McCarthy to give up play calling

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6794
  • Start date

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
Does it ruin the argument of Capers being a poor DC by pointing out that Russell Wilson, the best running QB in the NFL this past year, was held to only 25 yards rushing by the Packers? Or do we get to just explain that away somehow? That after being given some decent players on defense to work with the Packers defense was average this season? Or are we not supposed to be happy unless we get a defensive coordinator that can be the driving force behind a Super Bowl....oh wait....

The DC can only put players in position to make plays. HaHa was in position to stop the 2-pt conversion. How was it Capers fault that HaHa didn't stop it? Williams was in position to stop deep passes by Seattle. How was it Capers fault that he didn't? If the DC is supposed to expect your best corner to not be able to cover a poor WR, well then, your problem isn't the DC. Finally, there seem to an awful lot of professional football personnel, who's livelihoods depend on knowing these things, who still think Capers is a good DC.

Finally, my comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek about the playcaller but I still firmly believe that a playcallers job is FAR easier with the Packers offensive personnel.

I am ok with Capers. But, I was surprised that we rushed two (the third was a spy) on 3rd and 19. Sorry, but expecting two rushing lineman to get past five O-lineman and reach a mobile QB in any time less than what it would take to read Moby **** is probably expecting too much. The only thing we could have hoped for in that case was for the receiver to drop an easy catch or for Wilson to fall asleep from boredom while in the pocket. Neither of which happened.

I also was amazed on the fateful OT score that Capers dialed up a defense that had zero deep coverage. Not Cover-1, not Cover-2, but Cover-0?

I also don't like that he sits in the box. He should have been in Matthews face telling him to get off his sorry **** and in the game when it mattered most. Hard to motivate your players over a headset.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I am ok with Capers. But, I was surprised that we rushed two (the third was a spy) on 3rd and 19. Sorry, but expecting two rushing lineman to get past five O-lineman and reach a mobile QB in any time less than what it would take to read Moby **** is probably expecting too much. The only thing we could have hoped for in that case was for the receiver to drop an easy catch or for Wilson to fall asleep from boredom while in the pocket. Neither of which happened.

I also was amazed on the fateful OT score that Capers dialed up a defense that had zero deep coverage. Not Cover-1, not Cover-2, but Cover-0?

I also don't like that he sits in the box. He should have been in Matthews face telling him to get off his sorry **** and in the game when it mattered most. Hard to motivate your players over a headset.

I agree with your criticism of Capers in the Seattle game but I think it's better for a coordinator to sit up in the booth as he gets a way better overview of the opponents scheme and can react properly.
 

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
I agree with your criticism of Capers in the Seattle game but I think it's better for a coordinator to sit up in the booth as he gets a way better overview of the opponents scheme and can react properly.

Guess there are pros and cons for both.
 

XPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,635
Reaction score
524
Location
Garden State
A Head Coach needs to have the whole team in a balancing act. Leave play calling to OC, take a step back and look at team as a whole. He can still give suggestions on what he wants done.

I think the promotion to AHC is a completely unrelated aspect. MM had viewed his opinions that GB coaching staff were were being overlooked for more senior positions by the rest of the league. Maybe this promotion and a 'heavier title' will help Clements career better.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I think the promotion to AHC is a completely unrelated aspect. MM had viewed his opinions that GB coaching staff were were being overlooked for more senior positions by the rest of the league. Maybe this promotion and a 'heavier title' will help Clements career better.
I don't think that's it. IMO the promotions for Clements and Bennett (if they happen) are a reward for jobs well done and to extend their contracts. If McCarthy was only interested in advancing Clements' career, he would have allowed him to interview for OC positions in the past. (If Clements went to a team with a defensive-minded HC, he could get out from under McCarthy's being viewed as the defacto OC. ) Here's a story from January, 2013:
The Green Bay Packers have been tough on preventing their assistant coaches from departing before the expiration of their contracts.Sources told the Journal Sentinel that at least six current assistants - Edgar Bennett, James Campen, Tom Clements, Ben McAdoo, Darren Perry and Joe Whitt - have been denied permission to interview with other National Football League teams in the last few years.Some of those coaches have been denied more than once.
The only situation in which an assistant coach under contract doesn't need permission to interview is if the new position is HC.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...rview-with-other-teams-ks87jo8-185390861.html
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
I am ok with Capers. But, I was surprised that we rushed two (the third was a spy) on 3rd and 19. Sorry, but expecting two rushing lineman to get past five O-lineman and reach a mobile QB in any time less than what it would take to read Moby **** is probably expecting too much. The only thing we could have hoped for in that case was for the receiver to drop an easy catch or for Wilson to fall asleep from boredom while in the pocket. Neither of which happened.

