You Are In Control. Who Replaces McCarthy?

[Chili]

I'm all for younger coaches but my concern is will Rodgers listen to a guy who is essentially the same age? Case in point Lincoln Riley. In Rodgers mind with his decade of QBing at a high level and vast knowledge of NFL offences and defences it will trump any young coach coming in even though he may have ran successful offences and successful teams.

In my view the coach has to be close to a decade older, vastly respected and proven in the NFL to have any chance of a Rodgers - Head Coach relationship to work. Not too old as we need to inject some energy into the building- there's not many Pete Carroll types out there lol.

McVay was able to be successful at such a young age because he more or less essentially had a rookie QB to mold- one who career is just getting off the ground and is more receivable to coaching and new ideas. However with us with a 35 years old QB I think it will require a different approach imo.

This is why Pete Carmichael is clearly the best candidate in my mind. He has coached Drew Brees as offensive co-ordinator for a decade and ran a very highly effective and successful offense with productive WR, TE and RBs at various points. That's NFL experience and respect box ticked off. He is 47 years old so he isn't too close in age. Age box ticked off. He won a superbowl running that offence. Success box ticked off. That 10 years with Brees and Payton must've rubbed off on him and that's a valuable notch in his resume to consider. I'm absolutely certain a guy like that is someone Rodgers will work with and respect. He could bring Lombardi or Dan Campbell in as his offensive co-ordinator too.

McDaniels has to be considered very seriously - no matter what reservations you may have of him. If Rodgers is in fact chummy with Brady there's no doubt he is going to listen to Brady's praising of McDaniels. Like Carmichael he has vast experience as co-ordinator with 8 years running the Patriots offence with Brady. The one advantage he has over Carmichael is he's a vastly experienced playcaller and with Brady led the Patriots to TWO superbowls. On paper he should be far far the best candidate, even over Carmichael. It's literally a no brainer and we need to put away our preconceived notions and biases of him. My concern is with his ability to put together a top notch coaching team. Coaches will remember what he did to the Colts staff - that might hurt him.

Compare that to coaches like LaFleur, DeFilippo, Bieniemy  - they all only have less than 2 years of co-ordinator experience. They all done good jobs with rookie QBs (Goff, Wentz. Mahomes). They ran successful and creative offenses but many of their ideas and offensive concepts are from guys like McVay, Pederson, Nagy who were the real foundation for the success they have had. How much of the success is due to them rather than their predecessor? That's what the interviews are for but i'm wary of the compatibility between Rodgers and coaches like these.

Bruce Arians is absolutely proven and safe fall back plan but he's 10 years older than McCarthy. I strongly believe any decision we make must have the long term future in mind and he isn't it. A fall back plan and nothing more at this point for me.

John Harbaugh is vastly experienced but he sucks with his choices of offensive co-ordinators. The Packers identity is directly tied to their offence and Harbaugh is not quite the right candidate for me. Even if the co-ordinator he hires was successful under Rodgers he would leave the first chance he gets and that lack of stability on offence isn't a good recipe for success. I'm leery of retreads as they very rarely work as the problems they had in their previous jobs get carried over to their new jobs. Jim Harbaugh on the other hand makes far more sense.

If McCarthy does leave I believe we will have no shortage of coaching candidates to consider.

[Arthur Penske]

6 minutes 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.

Agree.

[vegas492]

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.

Im unsure if Mac has lost the team. They havent laid down yet.

And that doesnt mean the op's argument isnt somehow flawed.

I feel like all we have are passionate pleas for a new coach. We have no real data to back our choic e up...whereas we have Mac data.

The OP has dismissed a lot of names without knowing offensive philosophies, practice habits or strategy. All of those things will be answered behind closed doors in the interview process. All views will change because of #12. 

Im gonna just defer to the club on this matter.  

I believe you can make an equal case for and against Mac.

[incognito_man]

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

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.

What in God's name are you talking about skewing a sample size 😂

31 coaches won a SB. That's the entire dataset.

Of those, 13 won at least 2.

42% of coaches who won a SB, won another one.

94% of coaches never won a single one.

I know what group I prefer to pick from given the opportunity.

[showtime]

16 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

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

I'm not a Packers fan (obviously) so I haven't followed this closely, but why does Rodgers have the label by some to be uncoachable? 

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

What in God's name are you talking about skewing a sample size 😂

31 coaches won a SB. That's the entire dataset.

Of those, 13 won at least 2.

42% of coaches who won a SB, won another one.

94% of coaches never won a single one.

I know what group I prefer to pick from given the opportunity.

I'm saying the premise of your argument is flawed, because most of those coaches won Super Bowl relatively close to each other.  Bill Belichick won 2 in 3 years, and 3 in 4 years.  Mike Shanahan won back-to-back Super Bowls.  Jimmy Johnson won B2B Super Bowls.  Bill Walsh won 2 in 5 years, and 3 in 8 years.  Chuck Noll won 4 over 6 years including a pair of back-to-backs.  And Vince Lombardi won one back-to-back.  The entire argument that we should keep McCarthy simply because he's won a Super Bowl before is flawed.  And you're trying to confirm your argument using even more flawed logic.  The longest any HC has gone between winning Super Bowl was 9 years between Super Bowls for Bill Belichick.  Do you think McCarthy is on a similar level as Belichick?

[FinneasGage]

only thing i'd really be peeved about is josh mcdaniels 

[Pugger]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

You really need to stop putting words into my mouth, Pugger.  I expect it out of some people here, but I thought you were better than that.  I have never said that our issues start with Rodgers, nor that our issues all come from Rodgers and I have frequently stated that it is incumbent on Rodgers to change things he does and do what the offense needs him to do.  With all the problems, the easiest fix is Rodgers changing his bad habits. 

