Packer State of the Union

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Of course I don't have a specific example of the same situation. It would be impossible to have an exact situation lying around. I am using a hypothetical.

A hypothetical is certainly not a great way to show how a coach is conservative, especially with all the real examples of aggression I just listed above off the top of my head.
 

gemoran4

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
I did "back my **** up". MM went an impressive 2-5-1 without Rodgers. During that stretch they put up 13 points against the Eagles and Giants and 10 against the Lions. That's impressive coaching!

BTW, you never answered my questioned. Would MM have taken a shot at the end zone or just settled for 3 like usual?

To be fair, our qbs were:

Seneca Wallace - A guy who was signed off the street in the reg season after being out of football for awhile
Scott Tolzien - An undrafted practice squad QB
Matt Flynn - Longtime backup for us who was signed midseason after being cut by 3 teams in one and a half seasons.

And we won 2 games with Flynn.

If there's anything McCarthy and Co. screwed up it was our backup QB situation personnel-wise. I don't think any amount of good coaching would have made our offense great with those guys starting at QB (with the given circumstances they were facing at least).
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
To be fair, our qbs were:

Seneca Wallace - A guy who was signed off the street in the reg season after being out of football for awhile
Scott Tolzien - An undrafted practice squad QB
Matt Flynn - Longtime backup for us who was signed midseason after being cut by 3 teams in one and a half seasons.

And we won 2 games with Flynn.

If there's anything McCarthy and Co. screwed up it was our backup QB situation personnel-wise. I don't think any amount of good coaching would have made our offense great with those guys starting at QB (with the given circumstances they were facing at least).

And two of those guys became the starters 1 series into a game without any first team reps or expectation to be starting so soon.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
6,856
Reaction score
1,882
Location
PENDING
The anti crowd will never understand until TT and MM are gone and we go a dozen years and 4 coaches hoping to make the playoffs each year.

OP says Packers are built to win in season but not playoffs. Well, this is better than the Vikings who are built to win the Superbowl, but lose in the regular season. idiots should have thought that one through. But seriously, what kind of statement is that? Especially since we were within a whisker of going to the superbowl this year.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
3,339
Stats to back up the statement he sucks after the first quarter would be helpful. You showed a record without Rodgers, but in no way related that to the first quarter compared to the rest of the game.

Since McCarthy took over as the Packers head coach they have scored the most points in the first quarter (867) and are ranked 3rd in Q2 (1158), 4th in Q3 (853) and 5th in Q4 (1013).
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
6,856
Reaction score
1,882
Location
PENDING
Since McCarthy took over as the Packers head coach they have scored the most points in the first quarter (867) and are ranked 3rd in Q2 (1158), 4th in Q3 (853) and 5th in Q4 (1013).
Interesting. He gets worse as he goes aling. Fire him!

LOL. Seriously, thanks for the stats.

A small issue with the stats is that when we are up and the game is well in hand, we go into run out the clock mode. Which i think happens fairly regularily. Thus the 4 th quarter lags more than it should.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Since McCarthy took over as the Packers head coach they have scored the most points in the first quarter (867) and are ranked 3rd in Q2 (1158), 4th in Q3 (853) and 5th in Q4 (1013).

Can always account the Captain to find a stat. Thanks.

Clearly, he does not "suck" after the first quarter according to a poster.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
The anti crowd will never understand until TT and MM are gone and we go a dozen years and 4 coaches hoping to make the playoffs each year.

OP says Packers are built to win in season but not playoffs. Well, this is better than the Vikings who are built to win the Superbowl, but lose in the regular season. idiots should have thought that one through. But seriously, what kind of statement is that? Especially since we were within a whisker of going to the superbowl this year.

I'm very "pro Ted Thompson". I don't think MM brings a lot to the table. If he left the team tomorrow the Packers wouldn't gain or lose any games.
 

Forderick

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
158
Reaction score
7
I'm very "pro Ted Thompson". I don't think MM brings a lot to the table. If he left the team tomorrow the Packers wouldn't gain or lose any games.

I agree about the McCarthy thing, while he is by no means a terrible coach but he is very lacking with in game coaching and knowing what to do/when. Just look at the Seahawks game for proof.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
OP
OP
Ogsponge

Ogsponge

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
291
Location
Wisconsin
The anti crowd will never understand until TT and MM are gone and we go a dozen years and 4 coaches hoping to make the playoffs each year.

OP says Packers are built to win in season but not playoffs. Well, this is better than the Vikings who are built to win the Superbowl, but lose in the regular season. idiots should have thought that one through. But seriously, what kind of statement is that? Especially since we were within a whisker of going to the superbowl this year.