I also was amazed on the fateful OT score that Capers dialed up a defense that had zero deep coverage. Not Cover-1, not Cover-2, but Cover-0?

I also don't like that he sits in the box. He should have been in Matthews face telling him to get off his sorry **** and in the game when it mattered most. Hard to motivate your players over a headset.

I always hate when the defense only rushes two or three guys in a prevent defense but there's a LOT of coordinators that do it so Capers is hardly alone there. I have no problem with Capers having zero coverage. The Packers had Tramon Williams, their best corner, covering an undrafted wide receiver who wouldn't even be in the top four on the Packers depth chart. Why would Capers think he needed to give Williams help? His options are A) Give run support help against one of the best run offenses in the NFL or B) give deep help to a good corner against a below-average receiver. I can't blame him for going with A.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I always hate when the defense only rushes two or three guys in a prevent defense but there's a LOT of coordinators that do it so Capers is hardly alone there. I have no problem with Capers having zero coverage. The Packers had Tramon Williams, their best corner, covering an undrafted wide receiver who wouldn't even be in the top four on the Packers depth chart. Why would Capers think he needed to give Williams help? His options are A) Give run support help against one of the best run offenses in the NFL or B) give deep help to a good corner against a below-average receiver. I can't blame him for going with A.

While Williams should have been able to cover Kearse not providing any help over the top on a first down was a questionable call at best.
 

XPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,635
Reaction score
524
Location
Garden State
I don't think that's it. IMO the promotions for Clements and Bennett (if they happen) are a reward for jobs well done and to extend their contracts. If McCarthy was only interested in advancing Clements' career, he would have allowed him to interview for OC positions in the past. (If Clements went to a team with a defensive-minded HC, he could get out from under McCarthy's being viewed as the defacto OC. ) Here's a story from January, 2013: The only situation in which an assistant coach under contract doesn't need permission to interview is if the new position is HC.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...rview-with-other-teams-ks87jo8-185390861.html

Bit surprised at that. I distinctly remembered MM being surprised that the asst coaches do not get interview invites. After a bit of search, managed to find the article...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...kers-assistants-dont-get-head-coaching-looks/
 

Lakedog

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
43
Reaction score
2
This is THE most impactful event since Rodgers was signed. MMs view of an O n D is excellent. He understands what he needs from a coach, what players can bring, n adjusts to what he has as well as anybody. Extremely strategic.

But flexibility is not possible. Changes during the game are only strategically prepared. Game mgt is by far his worst quality. My house erupted when we heard the news. We've been SCREAMING for this. Seems LONG overdue.

If odds makers have a clue, we should be SB favorites.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
While Williams should have been able to cover Kearse not providing any help over the top on a first down was a questionable call at best.
Actually, Williams had very good coverage on that ball...he got a piece of it and a piece of Kearse's arm. It just happened to be a great pitch and catch. But the point is well taken...there was nobody in the middle of the field.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
While Williams should have been able to cover Kearse not providing any help over the top on a first down was a questionable call at best.

Maybe no safety deep prevented an audible to a run would have been a big run. Or the receiver would run a stop route and burn the secondary like vs. Dallas. We don't know.

Sometimes we just get beat by the other team making a better play since that was a great throw.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Maybe no safety deep prevented an audible to a run would have been a big run. Or the receiver would run a stop route and burn the secondary like vs. Dallas. We don't know.

Sometimes we just get beat by the other team making a better play since that was a great throw.
I wonder how many people know that Burnett was not on the field for this play?
 

Bignutz

I'm a victim of coicumstances!
Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
127
Reaction score
10
This is pretty big news. As I said in the shout box I'm curious if this essentially means Aaron will be calling plays.

Congrats to Bennett, I think he does a good job with the receivers. It'll be interesting to see how he handles more responsibility.

As far as MM, I'm glad he'll be able to focus on some other areas. I think he's a great HC and I thought he was a pretty good play caller who just seemed to take his foot off the gas when the team was up big. It'll be interesting to see if the play calling blamers next year jump on Clements throat like they did MM's. Like I said though I think Aaron will be calling a lot of his own plays now.


