Sorry but I'm starting to agree....

[Half Empty]

Did every single head coach or even every coach in football play it at some point in his life on a pro and/or college level?

I don't know, but I'd figure that, from the absolutes in your post that you don't feel they did. My confusion is that I can't tell whether you're agreeing with me or attempting to refute my stance.

 

[Forget Favre]

Another of those subjective/personal opinions that have been popping up today. I disagree. I feel there are plenty of people on the outside of many jobs/professions that could do just as well as the incumbents, if they'd either chosen to pursue those avenues or been permitted to do so. Not so much with skill positions (brain surgery, concert pianist, athletes) but with thinking jobs, like management of professional sports.

Did every single head coach or even every coach in football play it at some point in his life on a pro and/or college level?

I don't know, but I'd figure that, from the absolutes in your post that you don't feel they did. My confusion is that I can't tell whether you're agreeing with me or attempting to refute my stance.

I agree with you.
I think you are right that those who work on the Packers staff may have started in entry level jobs and worked their way up or they got the right college education and other credentials to be there.
Yeah, it isn't exactly rocket science.

I would love to read articles, and may ask for them in a thread, on any insights as to why they do what they do.
Our grunts and complaints are justified but to what extent?
Do they have blinders on or are they seeing things the way we do and somehow think their ways are better than the armchair coach and GM?
I just can't believe there can be any excuse as to why they suck without Rodgers. And if they don't make any changes after this, a much better O-line to protect him while also bringing in a much better back up, then this team may as well just start forfeiting games next year.
I don't mean to give up on my Packers already, but if they keep on keeping things as they are, only one ring for Rodgers.

I've been thinking of asking about playing experience of coaches recently and just saw the opportunity to ask with your comment being the opportunity to do so.
Lombardi just had college playing experience. So I wonder if that is still enough for an NFL head coach to get the job.
We are going to hear yet again of how McCarthy grew up in the Pitts. area in the upcoming game but they never talk about his football playing career, if he even had one.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

There is no such thing as a real fan. There are just fans. Some fans want the Packers to win all the rest of their game and make the playoffs even if they lose in the first round and some want them to lose the rest of their games so TT and MM get fired. Neither side is right and neither side has fans that are more real than the other. Some of the worst fans are the ones who think they are more real than others.

Why the assumption that the Packers, with Rodgers healthy, can't accomplish anything in the playoffs? I mean, they're not guaranteed Super Bowl winners but I see no reason to fear the Packers having to travel to Minnesota or wherever they'd go in the first round. The issue is that the team would rather give up the season than sign a decent, proven QB to give the team a CHANCE to win some games for Rodgers to come back to. Instead, the team is going to keep losing and Rodgers will have zero reason to come back this year. So, another year with no Super Bowl for the best QB in the NFL because the front office and coaches continue to let him down.

 

[sschind]

Some fans are just a lot more negative than others or sometimes fans have positive and negative attitudes towards the team here and there.

I think it is fair to question the loyalty of those negative fans who want the team to lose only to be proven wrong yet again that changes will come about when they don't.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but I do kind of get what you are saying. In my younger days I used to think "real" fans would never root for a loss but if losing is the only way they honestly think the changes they think are needed will come is that being disloyal? In the end all they want is for the team to improve and long term success (building a solid team across the roster instead of a one man deep roster for example) has far more appeal than a "meaningless" win here or there. Especially when a few more of those wins means it is less likely the changes they feel are needed will be made. If someone feels a top 5 draft pick would be so much better than a 10-15 pick in the long term success of the team I can see why they would prefer 2 or 3 more losses on the the season. I don't agree but that's just my opinion and I am not about to tell someone their opinion is not as valid as mine.

In a way, to me anyways, wins are like cash. Your team wins and its cash in your pocket that you spend and have the enjoyment of having your team get a victory today but it will be gone if you do and that is all you get from it. Losses, which lead to higher draft picks or regime changes are like investments that may or may not pay off. So do you take the cash (the win) or do you invest (the loss) in the future?

That sounded so much more profound in my mind. This whole post is kind of convoluted but I can't think of a better way to say it (I tried believe me) hopefully I got my point across.