Additionally, I never said that Rodgers can't be coached anymore.  I've suggested that if he is openly leading a mutiny against McCarthy, that's bad, and that if he won't listen to McCarthy, our next coach will be Aaron's lapdog, which is not a good thing.

I'm sorry but your posts seem to point to Rodgers being the problem and you have even hinted at trading Rodgers away in other threads.  And none of us know if there is a mutiny in the locker room and who might be leading it.  You do suggest Rodgers is morphing into the second coming of Favre and is turning into a uncontrollable diva.  Yes, Rodgers has to change how he is playing.  But McCarthy has to take some of the blame on our misfortunes on offense.  There are other things going on here besides Rodgers' poor play at times.

[Nazgul]

Ya'll gonna get John Harbaugh.

Flacco's elite under him. Imagine what he could do with Rodgers!

[incognito_man]

11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm saying the premise of your argument is flawed, because most of those coaches won Super Bowl relatively close to each other.  Bill Belichick won 2 in 3 years, and 3 in 4 years.  Mike Shanahan won back-to-back Super Bowls.  Jimmy Johnson won B2B Super Bowls.  Bill Walsh won 2 in 5 years, and 3 in 8 years.  Chuck Noll won 4 over 6 years including a pair of back-to-backs.  And Vince Lombardi won one back-to-back.  The entire argument that we should keep McCarthy simply because he's won a Super Bowl before is flawed.  And you're trying to confirm your argument using even more flawed logic.  The longest any HC has gone between winning Super Bowl was 9 years between Super Bowls for Bill Belichick.  Do you think McCarthy is on a similar level as Belichick?

What does any of this have to do with sample size?

[Uffdaswede]

4 minutes ago, showtime said:

I'm not a Packers fan (obviously) so I haven't followed this closely, but why does Rodgers have the label by some to be uncoachable? 

Some say he is uncoachable because there is evidence that he is deliberately passing up open receivers underneath in order to wait for receivers to open up downfield, leading to pressures, sacks, and balls thrown away.

I think the argument generally in the fanbase over why we seem to have dropped from elite status in the league splits between those who blame McCarthy for a stubborn pursuit of sameness, those who blame Rodgers for going off the reservation and trying to create his own offense, and those who blame Ted Thompson's final few years of poor drafting.

I know I am getting sick of Aaron mean-mugging his receivers the entire game. Something is wrong up there in GB.

[CWood21]

Just now, incognito_man said:

What does any of this have to do with sample size?

If you're going to make the argument about sample sizes, let's use the ENTIRE sample.  What percentage of HC won multiple Super Bowls compared to the number of total HC?  Not just those who won at least one.

[Gopher Trace]

29 minutes ago, Chili said:

I'm all for younger coaches but my concern is will Rodgers listen to a guy who is essentially the same age? Case in point Lincoln Riley. In Rodgers mind with his decade of QBing at a high level and vast knowledge of NFL offences and defences it will trump any young coach coming in even though he may have ran successful offences and successful teams.

6

I think the key is that our new coach has to have an innovative, genius mind for Rodgers to respect them, which is why I am much less opposed (if not truly comfortable) to Josh McDaniels than other folks.

Rodgers strikes me as the kind of guy who will lose you if he thinks he's smarter than you.

[chucknorris101]

28 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

What in God's name are you talking about skewing a sample size 😂

31 coaches won a SB. That's the entire dataset.

Of those, 13 won at least 2.

42% of coaches who won a SB, won another one.

94% of coaches never won a single one.

I know what group I prefer to pick from given the opportunity.

You ignored his salient question, and the one relevant here. How long were the gaps for those who won multiple? 

Lets Review. with max gap listed

Belichick had a gap of 10 years. He's also been to the AFCCG 7 straight years. Where is Mike's streak sitting? (4 total nonconsecutive appearances)

Noll won 4. Three year gap

Walsh won 3. Four year gap

Joe Gibbs won 3. Six year gap

Lombardi won 2. 0 year gap

Landry won 2. Six year gap

Shula won 2. 0 year gap

Tom Flores won 2. Three year gap

Parcells won 2. Three year gap

George Seifert won 2. Five year gap

Jimmy Johnson won 2. 0 year gap

Mike Shanahan won 2. 0 year gap

Coughlin won 2. 4 year gap

 

Lets take Belichick out of the equation. Its obvious 1. Mike is not Bill and 2. Bill is a statistical aberration in every category.

That leaves us with a smaller distribution. For comparison's sake, lets also look just at those who won 2. as that is the goal, right? 0, 6, 0, 3, 3, 5, 0, 0, 4. Thats an average of 2.33 years in between wins. Tossing the 3-4 winners in makes it 2.8333.

Mike is at 8? Statistically speaking Mike is over the hill AND through the woods. And in my opinion, there is only a big bad wolf in grandmothers house.

 

[chucknorris101]

16 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm saying the premise of your argument is flawed, because most of those coaches won Super Bowl relatively close to each other.  Bill Belichick won 2 in 3 years, and 3 in 4 years.  Mike Shanahan won back-to-back Super Bowls.  Jimmy Johnson won B2B Super Bowls.  Bill Walsh won 2 in 5 years, and 3 in 8 years.  Chuck Noll won 4 over 6 years including a pair of back-to-backs.  And Vince Lombardi won one back-to-back.  The entire argument that we should keep McCarthy simply because he's won a Super Bowl before is flawed.  And you're trying to confirm your argument using even more flawed logic.  The longest any HC has gone between winning Super Bowl was 9 years between Super Bowls for Bill Belichick.  Do you think McCarthy is on a similar level as Belichick?

welp looks like i took too long