THIS +1
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,219
Reaction score
5,631
No, I was actually addressing comments that the play caller is not necessarily important and that the Packers' offense is not complex. I said nothing about game preparation. But since you mentioned it, if the reported changes take place I would expect McCarthy to remain heavily involved in game planning but likely with fewer hours devoted to it.

Game planning makes determinations about what the opposing defense is expected to do, a determination of weaknesses and strengths, and a series of if/then propositions. Play calling involves an assessment of what the opponent is actually doing on the field that day, and selecting plays to attack it. I'm sure you've heard the expression "making adjustments"? The idea that the play caller is somehow not critical to the outcome of the game hardly warrants response.

As for Capers, it's two sides of the same coin, as noted earlier. If McCarthy has an OC and an associate HC both working the offensive side of the ball, it stands to reason he's looking to spend more time on defense and ST.

Further, in my recent criticisms of Capers, he was defended in these pages for his brilliant stroke of moving Matthews to the inside. As it turns out, according to Demovsky, it was McCarthy's idea. I'm failing to see evidence of Capers' alleged genius playing out on the field. He's overly preoccupied with the opponents passer rating, his defenses struggle to hold 4th. quarter leads, and he's failed to make adjustments at critical times, as Woodson noted in one critical instance, a comment that got him fired.

Letting a QB run for 179 yds. before contact? Having opponents go 7 quarters without forcing a punt? Giving up 3 scoring drives of about 200 yds. in 5 minutes against Seattle? These kinds of epically bad performances would have gotten him fired anywhere else.

The Green Bay Packers will not win another Superbowl with Dom Capers running this defense unencumbered. Perhaps McCarthy can introduce some helpful encumbrances. Otherwise, we can enjoy the annual playoff chases and suffer the postseason disappointments.
I don't know who decided to move Clay inside, but If it was MM then I agree he NEEDS to be more involved on the Defensive side because it was a bold move that could've been a catastrophic failure. But instead brilliantly played on our depth at OLB and DE.
I do understand fully the frustration of us fans with Capers because he also still runs the 3 man drop 8 prevent during 3rd and long that burned us again against Seattle for the umpteen time. The one time you need the QB to throw quickly and instead we give Russell 8 seconds? All this after we invested heavily in pass rushers the last several years? Unbelievable.
Respectfully though Edge, I do disagree that we can't win WITH Capers even though I am not an avid supporter of his. (Saying that kindly)
If your conclusion proves correct about MM concentrating on the D more.. This could be the turning point that we needed because we are very close to righting this ship before the next iceberg
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Actually, Williams had very good coverage on that ball...he got a piece of it and a piece of Kearse's arm. It just happened to be a great pitch and catch. But the point is well taken...there was nobody in the middle of the field.

You know that I feel way different about Williams coverage on the play and he actually played it as if he had safety help over the top.

I wonder how many people know that Burnett was not on the field for this play?

A questionable call to not have your best safety on the field in that situation.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
You know that I feel way different about Williams coverage on the play and he actually played it as if he had safety help over the top.

A questionable call to not have your best safety on the field in that situation.
Yes, we disagree on Williams' coverage. Have you looked at the replay at nfl.com which I posted earlier? That, of course, does not excuse the 8 TDs he surrendered in the regular season.

The Packers had 8 in the box and all 11 within 6 yds. of the LOS at the snap. Who does that on 1st. and 10? They were in man coverage with Richardson and Dix over the two in-line TEs, 5 man rush, and Hawk and Barrington standing around in the middle as spies or to pick up Lynch on release. Richardson's man did not release, so he was also standing around looking for work. It was a run D call with transition to 5 man blitz/man coverage if a pass

My point would be Wilson would not have thrown that ball if there was a safety high. If the shoe were on the other foot, we would say of course Rodgers should take the shot down the field at that down and distance.

If the primary objective was run stopping, why not assign Matthews or Peppers to cover a TE in pass transition, freeing up Dix to play center field?

I think what went on here was an attempt to keep Seattle from improving their field goal position (52 yds. where they stood) at the risk of exposing a TD opportunity. I have an opinion on whether the Packers should have played to prevent the TD, accept the FG, and put the ball back in Rodgers hands. Others may have a different idea.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Yes, we disagree on Williams' coverage. Have you looked at the replay at nfl.com which I posted earlier? That, of course, does not excuse the 8 TDs he surrendered in the regular season.