 

[sschind]

Why the assumption that the Packers, with Rodgers healthy, can't accomplish anything in the playoffs? I mean, they're not guaranteed Super Bowl winners but I see no reason to fear the Packers having to travel to Minnesota or wherever they'd go in the first round. The issue is that the team would rather give up the season than sign a decent, proven QB to give the team a CHANCE to win some games for Rodgers to come back to. Instead, the team is going to keep losing and Rodgers will have zero reason to come back this year. So, another year with no Super Bowl for the best QB in the NFL because the front office and coaches continue to let him down.

That's not what I meant at all. I wasn't assuming they would lose the first game, it was and even if they do not a when they do. What I mean is that some people feel that making the playoffs and losing in the first round is no different than not making the playoffs at all and some of those people feel that is exactly what would happen. To them, losing a few more games means certain people would be fired and the chances would (in their opinion) improve that the changes would mean chances of NOT losing in the first round in the future would improve.

I was talking about the concept of "real" fans and not what the team does or does not or should or should not do.

 

[Forget Favre]

I'm not sure what you mean by this but I do kind of get what you are saying. In my younger days I used to think "real" fans would never root for a loss but if losing is the only way they honestly think the changes they think are needed will come is that being disloyal? In the end all they want is for the team to improve and long term success (building a solid team across the roster instead of a one man deep roster for example) has far more appeal than a "meaningless" win here or there. Especially when a few more of those wins means it is less likely the changes they feel are needed will be made. If someone feels a top 5 draft pick would be so much better than a 10-15 pick in the long term success of the team I can see why they would prefer 2 or 3 more losses on the the season. I don't agree but that's just my opinion and I am not about to tell someone their opinion is not as valid as mine.

In a way, to me anyways, wins are like cash. Your team wins and its cash in your pocket that you spend and have the enjoyment of having your team get a victory today but it will be gone if you do and that is all you get from it. Losses, which lead to higher draft picks or regime changes are like investments that may or may not pay off. So do you take the cash (the win) or do you invest (the loss) in the future?

That sounded so much more profound in my mind. This whole post is kind of convoluted but I can't think of a better way to say it (I tried believe me) hopefully I got my point across.

The last couple of non-Packers football games I have watched, they show a Playoff Picture graph. We are on the far right under the "In the hunt" column.
As long as I will see us anywhere on the graph, I will keep up my hope based on this confirmation that the season isn't over yet.
I think we should take things one at a time.
Let's get the season over and then look forward to the future.

I am also basing my thoughts and opinions on the fact that as a member of this board I keep on seeing the same posts year after year of changes that are wanted and almost a guarantee that they will be made.
What happens in the off-season?
Nothing.
I share in the frustration of wanting the team to be better.
What will it take to do that?
I don't know where to start and since the staff doesn't make the changes that the layman fan wants, it's hard to judge who is correct in what the right thing to do is.

 

[Packer96]

We're all real fans, some of us feel this staff is holding the team back. We keep drafting defense with no real improvement. Our head coach, the QB whisperer, in many of our minds is over-rated and every embarrassing game we play without AR just enforces our opinion. We look at every part of our team and struggle to find good play. We can barely run the ball, can't stop or cover anyone when they have the ball. It's not rooting for us to lose, we've seen enough to know we're going to lose. We have one of the top QB's in history and we get the same thing every year, make the playoffs and get smoked. I quit on this staff at Seattle, no way we should have lost that game, totally on the coaching. That was the team that should have won the ring. I have seen nothing since to convince me this staff will every get to a SB unless its a supreme effort by the players to overcome the coaching.

 

[Poppa San]

Did every single head coach or even every coach in football play it at some point in his life on a pro and/or college level?

At first I was going to say no as there are a few female coaches around the league. Then I checked and they played in various "real" -not lingerie- women's leagues and developed through the coaching ranks there. As to front office people? I've heard of a few that never played the game. Isn't Cleveland run by a baseball guy?

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Should have gone after Kaep to give us a better chance than what we got now.
Or even Romo.
Heck, despite my name, I'll even take Favre.

The last time I saw Kaepernick play, he looked a lot like Hundley did against the Ravens.

The phrase "Benched in favor of Blaine Gabbert" is hard to erase......No thanks.

 

[pizzle]

The last time I saw Kaepernick play, he looked a lot like Hundley did against the Ravens.

The phrase "Benched in favor of Blaine Gabbert" is hard to erase......No thanks.

