Extend Mike McCarthy?

[JBURGE]

2 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

What change would you suggest making for your QB who passes up short timing routes to take shots?  More short timing routes?  How exactly would you expect that to improve things?  

Stop calling plays that have long developing deep shots on some 1st and 10s? Add a checkdown instead of having the RB pass block? We all love to blame 12 for holding onto the ball too long, but we can still point to lack of creativity in the offense. The NFL is a copycat league, and we haven't updated the offense in ages. Create different matchups like the Rams and Chiefs with pre-snap motions to give a better idea of where the quick read is.

We seem to still be running the same offense that is tailored around a QB that can extend plays, but we have the QB who can't extend plays. 

[Kepler]

3 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

What change would you suggest making for your QB who passes up short timing routes to take shots?  More short timing routes?  How exactly would you expect that to improve things?  

It wouldn't. Rodgers has to actually change his approach there and he won't. I don't know why anyone expects offensive changes at this point with AR and MM. Staff would have to completely ditch deep routes. If there were only one deep route on every offensive play Rodgers would hold the ball and try to scramble him open.

[MrBobGray]

8 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

Stop calling plays that have long developing deep shots on some 1st and 10s? Add a checkdown instead of having the RB pass block? We all love to blame 12 for holding onto the ball too long, but we can still point to lack of creativity in the offense. The NFL is a copycat league, and we haven't updated the offense in ages. Create different matchups like the Rams and Chiefs with pre-snap motions to give a better idea of where the quick read is.

We seem to still be running the same offense that is tailored around a QB that can extend plays, but we have the QB who can't extend plays. 

The Packers have checkdowns out there all the time.  Rodgers rarely takes them.  The Packers ran motion on a ton of snaps.  They also ran bunch sets, some double HB, 4 TEs, downfield screens, you name it.  This tired idea that the offense isn't "creative" isn't based in reality at all.  Nothing on film backs it up.  This is an issue due to the type of player Rodgers is and what he wants, and the only one who can change that is Rodgers.

[MrBobGray]

16 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Just submit and run the plays rodgers wants to run in the first place.  The offense HUMS in 2 min situations.  And we know that rodgers calls all the plays in 2 min drill.

So give up some control and maybe your QB starts to see things from your perspective a little bit.

The offense hums in the 2 min drill because Rodgers takes what the defense gives him.  There's no room to force the big play when you need to drive the field, so he hits the first open thing he sees.  Look how fast the ball comes out of his hand in 2 min vs. the rest of the game.  He rarely goes deep, he keeps the offense on schedule and in rhythm, and they score a lot.  The offense could look like that all the time, but the only person who can make that happen is Rodgers.  

[Packerraymond]

16 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

The offense hums in the 2 min drill because Rodgers takes what the defense gives him.  There's no room to force the big play when you need to drive the field, so he hits the first open thing he sees.  Look how fast the ball comes out of his hand in 2 min vs. the rest of the game.  He rarely goes deep, he keeps the offense on schedule and in rhythm, and they score a lot.  The offense could look like that all the time, but the only person who can make that happen is Rodgers.  

This isn't 100% Rodgers. Nor is it 100% Mac. The route concepts flat out suck at times. We end up with one WR covering another more than any team in the league I watch.

[Norm]

I wanna brain wash Rodgers into thinking the other team was off sides every play. 100tds and 35ints a season, I'll take it.

[mikemike778]

45 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

The offense hums in the 2 min drill because Rodgers takes what the defense gives him.  There's no room to force the big play when you need to drive the field, so he hits the first open thing he sees.  Look how fast the ball comes out of his hand in 2 min vs. the rest of the game.  He rarely goes deep, he keeps the offense on schedule and in rhythm, and they score a lot.  The offense could look like that all the time, but the only person who can make that happen is Rodgers.  

I would run some series running a pure 2 min drill. Psychologically watching it seems so much harder to stop a team that has got 4 downs to make the 10 yards  so its probably like that playing it to. Combine that with a team running play after play in no time and defences just seem powerless sometimes.

Commit to it no matter what and see what happens. Sure occasionally you turn the ball over on downs in bad positions occasionally , you just have to live with that.

[AlexGreen#20]

16 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

Just submit and run the plays rodgers wants to run in the first place.  The offense HUMS in 2 min situations.  And we know that rodgers calls all the plays in 2 min drill.

So give up some control and maybe your QB starts to see things from your perspective a little bit.

Defenses are running it different in the 2 minute. That's not a fair comparison

[MacReady]

Serious question regardless of the outcome this season... Do we trade McCarthy to the Browns?

I feel it in my bones... We're winning the Super Bowl this year.  Perfect time to capitalize on McCarthy's value.  Get the Browns first pick, new head coach.

If we miss the playoffs, we could probably still get a first or second for trading him.

Anything in the way of that?

[packfanfb]

3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Serious question regardless of the outcome this season... Do we trade McCarthy to the Browns?

