Extend Mike McCarthy?

[CWood21]

10 minutes ago, wgbeethree said:

I'd argue its the system and his usage.

Kamara is averaging 4.4 ypc this year. Ty is 4.8 for his career. Heck, Ingram is averaging more ypc and ypt than Kamara this year. He's just not being used as much.

This reminds me of an argument I've had on here about two of our TEs. Graham and Finley. Statistically at one point of their careers they were nearly identical in catch%, ypt, and TD% yet Graham was an allpro and Finley was a whipping boy.

IMO Sean Payton is an expert at doing something "pretty good" enough that it works "special".

I'd disagree.  Everytime we've seen Ty's usage go up, it's followed by injury.  So unless you truly believe that McCarthy is keeping the best talent on the bench, the fallback goes to Ty.  If you believe that Mac is keeping talent on the bench, then Mac needs to go.  Kamara is a special back, because he's so damn effective both as a passer and a receiver.  When he's on the field, teams don't know what he's doing.  Is he going to be coming out of the backfield as a receiver?  Or is he going to be running between the tackles?  Aaron Jones is probably the closest thing we've had to that in the last 5ish years.  In terms of versatility in backs, I'd argue the only RB whose even close to Kamara this year are Saquon Barkley and Christian McCaffrey.  Two of the three best dual-purpose backs in the league were drafted in the top 10.  Majority of the posters here would lose it if the Packers selected a RB in the top 10.

And I don't think I'd disagree that Sean Payton does more with less, which is a bigger indictment on McCarthy.  I don't think anyone thinks the Packers lack talent.  They might not be as talented as they are before, but they certainly aren't short on talent.  So if Rodgers is playing outside of the scheme, that means there's little to no respect for McCarthy which is a red flag in itself.  If it's McCarthy, he's refusing to adjust his game plan and play calling to fit the players.  At the end of the day, you have to hitch your wagon to either Rodgers or McCarthy.  Given the investment we just put in with Aaron Rodgers, it seems unlikely that he's going to be the one to go.

[Packerraymond]

12 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Really getting scared at how many people want to let Rodgers pick the coach. This is not something that has great historical precedent

He can't pick the coach, but he can't be left out of the process either. There has to be a certain level of involvement there. What that is, that is something people who get paid way more than I decide.

[skibrett15]

11 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I think it is one thing when playing a contested game, and another when playing a team like the Dolphins.

Against the 49ers Adams had 16 targets out of 46 attempts which put him up at 35%, which was appropriate because the game was in question and we needed to lean on him.

Against the Patriots he had 9 targets out of 43 attempts for 21%.  I put this on double coverage with Gilmore following him.  

The point I am making is better teams will scheme to take him out of the game.  The way around that is develop your younger receivers so the defense has to think about them.  You don't get there by giving Adams 35% to 53% of the targets, which is what 10 to 15 would have been.  The true path to failure is to go one dimensional like that.

The number of targets needs to be evaluated in the context of the number of plays in the game, and the game situation.

yeah we're saying the same thing.

 

Still, on the whole, Adams is used a little less than most other top tier WRs, which given the talent disparity between he and our other options, doesn't totally jive.  I don't think Adams' usage rate is really an issue at all with this team.  It might need a little tuning game to game.

 

Graham's usage rate is a little bit off though.  He should be in that 20% range.

[skibrett15]

10 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And I don't think I'd disagree that Sean Payton does more with less, which is a bigger indictment on McCarthy.

Specifically to the RB usage in the passing game, this is 90%+ a Rodgers issue.

MM phases that part of the game out because Rodgers hates it and because Rodgers has trust issues.

[wgbeethree]

I'm 100% NOT arguing Ty is as good of a back as Kamara. Sorry if that's the way it's coming off. I just feel that (based on admittedly a small sample size of watching Kamara) that the way he is being used is more "special" than the actual player. I feel like there are easily about 10+ guys that could/would be great in that same role. I could be wrong. It happens. 