Not sure when you were watching Colin play, but last season for a very bad 49ers team with nothing around him offensively he was a very effective QB.

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

In one of his games he attempted 37 passes and completed 75% of them. I don't see Hundley doing that. Kaep is a veteran and has displayed more pocket awareness than Brett has. Keep in mind he's played a bunch more as well. This narrative that Kaep can't throw from the pocket is highly overexaggerated. The only thing Brett might be able to do now as well as Colin is throw from outside of the pocket. And even that is a stretch because while Colin usually left the pocket to run, Brett hasn't been anywhere near consistent throwing on the run. Kaep is also a better athlete than Brett, and would be even more of a threat to gain yards as a runner if/when a play breaks down.

Giving an opinion that Colin would not be a good fit in Green Bay is one thing. But saying Kaep was a bad QB when he last was seen in the league/he couldn't perform in a pro offense better than a guy that has made less than 5 NFL starts is just not accurate...

 

[JK64]

It may take time for Hundley to develop. Sometimes it does.

BH has had 2 1/2 years to develop and this is what we get? A big fail by MM and TT.

 

[JK64]

I don't want Kaep either. He is a poor passer IMO. The packers offense is for good QB passing and reading the defense, neither of which Kaep can do.

I wish TT and MM would have identified that BH is not NFL caliber and looked for some young guys to replace him before this season. How TT and MM could put all their money on BH is beyond me.

 

[OldSchool101]

Not sure when you were watching Colin play, but last season for a very bad 49ers team with nothing around him offensively he was a very effective QB.

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

In one of his games he attempted 37 passes and completed 75% of them. I don't see Hundley doing that. Kaep is a veteran and has displayed more pocket awareness than Brett has. Keep in mind he's played a bunch more as well. This narrative that Kaep can't throw from the pocket is highly overexaggerated. The only thing Brett might be able to do now as well as Colin is throw from outside of the pocket. And even that is a stretch because while Colin usually left the pocket to run, Brett hasn't been anywhere near consistent throwing on the run. Kaep is also a better athlete than Brett, and would be even more of a threat to gain yards as a runner if/when a play breaks down.

Giving an opinion that Colin would not be a good fit in Green Bay is one thing. But saying Kaep was a bad QB when he last was seen in the league/he couldn't perform in a pro offense better than a guy that has made less than 5 NFL starts is just not accurate...

That graph looks more like a reason to argue against Colin IMO. Terrible outcome.
What jumped out immediately to me was Colin’s 11 Starts with a 1-10 record, while Brett Won a game in his 3rd official start.
In Colins first 9 official starts that season he was 0-9 (your example not mine)
He also averaged 18pts per game per start and passed for 59% per Games Started (Brett is currently at 61.8%)and we both know by any reasonable standards that this is an awful statistical performance and even worse Win/Loss ratio.
I’m not sure what this obsession with Kaepernick is. It doesn’t make sense from at least 3-4 angles.

 

[pizzle]

That graph looks more like a reason to argue against Colin IMO. Terrible outcome.
What jumped out immediately to me was Colin’s 11 Starts with a 1-10 record, while Brett Won a game in his 3rd official start.
In Colins first 9 official starts that season he was 0-9 (your example not mine)
He also averaged 18pts per game per start and passed for 59% per Games Started (Brett is currently at 61.8%)and we both know by any reasonable standards that this is an awful statistical performance and even worse Win/Loss ratio.
I’m not sure what this obsession with Kaepernick is. It doesn’t make sense from at least 3-4 angles.

Football is a team game. This isn't tennis. While AR12 masks many of the flaws GB has, the team as a whole has to give him some support or we won't win even with him playing other-worldly.

With that being said, you can't look at the overall 2016 record of the 49ers and make a blanket statement that Kaep wasn't any good.

This article very meticulously broke down why many of the narratives about Colin's effectiveness as an NFL QB are, as I stated before, just not accurate:

Colin Kaepernick Is Better Than Joe Flacco

Here's an excerpt that explains something I always noticed when watching the playoff-level 49ers under Kaep:

The depth of Kaepernick’s throws wasn’t the only reason he had a lower completion percentage last year. While Flacco lost a reception to receiver error once every 17 attempts, Kaepernick lost one once every 8.49 attempts. Nobody in the league lost completions on accurate passes because of receiver error as often as the San Francisco 49ers quarterback did.