If you don't understand that statement I don't think you understand football. I do not mean that as an insult but it is pretty clear. Look at 2010, a miracle run where all the stars seemed to align for a title that no one was expecting. What has happened since? Constant new and embarrassing ways to lose the actual games that matter the most.

There is clutch, killer whatever mentality that is missing from this team and that is why they are not getting back to the Super Bowl. They are soft and soft teams do not win Super Bowls very often.
 

Powarun

Big Bay Blues fan
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
2,047
Reaction score
355
Location
Madison
There is clutch, killer whatever mentality that is missing from this team and that is why they are not getting back to the Super Bowl. They are soft and soft teams do not win Super Bowls very often.

This statement smells like BS. The only tough team that beat the Packers and won the Superbowl was the Giants. 49ers and Seahawks haven't beat the Packers and went on to be super bowl champions. Plus we beat the Super Bowl champs this year. As for clutch, honestly I blame our high octane offense for most of our problems and success. If our offense wasn't so great I'd think Masthay would of had a bit more practice and wouldn't of sucked, and we'd be more prepared to play all 4 quarters of football instead of 3 and let the fourth be garbage time. And those that say defensive heavy teams did great against the Packers, well shouldn't of they? Lions, Bills, Jets, and Seahawks are built around the defense and the Packers are a great measuring stick for them to go against.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
So you’ve gone from this:
I'm saying he's a bad in-game coach after the first quarter. Once he gets past his "scripted plays", he ***** himself. The play-calling gets uglier as the game progresses.
To insisting you’ve backed up your ****, to this:
I don't think MM brings a lot to the table. If he left the team tomorrow the Packers wouldn't gain or lose any games.
which is also nonsense since it depends entirely on who would replace him.

BTW, why did you make up that **** about after the first quarter and why did you insist you back it up?
 
OP
OP
Ogsponge

Ogsponge

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
291
Location
Wisconsin
This statement smells like BS. The only tough team that beat the Packers and won the Superbowl was the Giants. 49ers and Seahawks haven't beat the Packers and went on to be super bowl champions. Plus we beat the Super Bowl champs this year. As for clutch, honestly I blame our high octane offense for most of our problems and success. If our offense wasn't so great I'd think Masthay would of had a bit more practice and wouldn't of sucked, and we'd be more prepared to play all 4 quarters of football instead of 3 and let the fourth be garbage time. And those that say defensive heavy teams did great against the Packers, well shouldn't of they? Lions, Bills, Jets, and Seahawks are built around the defense and the Packers are a great measuring stick for them to go against.
You just confirmed everything I said when you said we are not prepared to play 4 quarters of football. That is the definition of a soft team. It is easy to win when everything goes your way. Championship teams win when things are rough which is something the packers don't do.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
440
To be fair, our qbs were:

Seneca Wallace - A guy who was signed off the street in the reg season after being out of football for awhile
Scott Tolzien - An undrafted practice squad QB
Matt Flynn - Longtime backup for us who was signed midseason after being cut by 3 teams in one and a half seasons.

And we won 2 games with Flynn.

If there's anything McCarthy and Co. screwed up it was our backup QB situation personnel-wise. I don't think any amount of good coaching would have made our offense great with those guys starting at QB (with the given circumstances they were facing at least).

All true. However, 'to be fair' :) the debate at this point was whether or not AR makes MM. The only way to evaluate that is to see what happens when AR isn't there - much as 'well, (blank) is undefeated, but they haven't played anybody good'. And, 'to be fair' :) the two Flynn wins were by a point each. Nobody is ever going to be able to prove how good MM would be without AR, nor how good the Jags, Raiders, et. al. could be with him (thank goodness), but if we're going to talk about it, we have to use the information that's available.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,829
Reaction score
411
MM is more than just his playcalling. Longetivity has value. Would MM's hypothetical replacement have developed Rodgers into the QB he is now? We have no way of knowing. Would MM's hypothetical replacement be able to get the team to keep playing down 26-3 in Dallas and save the season and rally to win the division in 2013? My biggest concerns with MM at this point in his career are whether or not he can still develop players and whether or not his players are on his side and believe in his way. I've seen no sign that they don't.

Consider this -- Pete Carroll is pretty widely considered to be one of the best and brightest minds in the NFL. He is also responsible now for what many consider to be the worst call in Super Bowl history.

My point is there is no magic play that works 100% of the time in every situation. If Wilson throws a little better pass and it goes for a touchdown, no one questions Carroll, just like no one questions Carroll for a risky decision to run one more play with 6 seconds left in the first half because it ended up going for a TD.

