way to overcome those deficiencies but they decided to proceed with something that didn´t work all season. Once again, therefore they should be criticized.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

boggle away. Combination routes weren't our problem last year. Injuries from the QB to the line to the WR's were. the constant shuffle and the failure to perform and make plays was. Doesn't matter if you run a combination route and you don't throw it to the open man, or the open man doesn't catch it. But hey, call all the plays differently if you want. Let me know when a dropped ball results in a drive extending first down.

You seem to be of the belief that, as long as the team has a terrific QB and very good WRs and the offense is doing well that the coaches must be doing something right. When the stellar players aren't all available the coaches must still be doing a wonderful job and now it's just the players that aren't great. Others believe that terrific players don't really need the coaches to help them as much as mediocre players need coaches to help them and, when the terrific players aren't available, that the coaches should try and help the mediocre players instead of simply pointing at them and saying, "they need to be better".

You believe the mediocre players just need to be better. I think the coaches need to do more to help mediocre players.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

so is perfection your solution? considering how successful this team was, and has been, I'd say the coaches have helped the players quite a bit. because they didn't call more 'man beater" routes, they didn't help them? or so some journalist fed to the fans last year? Maybe they should have donated an ACL to Jordy, given Cobb a good shoulder and swapped ankles with Adams? If only they had run some natural pick routes that left a WR open in the endzone, that would have solved it.

Yes. That was exactly my point! McCarthy should have donated body parts to the team! Thank you for constructing a ridiculous argument out of thin air to try and prove a point!

 

[Mondio]

You seem to be of the belief that, as long as the team has a terrific QB and very good WRs and the offense is doing well that the coaches must be doing something right. When the stellar players aren't all available the coaches must still be doing a wonderful job and now it's just the players that aren't great. Others believe that terrific players don't really need the coaches to help them as much as mediocre players need coaches to help them and, when the terrific players aren't available, that the coaches should try and help the mediocre players instead of simply pointing at them and saying, "they need to be better".

You believe the mediocre players just need to be better. I think the coaches need to do more to help mediocre players.

no, I believe it takes a team, from the coaches and staff to the players. and I've seen Devante Adams play better. Iv'e seen Rodgers play better. I've seen Randall Cobb play better. I've seen Josh sitton play better. I saw lots of guys not making plays they usually make. and yes these coaches are doing something right. Favre was looking like a has been before MM and his staff came to town and actually coached him and held him accountable again. I'm not asking for Jeff Janis to suddenly be Jordy Nelson, but I do expect Rodgers to see a wide open receiver and I do expect almost any NFL receiver to catch a ball that hits them right in the hands.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

no, I believe it takes a team, from the coaches and staff to the players. and I've seen Devante Adams play better. Iv'e seen Rodgers play better. I've seen Randall Cobb play better. I've seen Josh sitton play better. I saw lots of guys not making plays they usually make. and yes these coaches are doing something right. Favre was looking like a has been before MM and his staff came to town and actually coached him and held him accountable again. I'm not asking for Jeff Janis to suddenly be Jordy Nelson, but I do expect Rodgers to see a wide open receiver and I do expect almost any NFL receiver to catch a ball that hits them right in the hands.

Not sure what Favre has to do with this. Been almost ten years since he was a Packer and I don't really think coaches should be allowed to rest on something they did 7+ years ago. I've never said the coaches were bad at their jobs. You seem to be of the belief that people are saying the coaches are terrible when people point out areas in which the coaching could have improved. Yes, the coaches are good coaches. No, they weren't perfect; there were very few routes used in games that were intended to help the receivers beat coverage.

You say, you expect guys to catch the ball. Well, it's easier to catch the ball (even if it hits a guy in the hands) when the defender isn't right on the receiver. It IS possible to criticize a coach without automatically saying that the coach is bad.

 

[Mondio]

it has nothing to do with Favre, it has everything to do with the assertion that you implied we're getting buy with an exceptional qb and WR's. Simply pointing out, even the best need good coaching, his turnaround was evident once accountability was added by this staff. Get the point or don't, doesn't matter.

This notion that the play calling had anything to do with anything is made up. It's made up by reporters picking specific plays and zeroing in on them. I remember all this blabber and Abbrederis got in and i swear I saw him come open underneath and in the middle repeatedly in 2 back to back games and he barely got looked at. It showed me all I needed to know. The players from the top to the bottom weren't executing. Call a different play, if you don't throw it to the open guy, what does it matter? and if you can't beat a jam because you have one good arm, what route do you run? if you can't run or cut at 100% because you have 1 ankle, you tell me what route to run

 

[Deleted member 6794]

it has nothing to do with Favre, it has everything to do with the assertion that you implied we're getting buy with an exceptional qb and WR's. Simply pointing out, even the best need good coaching, his turnaround was evident once accountability was added by this staff. Get the point or don't, doesn't matter.