The 49ers' best WR while Kaep was with SF was some kind of combo of Anquan Boldin/Michael Crabtree. While Boldin has typically had sure hands as a player, when you look at all the wideouts/TEs (Vernon Davis, anyone???) they've had as a core, they'd drop alot of balls that Kaep threw well. How many times when Kaep played against GB in the post-season did we see a 49ers pass-catcher drop a well-placed ball on 1st or 2nd down-and-whatever that would have put them in position to score a TD, only for Colin to simply put it upon himself to run rough shot thru our defense on 3rd down?

Poster, I think you need to reevaluate your stance. A QB's completion % isn't always a full indicator of their accuracy. If a thrower doesn't have wideouts that he can rely on to catch the easy ones, let alone snatch some poorly thrown ones, it can hurt them. Remember when Davante had a sophomore slump case of the dropsies? The only reason AR12's stats didn't waver significantly then was because he had two other vets in Nelson and Cobb he could count on. Kaep has never played with a WR core as polished as we have consistently had in GB.

Even with not having quality receivers last season, and dealing with a situation similar to what Tyrod Taylor is being subjected to in Buffalo, Colin had a 90.7 passer rating with 16 TDs to just 4 INTs. That's really good considering how bad that offense was around him. They literally had no player you were concerned about beating you other than him. I attribute the fumbles to his play style, which, if managed properly could easily be avoided. Not always having to make something happen and instead being able to just take what a defense gives you within a more balanced offense surrounded by other legit weapons could have done for Colin what being in Philly did for Michael Vick-showcase his true potential. While I like what Harbaugh did with Kaep early on, I think that Colin could have benefited greatly from a new environment with some different WC passing principles mixed in with pistol formation flexibility. Alex Smith will always be a scrub to me. But, despite losing his job in SF he got another chance at being a starter in KC. With Andy Reid doing some things to make his job much easier/surrounding him with some talent offensively, now Smith is a legit NFL QB. We could have provided Colin a similar situation with the scenario presented to us in the 2017 campaign.

IMO, if you look at all the mediocre QBs that get to bounce around the league as journeyman for doing much less, it should be a no-brainer that a supposed "QB guru" like MM would have been intrigued with a talent like Kaep and wanted to bring him into his QB room around AR12 and the young pups to see what happens. Or at minimum, when Rodgers gets his collarbone snapped after the dirty hit from Barr in MN, you tell Murphy and TT "Hey, let's take a flyer out on Kaep now just in case Brett ends up not being ready for prime time. Colin might be able to come in after the bye and keep us afloat until Aaron returns so this season isn't a waste..."

Kaep is a good QB that could have helped a bunch of teams, including ours. That is accurate...

 

[OldSchool101]

Kaep is a good QB that could have helped a bunch of teams, including ours. That is accurate...

So if there are a "bunch" of teams that would've benefited from his play, why has not even 1 of that "bunch" signed him?

 

[swhitset]

So if there are a "bunch" of teams that would've benefited from his play, why has not even 1 of that "bunch" signed him?

Pizzle's long defense of Kapernick not withstanding, Kappernick's carreer had pretty much fizzled before any of the political crap began. He had been given several chances and was not successful at keeping a job. The conventional wisdom was that he did not have it and that his carreer was about over. This sudden love of him as a QB is politically motivated as far as I'm concerned. If I believed he was a talented QB I'd be more inclined to give him a shot. I don't.

 

[pizzle]

So if there are a "bunch" of teams that would've benefited from his play, why has not even 1 of that "bunch" signed him?

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/sorry-but-im-starting-to-agree.76649/#post-749344

And contrary to swhitset's statement, Kaepernick's career in the NFL has been controversial ever since he was promoted and Alex Smith was demoted by Harbaugh. When Kaepernick was winning games (and actually had more flaws than what he displayed last season as a QB) with a balanced SF team there were many that ranted about how he wasn't a real franchise QB. Colin has never been given "several chances". He only played under one coach that had his back thru-and-thru: Harbaugh. When Harbaugh was let go/when Kaep had the shoulder thing, it began the RGIII-ification of his career. The problem is, last year when Kelly had nothing else to fall back on and put him in-he played well. He showed that he had improved as a pocket passer to the point where in the right scenario he could at least do what Alex Smith has done in KC. But HE HASN'T GOTTEN THAT CHANCE.