I feel it in my bones... We're winning the Super Bowl this year.  Perfect time to capitalize on McCarthy's value.  Get the Browns first pick, new head coach.

If we miss the playoffs, we could probably still get a first or second for trading him.

Anything in the way of that?

A Browns 1st and/or 2nd as well. A second from the Browns probably won't be all that different from the Saints 1st when it's all said and done. 

[Dsibly]

15 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Serious question regardless of the outcome this season... Do we trade McCarthy to the Browns?

I feel it in my bones... We're winning the Super Bowl this year.  Perfect time to capitalize on McCarthy's value.  Get the Browns first pick, new head coach.

If we miss the playoffs, we could probably still get a first or second for trading him.

Anything in the way of that?

In your scenario where McCarthy leads this team to a Super Bowl victory, this year!  The Packers would then trade him?

So the question I have is, why are you trading away a coach that just took this current Packer team and got them on track and lead them to a Super Bowl victory?

The whole reason you get rid of a coach is because he's under-performing in some regard and you feel another coach is needed to win. But, Mike would have literally

just pulled off almost the impossible and WON a Super Bowl, this year. You can not ever get better than that. Why would you try and get another coach here to do better than a Super Bow? You can't find better than what Mike would have just done.

[MacReady]

1 hour ago, Dsibly said:

In your scenario where McCarthy leads this team to a Super Bowl victory, this year!  The Packers would then trade him?

So the question I have is, why are you trading away a coach that just took this current Packer team and got them on track and lead them to a Super Bowl victory?

The whole reason you get rid of a coach is because he's under-performing in some regard and you feel another coach is needed to win. But, Mike would have literally

just pulled off almost the impossible and WON a Super Bowl, this year. You can not ever get better than that. Why would you try and get another coach here to do better than a Super Bow? You can't find better than what Mike would have just done.

It's exceedingly rare to win back to back Super Bowls.  You're the top team and have an X on the schedule for every team that plays you.  

Teams study you as nauseum.  You're looked at through a microscope.

Additionally, teams to win it all typically don't have a lot of draft capital to add to the team.  So every team is gunning for you, they all got better and you marginally improved.  

We're seeinf it now with the Eagles.

Imagine winning a Super Bowl and having a brand new look with an extra first round pick.

[vegas492]

He, McCarthy, is under contract through the 2019 season, right?

Teams rarely let a coach enter a lame duck season without an extension.

While I like the idea of trading him, here's the reality that I see.

GB got off to a slow start and that will keep them from the playoffs and ultimately lead to McCarthy being fired.

I like the idea of trading him, though, as opposed to firing him.  But you have to think that those folks in Cleveland will be watching 1265 closely.  He'd be a good coach for them and they would be lucky to have him.

 

[Dsibly]

42 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

It's exceedingly rare to win back to back Super Bowls.  You're the top team and have an X on the schedule for every team that plays you.  

Teams study you as nauseum.  You're looked at through a microscope.

Additionally, teams to win it all typically don't have a lot of draft capital to add to the team.  So every team is gunning for you, they all got better and you marginally improved.  

We're seeinf it now with the Eagles.

Imagine winning a Super Bowl and having a brand new look with an extra first round pick.

So what you are ultimately saying then. And I feel I'm following you here.

You get rid of your coach after you win a Super Bowl because it's exceedingly rare to win back to back?

So, Eagles should have fired Doug Peterson.

If the Rams win the SB this year, no doubt that Sean McVay needs to get his walking papers.

 

With all do respect, I think you're off your rocker. You don't fire your coach as a result of winning a Super Bowl.

[MacReady]

10 minutes ago, Dsibly said:

So what you are ultimately saying then. And I feel I'm following you here.

You get rid of your coach after you win a Super Bowl because it's exceedingly rare to win back to back?

So, Eagles should have fired Doug Peterson.

If the Rams win the SB this year, no doubt that Sean McVay needs to get his walking papers.

 

With all do respect, I think you're off your rocker. You don't fire your coach as a result of winning a Super Bowl.

One thing I love doing is talking with people who say I'm off my rocker.  Love it.  

First, there have been issues with Rodgers/McCarthy for a very long time now.  Petersen has no such issues with his QB.  McVay had no such issues with his QB.

Second, the past thirty years in the NFL show you're more likely to win a Super Bowl with a head coach in his first five years than you are with a head coach tenured longer than five years.  Not reason enough to fire your coach, but considering Aaron's dissatisfaction with him, and considering we could get SIGNIFICANT COMPENSATION IN A TRADE, yeah, I thought it was worth suggesting.

Also, I never actually said the Packers should FIRE MCCARTHY, God this conversation is annoying and you're bothering me.  

I suggest Packers should trade - TRADE BEING THE KEY WORD - McCarthy, then you liken it to the Eagles FIRING their head coach.  Real sensical counter argument.  

You might feel like you're following, but you aren't even close, so I'm literally done with this conversation with you.