Extend Mike McCarthy?

[SpeightTheVillain]

53 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

 

And if MM isn't on the level of Sean Payton offensively - then he must be a vastly superior Head Coach because he's never put together 4 out of 5 seasons at 7-9. MM has won more regular season games, more playoff games and more playoff appearances that Sean Payton and Sean Payton has never been Brees-less, Drew's missed 2 games in 13 years. So despite his otherworldly reputation as an offensive guru, Payton just hasn't been able to keep up with MM. 

This reminds me of great scene from Moneyball. 

If he is such a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?

[Shanedorf]

7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And I'm not even arguing that McCarthy needs to get fired. ( yes you are)

Let me ask you this, is this team more talent deprived than the team that started 4-1 going into Minnesota last year?  We have a bit more talent defensively, but offensively I'd ague we're just as talented offensively as we were last year.

We can sort the talent a dozen ways to answer that question - but AR didn't have a broken collar bone with 13 screws at that point, he didn't have another knee injury either and the Packers hadn't changed out the OC, the offense, the passing game coordinator, the WR coach, the QB coach and more. There's a hundred variables and a few really critical bounces of the ball each season. Its a game of inches - and so far this year, the inches aren't lining up in our favor (yet)

This week is an IMMENSE test of the HC's ability to lead his team in the face of adversity. Let's see how it goes ... When the vikes had to travel to the Rams on a short week, PR and others said it was a "gimme" for the Rams because of those brutal logistics. Let's see what happens on Thursday nite in one of the toughest venues in all of sports.

Short week, on the road, tough venue, scrappy team.
Should offer us some valuable insight on the path forward.

[Shanedorf]

11 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

This reminds me of great scene from Moneyball. 

If he is such a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?

So many great lines in that movie.... scouts sitting around bantering about potential prospects...

Scout 1: " That prospect has no confidence !"
Scout 2:   " Why do you say that ?

 Scout 1: "Because he married an ugly woman"

[CWood21]

38 minutes ago, Sasquatch said:

Regarding the question - is this team more talent deprived than the team that started the season 4-1 last year?  I just don't know, and it's hard to say because you'd somehow have to create a way of evaluating the strength of the first five games from last year to this year.  In my opinion, it would seem that this team has more talent on both sides of the ball and on special teams over last year, BUT, that doesn't mean we have enough talent - I think we need more at some very key positions to be a threat deep into the post-season. 

The argument wasn't whether or not there's enough talent.  The question I posed was were the 2017 Packers (pre-Rodgers injury) were significantly better than the current 2018 Packers?  I'd argue no.  Offensively, I think they're probably a bit more raw than last year particularly at the WR position, but I feel significantly better about the defensive talent in our secondary even without HHCD.  We went 4-1 in our first five games last year.  We are 2-2-1 in our first five games.  I don't see a team whose drastically worse than last year at least in terms of talent level.  I think we're breaking in a new defensive scheme this year which is why we've been so up and down defensively.  Offensively, we're breaking in new skill position players which is why we're seeing the inconsistency in the passing game.

41 minutes ago, Sasquatch said:

So why did we start slower this year than last, with a scosh more talent this year?  Honestly, I've noticed in the past few years that not only does this team take a while to really get clicking, this team also seems to be getting less and less disciplined, especially in the first half of the season.  I haven't done a statistical analysis to prove this - I'm going on visceral feel here.  Even though we started 4-1 last year, I distinctly remember posters commenting about how we always seem to start the season, and especially the first half of games, so slow.  Well, it happened again this year, but with the added element of shoot-yourself-in-the-foot added to the mix.  I can't remember a time (in the last 15 years or so) when boneheaded mistakes had such a costly impact on this team and their record as the mistakes they've made this year.  This speaks to discipline, and that usually gets chalked up to coaching.  Can MM still get these gents to listen and comply, and is his message sound?  I'm not qualified to answer that.

Offensively, I'd agree.  We're a notoriously slow starter offensively, probably in large part due to the fact that we get limited snaps on our offense.  But my question was posed if things don't start changing offensively, at what point do we start to question it?  We're 9 games into the season, and the Dolphins game was the first game where I felt like they played well offensively.