This notion that the play calling had anything to do with anything is made up. It's made up by reporters picking specific plays and zeroing in on them. I remember all this blabber and Abbrederis got in and i swear I saw him come open underneath and in the middle repeatedly in 2 back to back games and he barely got looked at. It showed me all I needed to know. The players from the top to the bottom weren't executing. Call a different play, if you don't throw it to the open guy, what does it matter? if you can't run or cut at 100% because you have 1 ankle, you tell me what route to run

You zero in on some plays on which Rodgers didn't throw to an open receiver while completely ignoring the big picture of WRs consistently not getting any separation.

and if you can't beat a jam because you have one good arm, what route do you run?

A perfect example for using combination routes as it makes it tougher for defensive backs to jam receivers at the line of scrimmage.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

it has nothing to do with Favre, it has everything to do with the assertion that you implied we're getting buy with an exceptional qb and WR's. Simply pointing out, even the best need good coaching, his turnaround was evident once accountability was added by this staff. Get the point or don't, doesn't matter.

This notion that the play calling had anything to do with anything is made up. It's made up by reporters picking specific plays and zeroing in on them. I remember all this blabber and Abbrederis got in and i swear I saw him come open underneath and in the middle repeatedly in 2 back to back games and he barely got looked at. It showed me all I needed to know. The players from the top to the bottom weren't executing. Call a different play, if you don't throw it to the open guy, what does it matter? and if you can't beat a jam because you have one good arm, what route do you run? if you can't run or cut at 100% because you have 1 ankle, you tell me what route to run

OK, so I just want to be sure that I understand your position on this because I feel like you don't understand mine. You are of the opinion that the coaches did everything possible last year and were perfect at their jobs when it came to planning an offense? That there is absolutely no way that the coaches could have done anything better? The problems with the offense were 100% the fault of the players not playing well.

 

[Mondio]

No, my position is, you can all whatever plays you want. If you can't catch the ball, if you can't cut because you have a bad ankle, if you can't get out of the training room, you can't see an open receiver, and you don't get the ball on target, it doesn't matter what the play call is. It doesn't ****ing matter. Call ten thousand different plays. If he doesn't catch the ball for a 1st down on 3rd and whatever the drive is dead, 10,000 times out of 10,000 times. It's dun, it's over. We punt, the offense doesn't get another play. Call "man beater" route on 2, call 5 fly routes, I don't care. If you drop it, it's play over. run the perfect play and don't see the wide open receiver in the endzone, I don't give 2 ***** what the play call was, because you know what? if you don't see the open receiver and throw him the ball, the play call doesn't matter. It doesn't. what should they have called differently? "man beater route on 2....and this time look for the open receiver" LOL If you have a great play for a 3rd and whatever go for 40 yards and your left guard is holding, maybe call a play with no holding next time right?

Toss in some flux all season long across the offensive line, a few games where Rodgers didn't have 2 seconds to set and throw and every other thing that happened last year, along with all the 3 and outs, many times because someone just didn't finish the play, and you get a stagnant offense.

There's always a better play when one doesn't work. Of course the coaches could have done things "better" at certain points. But, as I said a while ago, I could go thru any stretch of any season and pick out plays and routes that didn't get open. They don't all work, they aren't all perfect. and they don't need to be. The big difference, is on 3rd and 10, when the ball hit Cobb or Jordy, or whoever in the hands, they caught it for a 1st down. Last year they didn't. Miss 2-3 of those in a game and suddenly your offense looks very poor. and on the flip side, you hit a few and suddenly the drive is extended and the offense finds a groove. play calls can build off each other and everything looks a lot better.

Is my position clear?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No, my position is, you can all whatever plays you want. If you can't catch the ball, if you can't cut because you have a bad ankle, if you can't get out of the training room, you can't see an open receiver, and you don't get the ball on target, it doesn't matter what the play call is. It doesn't ******* matter. Call ten thousand different plays. If he doesn't catch the ball for a 1st down on 3rd and whatever the drive is dead, 10,000 times out of 10,000 times. It's dun, it's over. We punt, the offense doesn't get another play. Call "man beater" route on 2, call 5 fly routes, I don't care. If you drop it, it's play over. run the perfect play and don't see the wide open receiver in the endzone, I don't give 2 ***** what the play call was, because you know what? if you don't see the open receiver and throw him the ball, the play call doesn't matter. It doesn't. what should they have called differently? "man beater route on 2....and this time look for the open receiver" LOL If you have a great play for a 3rd and whatever go for 40 yards and your left guard is holding, maybe call a play with no holding next time right?

Nobody is arguing that Rodgers missed open receivers and guys dropped too many balls last season (although those plays only accounted for 20 of the Packers 572 passes thrown in 2015). By not agreeing that WRs not getting open was part of the problem and combination routes would have helped receivers separating from defensive backs you choose to ignore a factor that hugely contributed to the passing offense struggles though.