You Are In Control. Who Replaces McCarthy?

[PACKRULE]

18 hours ago, incognito_man said:

You don't think Jaire is contributing? There's a reason why the highest pick we've had in years appears better than were used to from rookies...

This apparently really good '18 class won't be rookies in '19. We will have twice asany first round picks (probably) than the rest of the league in '19 as well. Perhaps another whole class at the top half of their round (better than half the league).

I still can't quite figure out why people always ignore draft capital...

I’m not ignoring it but we get new players each season. Your claim is it’s talent not Mm so if we have talent we re in the sb. Yet we ve been once with him. So our talent has always been subpar according to your methodology. Or maybe we have had talent and luck or a curse is against him any further. Keep MM if your ok with making the playoffs and playoff failure. 

[Packerraymond]

35 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

And Andy Reid would have turned the Eagles around just like he's turned the Chiefs around.  You should not be using Andy Reid as an example in favor of firing McCarthy.  The Eagles went from Andy Reid to Chip Kelly.  You want the Packers to go through a Chip Kelly? 

Not only would McCarthy not be unemployed for long, he'd take a highly talented team like the Browns to the playoffs in his first year and make 90% of the people here look really, really, really silly. 

You're doing a whole lot of speaking in certainties about hypothetical situations lately.

The current Reid is absolutely nothing like Philly Reid. He's always been a good coach, but he needed that change of scenery. 

The Chip Kelly thing is funny too. Our next QB could be Ryan Leaf, so your trading Rodgers thing sounds pretty stupid. Can't fire Mac cause there is risk involved in hiring a new coach, but let's trade our franchise QB, no risk there...

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

You're doing a whole lot of speaking in certainties about hypothetical situations lately.

The current Reid is absolutely nothing like Philly Reid. He's always been a good coach, but he needed that change of scenery. 

The Chip Kelly thing is funny too. Our next QB could be Ryan Leaf, so your trading Rodgers thing sounds pretty stupid. Can't fire Mac cause there is risk involved in hiring a new coach, but let's trade our franchise QB, no risk there...

Yeah, but I'm 100% joking about trading Rodgers after his contract extension.

If we were back before his contract extension, it's less a risk to trade a head coach who could coach for 15 more years than it is to trade a QB who has 5 years left max. 

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Yeah, but I'm 100% joking about trading Rodgers after his contract extension.

If we were back before his contract extension, it's less a risk to trade a head coach who could coach for 15 more years than it is to trade a QB who has 5 years left max. 

The guy is 55, go out and find me some coaches with 10+ years with the same QB who started over in their 60s with a rookie. Mac was/is tied to Rodgers. He'll retire if he isn't fired shortly after Aaron if not with him.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

The guy is 55, go out and find me some coaches with 10+ years with the same QB who started over in their 60s with a rookie.

Can't do it.  Most head coaches are fired before they get to 50.  That's why you keep the ones who make it that long. 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

24 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

The guy is 55, go out and find me some coaches with 10+ years with the same QB who started over in their 60s with a rookie. Mac was/is tied to Rodgers. He'll retire if he isn't fired shortly after Aaron if not with him.

Doesn't fit your criteria totally,  but the closest out there is Tom Coughlin.  8 years in Jacksonville with Mark Brunell, took a year off,  then went at age 58 to the Giants and the rookie Eli Manning.

[Packerraymond]

29 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Can't do it.  Most head coaches are fired before they get to 50.  That's why you keep the ones who make it that long. 

Longevity being the strong point of a resume at this point sounds like a pretty poor way of running a business. Mac needs to win, and if he doesn't, I don't care how long he's been here.

[skibrett15]

Don't think rodgers will fit with a college coach unless it's more of a "friendship/partnership" than a "boss/employee" relationship.

Give me someone from the kubiak/mike shanahan coaching tree.

 

I honestly think almost any coach could succeed here if you define success as making the playoffs.  Not making the playoffs is an embarrassment with this roster.

[Mr Anonymous]

22 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Fact remains that 94% of head coaches don't win Super Bowls.  94%.  We know we have a coach capable of it.  We have five years left with Rodgers.  That's it.  You are putting everything into the next head coach.  There won't be a third head coach in the Rodgers era.  

Are you that confident we're gonna hit on a 6% chance?

 

More nonsense and flawed logic. The Packers have a head coach who was capable of being the head coach of a Super Bowl winning team in 2010. The game has passed him by. Sharper minds with newer schemes have left McCarthy and his repetitive, execution based philosophies in the dust. That man will never again reach a Super Bowl much less win one.

[MacReady]

Just now, Mr Anonymous said:

That man will never again reach a Super Bowl much less win one.

Giants said the same thing about Coughlin.  They went ahead and fired him.  Three head coaches later and maybe they should have stuck with Coughlin and waited until their talent caught up with Coughlin's coaching ability.

You might call it nonsense and flawed logic, but throughout this thread I have listed no less than a dozen times when firing the "old and outdated" head coach resulted in multiple failed head coaches.  You act like it can't get worse than McCarthy.  It can.  If you fail to even acknowledge this, you're kidding yourself. 