[CWood21]

40 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Wtf are you even arguing anymore?

Now you state that Payton is one of the best minds in football. If that's the case, why were his teams bad lately? Why are they good again suddenly?

Are you trying to argue with me about something you agree with me on?

You can be one of the best offensive minds in football and still have a mediocre record.  Since Gregg Williams left, the Saints have been mediocre defensively with the exception of last year.  They're 23rd in opponents PPG this year, and 8-1.  Last year, they were 10th and they finished 11-5.  They were 4th offensively last year and 1st this year, so why did the Saints lose more games despite being better?  Sean Payton is a damn good offensive mind.  But he can't fix their defensive issues.  You want to know why they were 7-9 for 3 seasons straight?  It might have something to do with the fact that they were 31st in opponents PPG in 2016, 32nd in 2015, and and 28th in 2014.  They were AWFUL defensively.  They were -2 in close games last year, -2 in close games in 2016, +2 in 2015, and -2 in 2014.  Saints weren't a 7-9 team.  They were probably closer to being a 9-7 team, maybe even better.

[Sasquatch]

13 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

The argument wasn't whether or not there's enough talent.  The question I posed was were the 2017 Packers (pre-Rodgers injury) were significantly better than the current 2018 Packers?  I'd argue no.  Offensively, I think they're probably a bit more raw than last year particularly at the WR position, but I feel significantly better about the defensive talent in our secondary even without HHCD.  We went 4-1 in our first five games last year.  We are 2-2-1 in our first five games.  I don't see a team whose drastically worse than last year at least in terms of talent level.  I think we're breaking in a new defensive scheme this year which is why we've been so up and down defensively.  Offensively, we're breaking in new skill position players which is why we're seeing the inconsistency in the passing game.

Offensively, I'd agree.  We're a notoriously slow starter offensively, probably in large part due to the fact that we get limited snaps on our offense.  But my question was posed if things don't start changing offensively, at what point do we start to question it?  We're 9 games into the season, and the Dolphins game was the first game where I felt like they played well offensively.

I come from the school of 'question everything', so if they're not improving, and the offense isn't changing in ways that gets more production from the talent assembled, then yes, one can at least question if the coaches are successfully getting their message across to the players, or if their message has redeeming qualities in the first place.  Just because we get to question, doesn't mean we get a vote, but it makes for interesting internet conversations.

This whole Sean Payton issue/question really perplexes me.  I was one who thought Sean's message had worn thin, and even questioned his ability to coach that team any longer.  Yet, you just can't deny that he's played a major role in reviving this Saints team to be one of the tops in the league.  So, if Payton can go through a pretty lengthy slump only to rise like a phoenix out of the ashes of mediocrity, then I suppose it can happen to  Mac and the Packers.  It certainly has me re-thinking my position on Mac and his future with this team. 

How long do we let the tripartite work together - maybe that's the question we should be asking?

[Shanedorf]

3 hours ago, ChaRisMa said:

 All Gutenkunst needs to do to find out what he should do about Mike McCarthy is call Aaron Rodgers into his office and ask him what he'd prefer.
Thats the Offense.

I had some thoughts along the same lines and posted them earlier - what I said is that Gute and MM should probably have let Aaron have some say in the QB coach he wanted to work with going forward. Rodgers enjoyed having former QBs in Clements and Van Pelt to work with, that mattered to him a lot
The job of the HC is a hundred times bigger than calling the plays or scheming the offense. You wanna tweak the offense, give AR some fresh meat ? Sounds like a winner. Give him a QB coach of his choosing or even the Passing Game Coordinator ( Hostler).

But changing out the Head Coach is a a much much bigger undertaking and it gives way too much power to the QB who only knows about his little slice of the 53 man squad. . The HC is responsible for all 3 facets of the team and a thousand more decisions every week.  I don't think you let any QB make that decision no matter how good he is on Sundays. Just give AR a voice and give him some more juice by having a like-minded coach singing the same song during game planning sessions.

[Shanedorf]

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

They were AWFUL defensively.

So were the Packers. Have you  ever read this board before ?

Does the name CAPERS mean anything to you ? 

