CWood21 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, showtime said: The Packers aren't just any gig. We're talking the Green Bay Packers and Aaron Rodgers. I'm not even sure he'll leave Oklahoma because he has an amazing job right now that he is great at, but I would think the Packers would be one of the teams he would consider. The problem for Lincoln is that the Packers' gig is only as attractive as long as Aaron Rodgers continues to play at a high level. Aaron turns 35 in less than a month, and even if he plays at a high level for another 5/6 years, that's a relatively short span. At Oklahoma, he's probably got at least that much leash if not more and he's going to consistently be a 10+ win team at Oklahoma. There's risk for both sides. I just don't see Lincoln leaving unless a team (i.e. Dallas) backs up a HUGE offer or he gets significant player personnel say. And neither I see coming from Green Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 16, 2018 Author Share Posted November 16, 2018 Just now, CWood21 said: Well, if you're 100% adamant that McCarthy should stay that would mean that the offenses' struggles are at Rodgers' fault. What exactly has Mike McCarthy done that would indicate that he's the solution? I've never said McCarthy doesn't have his faults. I can't stand him some weeks. I just happen to see the massive risk in firing a head coach with a proven ability to win for an unknown head coach. The fail rate of head coaches is completely disregarded in this conversation. 31 out of 489 head coaches have won a Super Bowl. Six percent of head coaches in NFL history have won a Super Bowl. So if you're playing the odds, you have a 94% chance at failing in your next head coach hire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Just now, Outpost31 said: I've never said McCarthy doesn't have his faults. I can't stand him some weeks. I just happen to see the massive risk in firing a head coach with a proven ability to win for an unknown head coach. The fail rate of head coaches is completely disregarded in this conversation. 31 out of 489 head coaches have won a Super Bowl. Six percent of head coaches in NFL history have won a Super Bowl. So if you're playing the odds, you have a 94% chance at failing in your next head coach hire. So you're saying you truly believe that McCarthy could/would be one of that 6% moving forward? Put aside the fact that he won a Super Bowl back in 2010, do you think he'd be one of those 6%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Just now, CWood21 said: So you're saying you truly believe that McCarthy could/would be one of that 6% moving forward? Put aside the fact that he won a Super Bowl back in 2010, do you think he'd be one of those 6%? There is a 100% he is in that 6%. And no I'm not going to ignore he already won one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showtime Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: Maybe. But he also might not have another opportunity like he has at Oklahoma. There's probably only a handful of gigs in college as good as Oklahoma. And it's not like Oklahoma has a history of turning over coaches either. Bob Stoops stuck around for 17 years, Lon Kruger is going into his 8th year, Sherri Coale is starting her 20th year at Oklahoma, etc. Oklahoma has a history of sticking with their coaches. You're right, but it's still college. I have no clue if Riley even has any desire to coach in the NFL. These guys are all highly competitive and many of them want to see what they can do at the absolute apex of the sport. Even Nick Saban tried his hand and left an amazing job at LSU. The thing about Riley is that he is always going to have a place in college football. Even if he went to the NFL and failed (like Saban did), he is an elite college coach so he'll always have that. The opportunity to coach a QB like Aaron Rodgers is insanely rare and the Packers are a very stable franchise. The Cowboys might have an opening soon... and while the Cowboys are an historic franchise that anyone would love to be apart of, look at the QB talent he would have to work with. That makes the job less appealing to me. With the Packers you have one of the greatest players to ever play the game already in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucknorris101 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 McCarthy won in 2010 and his offense is still there. The world has moved on and he hasnt. Rodgers' generational skills have been the glistening lipstick on the McCarthy offensive pig and we're just getting to see the cracks underneath more clearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Just now, incognito_man said: There is a 100% he is in that 6%. And no I'm not going to ignore he already won one. So the ENTIRE argument is that you believe he should be HC because he already won one? That's AWFUL logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/report-packers-could-eye-josh-mcdaniels-mike-mccarthy-replacement Posted this in the other thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopackgo247 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Arthur Penske said: https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/report-packers-could-eye-josh-mcdaniels-mike-mccarthy-replacement Posted this in the other thread maybe the only guy who could get Aaron to throw to open RBs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Anonymous Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Outpost's ridiculous argument is completely flawed. There's zero risk if the team has concluded they cannot win going forward with McCarthy. The risk would be keeping him if he's lost the team or its most important player. All indications are that he's lost more than Aaron Rodgers though. When the coach has not only lost the team but has antiquated schemes, there's not only zero risk of moving on, it becomes a must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, showtime said: 38 minutes ago, JBURGE said: I very much question a new offensive focused Head Coach coming in to coach Rodgers. Why? It should be worded as a first time head coach, or young head coach. I don't trust Rodgers to listen or follow it. I think he thinks he knows better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, CWood21 said: So the ENTIRE argument is that you believe he should be HC because he already won one? That's AWFUL logic. 13 of the 31 coaches who won a super bowl, won a other. ITT, cwood thinks 6% > 42% ITT cwood thinks it's awful logic to think a coach who has won a super bowl is more likely to win another than a guy currently on the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howler Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Mr Anonymous said: Outpost's ridiculous argument is completely flawed. There's zero risk if the team has concluded they cannot win going forward with McCarthy. The risk would be keeping him if he's lost the team or its most important player. All indications are that he's lost more than Aaron Rodgers though. When the coach has not only lost the team but has antiquated schemes, there's not only zero risk of moving on, it becomes a must. No point in playing it safe, if we're going to be mired in mediocrity. McCarthy should have been fired years ago, but was constantly given 'injury' excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keg Man Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Pugger said: You seem to be the lone voice in the wilderness who puts the struggles on offense at the feet of Rodgers but not his HC. Rodgers isn't playing as well as he has in the past but our issues don't stop with just him. I believe the offensive problems are caused by Rodgers. He constantly goes for the big spectacular play when a drive extending easy quick throw is available. When he completes it, it's amazing. But, more often he does not complete the big pass, he gets sacked, or he has to throw it away. Part of it is in his make up and arrogance that he's always been that way, but I'll soften my angst at him because he could be trying too hard to be too spectacular this year because he just got the insane spectacular contract and could be trying to live up to it. But, I don't think it matters who you bring in to coach. I think Rodgers will bomb away on 3d and 4th and short regardless, and we'll all be kavetching about who we should get as the next coach he won't listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, incognito_man said: 13 of the 31 coaches who won a super bowl, won a other. ITT, cwood thinks 6% > 42% ITT cwood thinks it's awful logic to think a coach who has won a super bowl is more likely to win another than a guy currently on the street. How many of those HC won a second Super Bowl this far apart? How many HC won a second championship? Not to mention, you're purposely skewing the sample size to fit your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.