[KingOfTheNorth]

RB Reception Numbers since Rodgers has been QB

2008: 81 targets, 65 Catches

2009: 86 Targets, 65 Catches

2010: 81 targets, 67 catches

2011: 92 targets, 74 catches

2012: 73 targets; 54 catches

2013: 81 targets; 66 catches

2014: 90 targets, 65 catches

2015: 112 targets; 85 catches

2016: 103 Targets; 80 catches

2017: 96 Targets; 67 receptions

2018: 59 targets, 36 receptions (Through 9 games)

 

McCarthy's 2 years before Rodgers took over

2006: 148 targets, 113 catches

2007: 130 targets, 90 catches

 

That's 68.62 receptions a season with Rodgers (I took out the high and low season)

That's 101.5 receptions a season with Favre (Only 2 seasons)

 

Over a 16 game season that is 6.34 catches for games with Favre, and 4.28 with Rodgers.

 

The difference is definitely present, I am just not sure what 2 more catches a game for RBs translate to. It also worth noting that the RB receiving totals started trending down when the Packers had more than 1 elite pass catcher. Even Favre's numbers to a dip when he had Jennings and Driver.

 

 

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Specifically to the RB usage in the passing game, this is 90%+ a Rodgers issue.

MM phases that part of the game out because Rodgers hates it and because Rodgers has trust issues.

And how do we fix that?  I mean, even early on in Rodgers' career he was never going to be big about throwing to his backs.

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, wgbeethree said:

I'm 100% NOT arguing Ty is as good of a back as Kamara. Sorry if that's the way it's coming off. I just feel that (based on admittedly a small sample size of watching Kamara) that the way he is being used is more "special" than the actual player. I feel like there are easily about 10+ guys that could/would great in that same role. I could be wrong. It happens. 

How many backs in the league are a threat with the ball like Kamara is both as a receiver and a runner?  The list isn't very long.  Being great at one thing doesn't make you a good player.  When we ran the shotgun with Kuhn as our backs, what do you think defenses were thinking?  They weren't concerned about Kuhn running the ball on them.  They knew he was Rodgers' personal pass protector.  Teams sat back with 7-8 guys in coverage daring Rodgers to take that checkdown.

[SpeightTheVillain]

I still don't understand the fixation some of you have about throwing to RBs. It has not shown to be any barometer of success in any form. Packers throw short at the 11th highest rate in the league. They just do it to WRs. I would rather that short pass go to MVS or Adams than a RB. 

[skibrett15]

Just now, CWood21 said:

And how do we fix that?  I mean, even early on in Rodgers' career he was never going to be big about throwing to his backs.

why do we have to fix it?

What the offense needs to do is be able to play on schedule more often, taking shorter passes to alternative receiving targets with lower big play potential but a higher conistency.

I think that can be accomplished a number of ways - such as PA passes to TEs or H backs, screens to WRs, and short timing passes to a viable slot WR.

 

Rodgers isn't going to change night/day.  There have to be alternative solutions to create the same effect.  This offense can be bigger, and the lacking execution on the short/behind LOS passing game is a big overall drain.

 

The Kubiak playbook uses PA rollouts to set up a lot of TE crossing routes.  The Romo offense used freeze draw concepts to hold LBs and hit slants while keeping LBs honest and indecisive on Run/Pass decisions while playing from shotgun.

GB is mostly using RPOs that are very basic, along with some QB read option keepers to ensure backside guys don't crash down on the back.  There needs to be an additional schematic wrinkle other than this, and our flat/slants stuff in the short passing game.  Too often our short passing game is "throw it out to Davante/MVS on 2nd and 10 or 3rd and 14".  To me, that's a combination of a playcalling issue (run the play on 1st down and stay on schedule) and a ball placement issue where Rodgers throws it so dang fast that his ball isn't where it needs to be and actually slows the play down.

 

Previously this offense had a short reliable passing game which depended on isolation routes from Jordy Nelson and James Jones.  Back shoulder throws were automatic.  That chemistry will never develop in 1 season.  It can no longer be the foundation of the short passing game.  There are better ways which use our more athletic younger players better.  It's not as mentally engaging for Rodgers, but it would probably be better offense.

