You Are In Control. Who Replaces McCarthy?

[incognito_man]

7 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

"The odds of a SB winning coaching winning another one is more than a full order of magnitude higher than a non-SB winning coach winning his first one... historically. Your math is wrong. I hope you figure this out sooner than later.

So yeah, operating with the info we are all privy too, we should all prefer to roll with a coach who gives us more than 10x a better chance to win a SB. It's the most rational thing imaginable."

What is the cause of the effect you describe above? You should be able to identify the causal factor and then describe the mechanism linking the cause to the effect (being more likely to win a second super bowl). If you can't then there may be other things going on that make it appear to be cause-effect, but in reality it's just a correlation resulting from something else.

LMAO.

You intentionally didn't bold the last word of my sentence. You're trying too hard to sound smart...

[forthegame]

2 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

I realized my mistake in specificity and corrected it. The league does cap the amount of padded practices. McCarthy has them in pads but team DOES NOT do as many contact drills as they have in the past. And he has played his starters a decreasing amount in preseason games without any resulting health improvement. All he's done is make them ill-prepared for full speed, full contact NFL regular season games.

look up John Gagliardi

[Mr Anonymous]

1 hour ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

So what you are talking about is ramping up physical contact throughout the preseason, so players don't have to take maximum impact hitting initially with the first regular season game?

Yep. Does that sound scary to you? If so, don't feel bad because it scares the crap out of NFL coaches. It takes a lot of convincing for them to conclude that hitting more and ramping up activity in meaningless games and practices will lead to more health but the science is bearing that out. An athlete can be lost for the season horsing around with their child. They're at their greatest risk of injury by far when attempting to do something that's not being replicated outside of 60 minutes.

 

[Nick_gb]

48 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

I listed a laundry list of reasons to dismiss McCarthy. When someone such as yourself re-writes or misconstrues what another is saying its an indicator that they can't make a valid argument of their own. And I sure as heck am not going to go out of my way to track down years of research and studies read to appease someone like you. I know about these things, you don't. It's as simple as that. Maybe you have a great deal of knowledge about beer, or billiards, or dart throwing technique. Share away, show your expertise.

No, the problem is you know about these things OUTSIDE of the National Football League which is what this forum is about. You have used this as one of your reasons as to why Mike McCarthy SHOULD be fired. True or false? I'll answer that for you, it's true. You stated that you would dig up sources when someone quoted you and asked for a link. You have since then dodged around doing exactly that and have now come to this reply here? Why? Is it because these sources do not exist? There isn't a source that indicates the Packers are hitting less in the NFL than any other team during practice? How about the fact that you can't identify one team that is using this crap you're posting as an everyday part of their training regime? How about one team that is using it with clear indicators that it is actually beneficial in terms of fewer injuries? That's your problem, you can't and now you're making this lame duck of a post in an effort to still feel superior in an argument you're lacking any supporting evidence that comes from anyone but yourself. It's laughable at best. 

[squire12]

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/fewer-practices-does-not-mean-more-injuries

https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-coaches-believe-contact-practice-rules-backfiring-2017-3

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/ct-are-nfl-teams-practicing-hard-enough-20170818-story.html

 

[CWood21]

20 hours ago, incognito_man said:

You have absolutely nothing to back any of this up.

So it's a coincidence that coaches that won another Super Bowl win it in a relatively close time frame between wins?

[Mr Anonymous]

1 minute ago, Nick_gb said:

No, the problem is you know about these things OUTSIDE of the National Football League which is what this forum is about. You have used this as one of your reasons as to why Mike McCarthy SHOULD be fired. True or false? I'll answer that for you, it's true. You stated that you would dig up sources when someone quoted you and asked for a link. You have since then dodged around doing exactly that and have now come to this reply here? Why? Is it because these sources do not exist? There isn't a source that indicates the Packers are hitting less in the NFL than any other team during practice? How about the fact that you can't identify one team that is using this crap you're posting as an everyday part of their training regime? How about one team that is using it with clear indicators that it is actually beneficial in terms of fewer injuries? That's your problem, you can't and now you're making this lame duck of a post in an effort to still feel superior in an argument you're lacking any supporting evidence that comes from anyone but yourself. It's laughable at best. 