If we have 4th and inches to go, and we hand it off to Eddie Lacy and he's stuffed 2 yards behind the line, MM is going to be questioned for calling such an obvious play. If he calls play action and the penetration gets to AR before he can get the pass off, he's questioned as to why in the world he didn't just hand it to Lacy with 6 inches to go -- after all, that's what we have Lacy for.

Execution can make your playcalling look very good or very bad. Our red zone struggles have been primarily attributable to some bad execution and personnel, both of which are fixable. We need a big TE target who can help us out at that area of the field, or perhaps R. Rodgers takes a big step in his 2nd year.
 
Last edited:

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,829
Reaction score
411
The only real issue I took with MM's second half playcalling is his assertion that hitting 20 carries was very important to him. I can't get behind playcalling to hit an arbitrary number rather than playcalling for the flow of the game. That's not to say that I thought it was necessarily wrong to run the ball, but it shouldn't be to hit a magic number of carries.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,615
Reaction score
754
It's been cited numerous times by fans as well as media who are fairly well respected within the NFL (e.g., Bill Barnwell, Greg Bedard, Mike Florio, Scott Kacsmar, etc) that McCarthy is not the best when it comes to adapting a gameplan. He is a very good developer of talent and generally doesn't need to adapt his gameplan much because he's pretty good at the whole offense thing and he has the best QB in the NFL playing with two top-15 WRs.

As I've said elsewhere, I generally give more credit to the QB than the coach. Swap out Rodgers with Cutler and who honestly thinks the Packers win more games than the Bears? Did Thompson create Rodgers? Many thought so but McCarthy's vaunted QB development programs hasn't produced anyone else of note, so maybe Rodgers was just really good. McCarhy is a top 10-12 coach in the NFL who has the best QB in the NFL. That wins you a BUNCH of games (just look at Peyton) but it's hard to say that McCarthy doesn't have definite weaknesses. One only needs to look at the Bills game and his ridiculous comment about "20 carries" during the conference title game to see that he has some significant problems. I think the main issue is that those problems (adjustments made in-game) are the most noticeable against the best teams.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,829
Reaction score
411
What did McCarthy do during the Bills game? The Bills game was about the most textbook example of bad execution that I've seen from us all year. I don't see where the big gig is on MM for that game.

I don't think anyone is saying MM doesn't have weaknesses, but his playcalling woes are overblown. Where are all these media that say he really struggles adjusting? Here's one where one writer calls him the best playcaller in the NFL.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...ce-arians-among-best-playcallers-in-nfl-today
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
3,339
What did McCarthy do during the Bills game? The Bills game was about the most textbook example of bad execution that I've seen from us all year. I don't see where the big gig is on MM for that game.

I don't think anyone is saying MM doesn't have weaknesses, but his playcalling woes are overblown. Where are all these media that say he really struggles adjusting? Here's one where one writer calls him the best playcaller in the NFL.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...ce-arians-among-best-playcallers-in-nfl-today

Well, I think it´s fair to criticize McCarthy for the way he called the Buffalo game. It was pretty obvious the passing game didn´t work vs. the Bills, yet the Packers threw the ball 42 times and ran it only 24 times (8 in the second half) although averaging 6.6 yards per run.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,829
Reaction score
411
Well, I think it´s fair to criticize McCarthy for the way he called the Buffalo game. It was pretty obvious the passing game didn´t work vs. the Bills, yet the Packers threw the ball 42 times and ran it only 24 times (8 in the second half) although averaging 6.6 yards per run.

I'd have to go back and look, I didn't recall the pass/run disparity. What I recalled most was a lot of key drops on our part and Buffalo DB's who were generally allowed to be physical the entire game.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
3,339
I'd have to go back and look, I didn't recall the pass/run disparity. What I recalled most was a lot of key drops on our part and Buffalo DB's who were generally allowed to be physical the entire game.

It´s kind of mind-boggling if you take a look at the numbers during the first quarter vs. the Bills. The Packers ran it 12 times for 113 yards and threw it 12 times, completing only three for 19 yards. The rest of the way McCarthy called 30 pass plays compared to 12 runs.

Mostly I agree that McCarthy is a good to great coach but this game wasn´t one of his bright moments.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,769
Reaction score
3,688
and it's only fair to criticize because they didn't win. There were a handful of key drops. Drops that would have extended drives, instead were punts, drops that would have been explosive plays, maybe even TD, but dropped. At least a handful. They were relatively routine catches, they missed. If they make them, like usual, we have more plays, more runs, more points and everything looks peachy. But they didn't, and that's what it comes down to.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,769
Reaction score
3,688
It´s kind of mind-boggling if you take a look at the numbers during the first quarter vs. the Bills. The Packers ran it 12 times for 113 yards and threw it 12 times, completing only three for 19 yards. The rest of the way McCarthy called 30 pass plays compared to 12 runs.