 

[incognito_man]

16 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You can be one of the best offensive minds in football and still have a mediocre record.  Since Gregg Williams left, the Saints have been mediocre defensively with the exception of last year.  They're 23rd in opponents PPG this year, and 8-1.  Last year, they were 10th and they finished 11-5.  They were 4th offensively last year and 1st this year, so why did the Saints lose more games despite being better?  Sean Payton is a damn good offensive mind.  But he can't fix their defensive issues.  You want to know why they were 7-9 for 3 seasons straight?  It might have something to do with the fact that they were 31st in opponents PPG in 2016, 32nd in 2015, and and 28th in 2014.  They were AWFUL defensively.  They were -2 in close games last year, -2 in close games in 2016, +2 in 2015, and -2 in 2014.  Saints weren't a 7-9 team.  They were probably closer to being a 9-7 team, maybe even better.

Literally no idea what your point is anymore.

Should the saints have fired Payton years ago or no?

[Stevein2012]

4 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

So were the Packers. Have you  ever read this board before ?

Does the name CAPERS mean anything to you ? 

 

Eh, the Packers defenses while bad generally have never been as bad as the Saints were in that stretch before last season.

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Literally no idea what your point is anymore.

Should the saints have fired Payton years ago or no?

You're clearly not paying attention.

[CWood21]

10 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

So were the Packers. Have you  ever read this board before ?

Does the name CAPERS mean anything to you ? 

And I'd argue there isn't much difference between the Saints and Packers.

[CWood21]

18 minutes ago, Sasquatch said:

I come from the school of 'question everything', so if they're not improving, and the offense isn't changing in ways that gets more production from the talent assembled, then yes, one can at least question if the coaches are successfully getting their message across to the players, or if their message has redeeming qualities in the first place.  Just because we get to question, doesn't mean we get a vote, but it makes for interesting internet conversations.

This whole Sean Payton issue/question really perplexes me.  I was one who thought Sean's message had worn thin, and even questioned his ability to coach that team any longer.  Yet, you just can't deny that he's played a major role in reviving this Saints team to be one of the tops in the league.  So, if Payton can go through a pretty lengthy slump only to rise like a phoenix out of the ashes of mediocrity, then I suppose it can happen to  Mac and the Packers.  It certainly has me re-thinking my position on Mac and his future with this team. 

How long do we let the tripartite work together - maybe that's the question we should be asking?

My argument is if status quo stands true, then there needs to be real discussion about whether or not it's time to move on from McCarthy.  You have to go back to 2010 the last time the Saints didn't field a top 10 offense in terms of PPG.  Even while their defense was awful, their offense held up their side of the bargain.  Are you going to hold it against Sean Payton, an offensive minded coach, for their defensive struggles?  No.  For the same reason I don't hold the defensive issues against McCarthy.  But when the one thing you're supposed to be good at (offense) isn't good, it's time to start considering a change.  Could Mac rebound?  Sure, but I want to see something that suggests he will.  Just walking through the rest of the season with a middle-of-the-pack offense and defense isn't that.  I'm hopeful that the Miami game was the jumpstart we need, but I'm not optimistic.  To me, this was a bit of a transition year offensively.

[Shanedorf]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

  To me, this was a bit of a transition year offensively.

It is. Very transitional. There is no part of the passing game that is the same as last year. Not the Coordinator, not the verbiage, not the vet WRs, not the position coaches - none of it.  And AR didn't play in December-January like he usually does and he didn't spend any more time on the field in preseason despite all of those changes. 

Which is why some of the more level-headed posters knew there would be struggles along the way. But instead we hear people say
" its a transitional year, things aren't firing on all cylinders yet...time to fire the HC"

Even though you got exactly what you predicted - a transitional year.
Transitional years don't operate like a finely tuned Ferrari in September and October - and that's pretty much what's happened so far.

I'm neither surprised by the W/L results nor the negative over-reaction of a spoiled fan base.

[vegas492]

14 hours ago, CWood21 said:

And I'd argue there isn't much difference between the Saints and Packers.

This.  The only difference I see is that they absolutely nailed their draft last year.  Then again...picking at #11 helps.  

In my mind, they are one great draft ahead of Green Bay.