I feel like a parrot with all this repeating I'm being forced to do. Not because I'm not making myself clear or being anything less than extremely informative. Rather you keep choosing to ignore stated facts and separate words from context. That's what people do when they can't make a factual point themselves.

So let's tackle your issues and misconceptions...

1. You say my knowledge is outside the NFL and not pertinent to what this forum is about. Lol, how do you know to what level my knowledge extends? How do you presume I know so much about these things? I must be making all this up, right?
2. I have used the injury plague of McCarthy coached teams as a reason the team could fare better with someone else. There are a multitude of more pressing reasons to fire him and I've listed them repeatedly.
3. I began digging up sources and links today and often have in the past. I stopped in my tracks today because of the bombardment of questions from you and others. I stopped as well because it became clear that no source would be good enough to change your mind. And finally I stopped because you can find them yourself. You'll choose not to because you're more comfortable in your own skin disagreeing with me.

At the end of the day I know the things I've shared today and on previous occasions has opened eyes here. I know that because I'm coming from a place of real and accurate knowledge. I know that from the private messages I receive. I also know that because I myself have been enlightened by things said here by others with and without posted links and sources. I've learned things because I was able discern that the poster knew what they were taking about. I never saw their PhD, knew their name, or knew their profession, but their words expressed knowledge and made sense. I then confirmed what they were saying by doing digging and research of my own. And whaddya know? It turns out they were often right and I learned something. If you want to dig in and think you're right and I'm wrong - more power to you. It's you who's missing out in that case.

[Nick_gb]

25 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

I feel like a parrot with all this repeating I'm being forced to do. Not because I'm not making myself clear or being anything less than extremely informative. Rather you keep choosing to ignore stated facts and separate words from context. That's what people do when they can't make a factual point themselves.

So let's tackle your issues and misconceptions...

1. You say my knowledge is outside the NFL and not pertinent to what this forum is about. Lol, how do you know to what level my knowledge extends? How do you presume I know so much about these things? I must be making all this up, right?
2. I have used the injury plague of McCarthy coached teams as a reason the team could fare better with someone else. There are a multitude of more pressing reasons to fire him and I've listed them repeatedly.
3. I began digging up sources and links today and often have in the past. I stopped in my tracks today because of the bombardment of questions from you and others. I stopped as well because it became clear that no source would be good enough to change your mind. And finally I stopped because you can find them yourself. You'll choose not to because you're more comfortable in your own skin disagreeing with me.

At the end of the day I know the things I've shared today and on previous occasions has opened eyes here. I know that because I'm coming from a place of real and accurate knowledge. I know that from the private messages I receive. I also know that because I myself have been enlightened by things said here by others with and without posted links and sources. I've learned things because I was able discern that the poster knew what they were taking about. I never saw their PhD, knew their name, or knew their profession, but their words expressed knowledge and made sense. I then confirmed what they were saying by doing digging and research of my own. And whaddya know? It turns out they were often right and I learned something. If you want to dig in and think you're right and I'm wrong - more power to you. It's you who's missing out in that case.

 

Let me break down a few things very simple for you, if you're parroting yourself, it's because you keep beating the same drum as opposed to answering the questions. This isn't because of lack of knowledge on my behalf or any of the other posters behalf, this is a lack of your willingness to show supporting evidence and/or inability to do so. I didn't pick this argument as your "sole reason" to why Mike McCarthy should be fired, I picked it because it's your most flawed reason and really held no merit or grounds to even being discussed in why he should be fired. 

1. I asked you multiple times to show me a single article that stated the Packers were hitting less than other teams in the NFL -- You failed to do so and instead resorted to parroting yourself. 

2. I asked you multiple times to show me a single article that states there is an NFL team that is changing the way players cut, run & jump in an effort to minimize injuries to their team -- You failed to do so and instead resorted to parroting yourself. 

3. I asked you multiple times to show me a single article that shows that an NFL team accomplished #2 and it had paid dividends in their injury report showcasing minimal injuries to their team -- You failed to do so and instead resorted to parroting yourself. 