[skibrett15]

6 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

I still don't understand the fixation some of you have about throwing to RBs. It has not shown to be any barometer of success in any form. Packers throw short at the 11th highest rate in the league. They just do it to WRs. I would rather that short pass go to MVS or Adams than a RB. 

me too.

 

Part of the fixation is that LAR, KC, NE and NO all use RBs really well.

So does Washington though...

Big picture it's about the short controlled, consistent passing game being an option in the toolkit.  Right now I think teams are content to give us that stuff, and we just... don't take it.  Team has to show it will win by 1000x paper cuts and solid execution before the deep offense will open back up again.

[{Family Ghost}]

6 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

I still don't understand the fixation some of you have about throwing to RBs. It has not shown to be any barometer of success in any form. Packers throw short at the 11th highest rate in the league. They just do it to WRs. I would rather that short pass go to MVS or Adams than a RB. 

I want to see legit screen passes to our most explosive player .. Aaron Jones.  Not involving him more heavily in the passing game is a wasted opportunity.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

why do we have to fix it?

What the offense needs to do is be able to play on schedule more often, taking shorter passes to alternative receiving targets with lower big play potential but a higher conistency.

I think that can be accomplished a number of ways - such as PA passes to TEs or H backs, screens to WRs, and short timing passes to a viable slot WR.

 

Rodgers isn't going to change night/day.  There have to be alternative solutions to create the same effect.  This offense can be bigger, and the lacking execution on the short/behind LOS passing game is a big overall drain.

 

The Kubiak playbook uses PA rollouts to set up a lot of TE crossing routes.  The Romo offense used freeze draw concepts to hold LBs and hit slants while keeping LBs honest and indecisive on Run/Pass decisions while playing from shotgun.

GB is mostly using RPOs that are very basic, along with some QB read option keepers to ensure backside guys don't crash down on the back.  There needs to be an additional schematic wrinkle other than this, and our flat/slants stuff in the short passing game.  Too often our short passing game is "throw it out to Davante/MVS on 2nd and 10 or 3rd and 14".  To me, that's a combination of a playcalling issue (run the play on 1st down and stay on schedule) and a ball placement issue where Rodgers throws it so dang fast that his ball isn't where it needs to be and actually slows the play down.

 

Previously this offense had a short reliable passing game which depended on isolation routes from Jordy Nelson and James Jones.  Back shoulder throws were automatic.  That chemistry will never develop in 1 season.  It can no longer be the foundation of the short passing game.  There are better ways which use our more athletic younger players better.  It's not as mentally engaging for Rodgers, but it would probably be better offense.

If we're going to sit here and fuss that our RBs don't get enough touches in the passing game, we need to find a solution for it.  Quite frankly, I could care less if Aaron Jones gets 1 or 11 targets in the passing game as long as teams respect our passing game to our backs.  There's enough blame to be passed around.  It's going to be a HELL of a lot easier to move on from Mac than it is to overhaul the offensive roster.

[CWood21]

33 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

😂

Well duh. 

It's obvious it would have been dumb to fire Payton. They are NOT 4-4-1. They are 8-1.

It's obvious the saints had a roster talent problem, not a coaching problem. See what happens when the roster gets a talent injection?

I mean, we're talking about one of the best draft class for the Packers and we're sitting 4-4-1 after 9 games.  At this point last year, we were sitting at 5-4 with Rodgers missing four of the last 5 games.  Did our talent level really drop that much from last year?   Or have we started off terribly?  Your using confirmation bias to justify your argument.  We're not 8-1, so is it really that smart to hold onto Mac?

[skibrett15]

I really don't see moving on from MM being a good or a bad thing.  I don't think much would change unless Rodgers also changed.

The MM-Rodgers thing isn't great, but it isn't horrible.  There hasn't been enough accountability from MM for the overall failures of this team, but there hasn't been enough credit to MM for the Pettine hire and the success of the running game.