The Packers had 8 in the box and all 11 within 6 yds. of the LOS at the snap. Who does that on 1st. and 10? They were in man coverage with Richardson and Dix over the two in-line TEs, 5 man rush, and Hawk and Barrington standing around in the middle as spies or to pick up Lynch on release. Richardson's man did not release, so he was also standing around looking for work. It was a run D call with transition to 5 man blitz/man coverage if a pass

My point would be Wilson would not have thrown that ball if there was a safety high. If the shoe were on the other foot, we would say of course Rodgers should take the shot down the field at that down and distance.

If the primary objective was run stopping, why not assign Matthews or Peppers to cover a TE in pass transition, freeing up Dix to play center field?

I think what went on here was an attempt to keep Seattle from improving their field goal position (52 yds. where they stood) at the risk of exposing a TD opportunity. I have an opinion on whether the Packers should have played to prevent the TD, accept the FG, and put the ball back in Rodgers hands. Others may have a different idea.

I´ve watched the replay of this play way too often on the All-22 cam. I still stick with my opinion on Williams not being allowed to release Kearse to the inside without any safety help over the top.

I agree with the rest of your post though.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Good point in Ask Vic today that involves this topic:

"As far as this play-calling rumor, let’s remember it’ll still be Mike McCarthy’s plays being called, and they’ll be called by someone schooled by Coach McCarthy and in whom Coach McCarthy trusts to call what he wants called, and if Coach McCarthy doesn’t like what’s being called, he’ll change it. So, who’s calling the plays?"

Bottom line is the play calling will not change much.
 

yooperpackfan

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
146
Location
Upper Michigan
Good point in Ask Vic today that involves this topic:

"As far as this play-calling rumor, let’s remember it’ll still be Mike McCarthy’s plays being called, and they’ll be called by someone schooled by Coach McCarthy and in whom Coach McCarthy trusts to call what he wants called, and if Coach McCarthy doesn’t like what’s being called, he’ll change it. So, who’s calling the plays?"

Bottom line is the play calling will not change much.
Hopefully the new playcaller will call a more agressive game when they have a lead instead going into a shell and playing not to lose.
And hopefully McCarthy will become more aware of what's going on with the WHOLE team rather than having his face buried in the menu.
 

Shawnsta3

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
1,273
Reaction score
137
Location
Manawa & Shawano, WI
In my eyes McCarthy giving up play calling duties to help focus more on special teams is very similar to those "big letter promises" he's made the last two years. Two years ago he promised us the running game would be improved, and it did. Last year he promised the defense would improve, and during the course of the second half of the season, it did.

In each case he took a more hands on approach to fix these things, especially last year during the bye week by moving Clay inside in certain situations. I would expect to see the same course of improvement for the special teams over the course of the season next year. I tip my hat to McCarthy for not getting stubborn and being willing to change his philosophy for the better of the team.

Now, if we could just get a season where the big letter promise is to return the Lombardi trophy back home to where it belongs;)
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Hopefully the new playcaller will call a more agressive game when they have a lead instead going into a shell and playing not to lose.
And hopefully McCarthy will become more aware of what's going on with the WHOLE team rather than having his face buried in the menu.

Not like going into that shell was a pattern.

Won just the week before by passing late and many times during the regular reason.
 

DaveRoller

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
177
Reaction score
17
In my eyes McCarthy giving up play calling duties to help focus more on special teams is very similar to those "big letter promises" he's made the last two years. Two years ago he promised us the running game would be improved, and it did. Last year he promised the defense would improve, and during the course of the second half of the season, it did.

In each case he took a more hands on approach to fix these things, especially last year during the bye week by moving Clay inside in certain situations. I would expect to see the same course of improvement for the special teams over the course of the season next year. I tip my hat to McCarthy for not getting stubborn and being willing to change his philosophy for the better of the team.

Now, if we could just get a season where the big letter promise is to return the Lombardi trophy back home to where it belongs;)

I agree MM promised to get the running game fixed and eventually he did. I also agree that after the first 1/2 of last season MM's BIG LETTERS promise to fix the D came to fruition.

Pity that he ignored the Special Teams by letting a crony run them into the ground for so long that it cost the Packers a trip to the Super Bowl.

I'd say MM's "stubborn" loyalty to the status quo cost the team plenty the past few seasons, but I am certainly glad he has, finally, shaken things up.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
McCarthy: "There's a vision you give to your team and I will be more directly involved in defense schemes. And I will spend a lot of time with special teams."

That's what I was looking for.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top