Mostly I agree that McCarthy is a good to great coach but this game wasn´t one of his bright moments.
while those stats really look disparaging, what was the context? 1st drive of 2nd half. 20 yard pass play, running play for 9 yards, awesome, running play for 6.oops, holding, back them up and put GB into a passing situation pass batted at line incomplete, incomplete, punt. are 2nd and10 and 3rd and 10 big running downs?

Next drive the bills go up 16-10 and after a 3 yard run, Rodgers throws an INT on a pass slightly behind Cobb.

Then we're at the 2, 4 yard run, Jordy drops a 84 yd TD pass, great call, HORRIBLE execution. now it's 3rd and 6, passing or run down at your own 6 yard line? Pass for 1st down

next play, run for 2 yards. 2nd and 8 isn't a heavy run down, and what defense were they in? I don't remember, but incomplete and then we passed for a 1st down again. Then 2 runs, 3 passes and Boykin deflects a very catchable ball up and it's intercepted.

after bills possession, Green bay is now down 19-10 and in the 4th quarter. A perfect time to get the run game going right? Well we do, for 6 yards, great, for 21 more, awesome. Nope, holding again ( I remember that horsehit call, but it was called none the less) Now 2nd and 14, running down? in the 4th quarter? down by 9? probably not. we did eventually score a field goal to get within 6. pretty much all passing and getting 10 yards or so a pop till we stalled again.

From then on, Green Bay ran 1 single play and Rodgers fumbled on a sack in the endzone with less than 2 minutes to play in a game down by 9 with Zero timeouts left for GB

So while the overall stats can paint one picture, the actual in game circumstances paint a completely different one.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
3,339
while those stats really look disparaging, what was the context? 1st drive of 2nd half. 20 yard pass play, running play for 9 yards, awesome, running play for 6.oops, holding, back them up and put GB into a passing situation pass batted at line incomplete, incomplete, punt. are 2nd and10 and 3rd and 10 big running downs?

Next drive the bills go up 16-10 and after a 3 yard run, Rodgers throws an INT on a pass slightly behind Cobb.

Then we're at the 2, 4 yard run, Jordy drops a 84 yd TD pass, great call, HORRIBLE execution. now it's 3rd and 6, passing or run down at your own 6 yard line? Pass for 1st down

next play, run for 2 yards. 2nd and 8 isn't a heavy run down, and what defense were they in? I don't remember, but incomplete and then we passed for a 1st down again. Then 2 runs, 3 passes and Boykin deflects a very catchable ball up and it's intercepted.

after bills possession, Green bay is now down 19-10 and in the 4th quarter. A perfect time to get the run game going right? Well we do, for 6 yards, great, for 21 more, awesome. Nope, holding again ( I remember that horsehit call, but it was called none the less) Now 2nd and 14, running down? in the 4th quarter? down by 9? probably not. we did eventually score a field goal to get within 6. pretty much all passing and getting 10 yards or so a pop till we stalled again.

From then on, Green Bay ran 1 single play and Rodgers fumbled on a sack in the endzone with less than 2 minutes to play in a game down by 9 with Zero timeouts left for GB

So while the overall stats can paint one picture, the actual in game circumstances paint a completely different one.

While I agree with you that the in game circumstances play a huge role in play distribution there was no reason for McCarthy to more or less abandon the run in the second quarter, a decision which factored into the Packers trailing early in the third quarter.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,615
Reaction score
754
and it's only fair to criticize because they didn't win. There were a handful of key drops. Drops that would have extended drives, instead were punts, drops that would have been explosive plays, maybe even TD, but dropped. At least a handful. They were relatively routine catches, they missed. If they make them, like usual, we have more plays, more runs, more points and everything looks peachy. But they didn't, and that's what it comes down to.

What "could have been" isn't the issue. By the fourth quarter it was obvious that the Packers passing game was AWFUL in the Bills game and most rational people would have looked down and noticed, "hey, our running backs are averaging like six yards a carry, maybe I should try them out again now that they've had a solid two quarters of rest".

There is absolutely no way any sane argument can be made for having Rodgers throw the ball 42 times in a close, low-scoring game in which the passing game is having one of its worst games EVER under McCarthy while your running game DESTROYED Buffulo.

"It's only fair to criticize because they didn't win"......that's the whole point! They didn't win because McCarthy was too stubborn to change his gameplan! Part of in-game management is noticing that your receivers just aren't catching the ball in those conditions and then change your gameplan accordingly.
 
Top