Giants. 
Eagles.
Redskins.
Lions. 
Texans.
Panthers.
Colts.
Chargers.
Steelers.
49ers.
Buccaneers.

11 teams where they fired an "old and outdated" head coach only for things to get worse in the past 10 years alone and we are not susceptible to the same thing? 

Just as easily as the Packers could hire the next Pederson or McVay, they could hire the next McDaniels or Kelly and completely wreck the Packers. 

 

[Mr Anonymous]

18 hours ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

sort of like Andy Reid was exposed when Philadelphia decided the game had passed him by.

Andy Reid was fired for in-game management, and inability to win in the playoffs. Something that has followed him to Kansas City. Meanwhile, it took a few coaching tries, but Philadelphia is the reigning Super Bowl champ.

You actually made the case for Cutting the Fat. A coach doesn't have to bottom the team out to be worth firing. In fact, that's a horrible way to operate. Smart executives and owners realize when a coach no longer has it in him to win it all. And they act before the damage is irreparable. That's the HUGE flaw with outpost and incognito man's arguments. Apparently they need the bottom to fall out before they'll realize its time to move on. You may not strike gold with the next guy but at least you're being proactive. McCarthy should have been gone prior to this season. Hopefully it's not too late.

[MacReady]

Just now, Mr Anonymous said:

Andy Reid was fired for in-game management, and inability to win in the playoffs. Something that has followed him to Kansas City. Meanwhile, it took a few coaching tries, but Philadelphia is the reigning Super Bowl champ.

If Rodgers was 30 years old there wouldn't be a single person disagreeing with you.  Rodgers is 35 in less than a month.  He has 5 years max.  You get the wrong head coach and he's retiring before another Super Bowl win. 

And you act like it's a guarantee McCarthy isn't capable.  This isn't true.  The Packers have been competitive in every single game this season with an extreme lack of safety talent, pass rush talent and a single reliable receiver.  Name another head coach that could be competitive in every single game with that team. 

It's so easy to neglect the extreme amount of talent that teams like the Eagles/Rams head coaches inherited.  A new head coach won't have that luxury.  We're not loaded. 

[Mr Anonymous]

Of course it can get worse than McCarthy. Then Gute's job will rightfully be in jeopardy for making a bad hire. But you don't operate out of fear of getting worse. When you know the current guy is no longer capable of getting the team to the top of the league, you MUST attempt to find a better option. Philly realized Andy Reid was going to win games but he wasn't going to get them to the top. They tried and failed with Chip Kelly. They moved on and they won it all with Doug Pederson. This is about constant evaluation. And McCarthy's inability to adapt and evolve has reached the point he is no longer capable.

[Packerraymond]

6 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Giants said the same thing about Coughlin.  They went ahead and fired him.  Three head coaches later and maybe they should have stuck with Coughlin and waited until their talent caught up with Coughlin's coaching ability.

You might call it nonsense and flawed logic, but throughout this thread I have listed no less than a dozen times when firing the "old and outdated" head coach resulted in multiple failed head coaches.  You act like it can't get worse than McCarthy.  It can.  If you fail to even acknowledge this, you're kidding yourself. 

Giants. 
Eagles.
Redskins.
Lions. 
Texans.
Panthers.
Colts.
Chargers.
Steelers.
49ers.
Buccaneers.

11 teams where they fired an "old and outdated" head coach only for things to get worse in the past 10 years alone and we are not susceptible to the same thing? 

Just as easily as the Packers could hire the next Pederson or McVay, they could hire the next McDaniels or Kelly and completely wreck the Packers. 

 

You've yet to answer how Mac fixes Rodgers. Rodgers is locked in here for 4 years, without him we go nowhere. How does McCarthy get back to the place he was with him 7 years ago?

If I'm Gute, that's the question I asked Mac, without an answer I feel confident in, he's gone.

Arians is actually one of the better names I've heard as a replacement. There's a short term HC to end the Rodgers era who I can guarantee isn't going to come in and put up with the current mindset of our QB.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

2 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Andy Reid was fired for in-game management, and inability to win in the playoffs. Something that has followed him to Kansas City. Meanwhile, it took a few coaching tries, but Philadelphia is the reigning Super Bowl champ.

You actually made the case for Cutting the Fat. A coach doesn't have to bottom the team out to be worth firing. In fact, that's a horrible way to operate. Smart executives and owners realize when a coach no longer has it in him to win it all. And they act before the damage is irreparable. That's the HUGE flaw with outpost and incognito man's arguments. Apparently they need the bottom to fall out before they'll realize its time to move on. You may not strike gold with the next guy but at least you're being proactive. McCarthy should have been gone prior to this season. Hopefully it's not too late.

It took Phily 5 years to get there after Reid left.   Aaron doesn't have that time.  The Packers have to right the ship faster than that. 

While I object to your offensive slogan, I don't disagree with the notion of changing coaches to improve a playoff team.  Perhaps you should use Denver's experience with Manning and moving on from Fox in order to get the result needed.

To say that Andy Reid can't win, well, that ignore's reality.