Now, the fact that you're unwilling to answer my questions and are instead deciding to parrot yourself sounds about what someone would do when they can't make a factual point that is relevant to the conversation at hand. The science you're discussing according to you is "new science and in its infancy" -- The problem with this is that science in its infancy stage isn't something teams are going to be hard-pressed to implement within their organization. It is not a sound business decision when you're talking about multi-million dollar players, to implement a "New science" in its "infancy" stage. In fact, that sounds a lot like idiocracy to me. If it doesn't you, then well that's a you problem and not really a me problem.

Secondly, I'm still waiting on those sources that don't come from that "I know more than everyone who quotes me in a post" petty brain of yours. So, when you can come up with these that answer my above-mentioned questions of 1-3 let me know and until then maybe do yourself a favor and stop parroting yourself and actually provide sources to your claims as you stated you would do, until what you couldn't find any? 

 

3 hours ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

link?

 

3 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

I'll work on that for you. I've read it enough times to know that multiple published reports are out there indicating that McCarthy has them hitting less and less. 

 

And yet, you've had an extremely hard time working on just this little part here that shows this to support the rest of your claims? Why is this the case? Why do you continually choose to ignore linking this source and instead opting to parrot yourself as if everyone else is remedial because you refuse to dig up the sources you claimed to supposedly have? 

[Mr Anonymous]

Yeah and I'll make like a parrot and repeat myself again for you. I'm not going to dig up anything. It's out there if you want to educate yourself. Do you want me to start scanning my textbooks and journals as well? I'll get right on that for you.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

1 hour ago, forthegame said:

look up John Gagliardi

Good call.

[Nick_gb]

2 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Yeah and I'll make like a parrot and repeat myself again for you. I'm not going to dig up anything. It's out there if you want to educate yourself. Do you want me to start scanning my textbooks and journals as well? I'll get right on that for you.

No, I want you to show me how your medical research is relevant to how an NFL training staff runs their room and how that reflects on a head coach in the NFL. This is something you're incapable of doing. In fact, that information is not out there because these infancy studies you're referring to are not in the NFL currently and therefore hold no merit to your reasoning to fire McCarthy -- nor does your "Coaches underneath him don't make for good Headcoaches, therefore, he should be fired" speculation either. 

You're grasping at a slew of straws and somehow managing to miss with every grasp. It's almost like you want people to call you out on your posts so that you can sit on the forums and argue a non-existing point. If that was your intention, well kudos to you because you succeeded. However, if that wasn't your intention then you have undeniably failed at making your point and claim to be relevant to the topic that is being discussed. I'm going with the latter on this and I would be inclined to say that the majority would be willing to bet on that as well.

[{Family Ghost}]

So, who do you guys have replacing McCarthy?

[Kepler]

4 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

So, who do you guys have replacing McCarthy?

To be honest I have no idea. I'm at the point where I can see there is extreme dysfunction within the team, but Rodgers turning 35 makes me hesitant to want too much change. If they make a change I just hope it only takes a season for things to smooth out.

[Mr Anonymous]

15 minutes ago, Kepler said:

To be honest I have no idea. I'm at the point where I can see there is extreme dysfunction within the team, but Rodgers turning 35 makes me hesitant to want too much change. If they make a change I just hope it only takes a season for things to smooth out.

Thankfully there have been a few recent coaching changes that have led to an immediate turnaround. There's no reason your hope can't be fulfilled.

[Mr Anonymous]

46 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

No, I want you to show me how your medical research is relevant to how an NFL training staff runs their room and how that reflects on a head coach in the NFL. This is something you're incapable of doing. In fact, that information is not out there because these infancy studies you're referring to are not in the NFL currently and therefore hold no merit to your reasoning to fire McCarthy -- nor does your "Coaches underneath him don't make for good Headcoaches, therefore, he should be fired" speculation either. 

You're grasping at a slew of straws and somehow managing to miss with every grasp. It's almost like you want people to call you out on your posts so that you can sit on the forums and argue a non-existing point. If that was your intention, well kudos to you because you succeeded. However, if that wasn't your intention then you have undeniably failed at making your point and claim to be relevant to the topic that is being discussed. I'm going with the latter on this and I would be inclined to say that the majority would be willing to bet on that as well.

I don't think its possible for you to be any more wrong on each and every thing you said here. The closest you came to accuracy was with your speculation of my intentions while we've been having this exchange. I'll admit to getting a kick out of reading your posts when you have no idea who you're exchanging these thoughts with. You're so adamant in your wrongness.