The real question you should be asking is-if the NFL is not suited to accommodate "mobile QBs" in general-why did Mobile QB A (that played bad football for years before losing his job to the younger, more athletic Mobile QB B) get a second chance at being a starter in the NFL while Mobile QB B isn't even in the league?

 

[McKnowledge]

I am not a fan of Romo, Kaep, but I would've like to have SEEN another acquisition and create competition for Hundley. This constant reassurance from MM for BH doesn't seem to be helping.

You always hear MM preaching competition in positions. Well, MM is stating there is not a competition for Hundley's job, it's his and his alone. I think that's the wrong approach.

As far as the development of Hundley, I don't think this dude will be a backup anywhere after this garbage season is over.

I agree. I was rooting for Hundley until that Ravens debacle. Hot garbage on the 4th of July. Three years in the system and this is what you produce? MM is wearing on me with his stubbornness. Adapt or die...in football...and life.

 

[McKnowledge]

So if there are a "bunch" of teams that would've benefited from his play, why has not even 1 of that "bunch" signed him?

Collusion

 

[Forget Favre]

At first I was going to say no as there are a few female coaches around the league. Then I checked and they played in various "real" -not lingerie- women's leagues and developed through the coaching ranks there. As to front office people? I've heard of a few that never played the game. Isn't Cleveland run by a baseball guy?

Jay Gruden, coach of Washington, has only as far as I know Arena League experience.
I see the AL as nothing but a really bad joke of a sport or rip off of real football.
I wonder how many more years they are going to give him and I suppose riding in on the coat tails of his bro. helps to.

 

[Forget Favre]

I agree. I was rooting for Hundley until that Ravens debacle. Hot garbage on the 4th of July. Three years in the system and this is what you produce? MM is wearing on me with his stubbornness. Adapt or die...in football...and life.

Yeah, it's almost as if they want to lose.
Rodgers goes down and instead of getting in a seasoned, winning QB go with an untested back up who has in comparison zero game time reps at making completions.
The Packers should not be the place for testing grounds for new key players when they still have a chance that early in the season.
May as well go ahead and put in Callahan now since they are obviously giving up on themselves which is pathetic and inexcusable.
Way to go to make sure that Rodgers only gets one ring in his career when he deservers more, Coach McMoron.

 

[PackerDNA]

Pizzle's long defense of Kapernick not withstanding, Kappernick's carreer had pretty much fizzled before any of the political crap began. He had been given several chances and was not successful at keeping a job. The conventional wisdom was that he did not have it and that his carreer was about over. This sudden love of him as a QB is politically motivated as far as I'm concerned. If I believed he was a talented QB I'd be more inclined to give him a shot. I don't.

A lot of people forget that CK had a contract that he decided to opt out of, ergo unemploying himself.

 

[pizzle]

A lot of people forget that CK had a contract that he decided to opt out of, ergo unemploying himself.

No-another faulty statement. He didn't "unemploy himself". Kaep knew they didn't want him back-and since they were unsuccessful in trading him the year prior-he opted out to keep some dignity. I don't blame him. 49ers brass (John lynch) have already come out and said they were going to release him if he hadn't opted out anyway...

 

[PackerDNA]

No-another faulty statement. He didn't "unemploy himself". Kaep knew they didn't want him back-and since they were unsuccessful in trading him the year prior-he opted out to keep some dignity. I don't blame him. 49ers brass (John lynch) have already come out and said they were going to release him if he hadn't opted out anyway...

Ah,no. He opted out of his contract. Why he did it is irrelevant.

 

[pizzle]

Ah,no. He opted out of his contract. Why he did it is irrelevant.

Smh...

That makes no sense. Why he did it is irrelevant?!?!?!?

He KNEW the 49ers would cut him. He led the team to a friggin' Super Bowl-was out of favor with the organization-then played well thus proving them wrong by showing that he wasn't washed up. They still didn't want him/didn't trade him and he knew they would not keep him around so he sped up the process of moving on with his career. What's the difference between what he did and an accountant giving a company that he's at odds with two weeks notice and bouncing before they terminate him without a severance package?

If you don't like him, just be a man and say you don't like him. But don't say something stupid and expect it to be taken seriously...