You Are In Control. Who Replaces McCarthy?

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

There's absolutely nothing Mac can do because those two are done with each other. Exactly why the problem exists and why it's time to start over.

Between the two of us, you're the only one who is being stubborn and drawing absolutes.  I have acknowledged plenty of times that a new head coach could be a good thing.  I think it's a huge risk, but it could play out.  You refuse to accept that there's anything but firing McCarthy.  It's not that simple.

You re-sign McCarthy and it sends a clear, absolute and definite message to Rodgers that his temper tantrums and passive aggressive shots aren't going to get him his way and that if he doesn't want to work with McCarthy he is going to be remembered as a one Super Bowl win QB. 

Firing McCarthy is giving Rodgers all the ego and self-importance in the world.  Keeping McCarthy makes Rodgers either swallow his pride or die. 

Stop acting like keeping McCarthy isn't an option.  Plenty of quarterbacks have run head coaches out, and very rarely has that worked out. 

The Patriots are an example of an owner sticking with his HC in spite of the petty BS the QB has with him, and, although there were ten years between Super Bowls, they've won 5 of them. 

[CWood21]

7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So the solution is keep status quo and hope things change?

To carry on this point, it'd be one thing if we started off terribly and got consistently better as the year wore on.  But we're getting worse.  I'd argue we peaked against the Bills, and have been in a decline ever since.  We were 2-1-1 and in the mix for the playoffs.  Since then, we're 2-5 with our lone wins against San Francisco (without Jimmy G) and a Brock Osweiler-led Dolphins.

[jleisher]

5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

You keep saying it's McCarthy's fault Rodgers is playing like crap. 

I'm gonna ask a question here.  I want specifics.  Specifics, not generalities.  I want words, actions, steps McCarthy could take. 

I am going to ask this question very clearly and put it really big and bold and red so that you can't ignore it:

What is McCarthy supposed to do about Rodgers refusing to throw the ball? 

I don't want to get into this argument, but in fairness, couldn't we say the same thing about McCarthy not wanting to run the ball with Jones?  I think we can all agree, something is wrong.  Now, whether it's just a out dated offense or a old system that still works, but needs better talent?  I can't put my finger on just one thing or one person.  IMO, I think its a combination of MM scheme, Rodgers drop off in play and lack of talent.  So, what's the easiest fix?

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Between the two of us, you're the only one who is being stubborn and drawing absolutes.  I have acknowledged plenty of times that a new head coach could be a good thing.  I think it's a huge risk, but it could play out.  You refuse to accept that there's anything but firing McCarthy.  It's not that simple.

You re-sign McCarthy and it sends a clear, absolute and definite message to Rodgers that his temper tantrums and passive aggressive shots aren't going to get him his way and that if he doesn't want to work with McCarthy he is going to be remembered as a one Super Bowl win QB. 

Firing McCarthy is giving Rodgers all the ego and self-importance in the world.  Keeping McCarthy makes Rodgers either swallow his pride or die. 

Stop acting like keeping McCarthy isn't an option.  Plenty of quarterbacks have run head coaches out, and very rarely has that worked out. 

The Patriots are an example of an owner sticking with his HC in spite of the petty BS the QB has with him, and, although there were ten years between Super Bowls, they've won 5 of them. 

They went to the AFC Championship like every year and made it to 2 more SBs during that drought.

If Mac showed me some innovative stuff this year I'd be open to keeping him and forcing Aaron to make it work, but the iso based offense is old and figured out. No more than Dom was a great DC who had an outdated, figured out, zone blitz scheme. No different than Ted was an outstanding talent evaluator who got old, had some mental deterioration and lost his touch. 

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

They went to the AFC Championship like every year and made it to 2 more SBs during that drought.

When Belichick had the ability to cover poor drafts by signing whomever he damn well wanted to. 

You think McCarthy wouldn't have gotten a couple more Championship games or Super Bowls in if he'd been able to sign the equivalent of players Belichick had been able to sign? 

You are literally becoming hive-minded.  You literally just said Ted Thompson had mental deterioration.  You're gonna be calling McCarthy Fat Mike next. 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

They went to the AFC Championship like every year and made it to 2 more SBs during that drought.

If Mac showed me some innovative stuff this year I'd be open to keeping him and forcing Aaron to make it work, but the iso based offense is old and figured out. No more than Dom was a great DC who had an outdated, figured out, zone blitz scheme. No different than Ted was an outstanding talent evaluator who got old, had some mental deterioration and lost his touch. 

So what if Gute / Murphy approached MM and said:

"Listen - you've done a great job for this organization, the community and the team. We want you around long term - but - you need to give up the offense to fill in the blank - or we're done"

(Or something kinda like that....)

A. You think he'd buy in.
B. Would you be cool with that.

[Cpdaly23]

 

12 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Between the two of us, you're the only one who is being stubborn and drawing absolutes.  I have acknowledged plenty of times that a new head coach could be a good thing.  I think it's a huge risk, but it could play out.  You refuse to accept that there's anything but firing McCarthy.  It's not that simple.

You re-sign McCarthy and it sends a clear, absolute and definite message to Rodgers that his temper tantrums and passive aggressive shots aren't going to get him his way and that if he doesn't want to work with McCarthy he is going to be remembered as a one Super Bowl win QB. 

Firing McCarthy is giving Rodgers all the ego and self-importance in the world.  Keeping McCarthy makes Rodgers either swallow his pride or die. 

Stop acting like keeping McCarthy isn't an option.  Plenty of quarterbacks have run head coaches out, and very rarely has that worked out. 

The Patriots are an example of an owner sticking with his HC in spite of the petty BS the QB has with him, and, although there were ten years between Super Bowls, they've won 5 of them. 

I think Aaron Rodgers gave it his all to make it work in 2012-2016, but ultimately ran out of patience with MM.  Sometimes, relationships can’t be salvaged without the benefit of time to heal the wounds, and in this case, the only way we get that time is if MM goes.

 

For the record, it wasn’t until this season that I felt MM had truly done enough to warrant being removed- but this team has crashed and burned.  Even though we have holes as a result of some poor drafts, this team is more talented than all of our teams since 2014 and yet is underperforming them all.

[jleisher]

6 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Between the two of us, you're the only one who is being stubborn and drawing absolutes.  I have acknowledged plenty of times that a new head coach could be a good thing.  I think it's a huge risk, but it could play out.  You refuse to accept that there's anything but firing McCarthy.  It's not that simple.

You re-sign McCarthy and it sends a clear, absolute and definite message to Rodgers that his temper tantrums and passive aggressive shots aren't going to get him his way and that if he doesn't want to work with McCarthy he is going to be remembered as a one Super Bowl win QB. 

Firing McCarthy is giving Rodgers all the ego and self-importance in the world.  Keeping McCarthy makes Rodgers either swallow his pride or die. 

Stop acting like keeping McCarthy isn't an option.  Plenty of quarterbacks have run head coaches out, and very rarely has that worked out. 

The Patriots are an example of an owner sticking with his HC in spite of the petty BS the QB has with him, and, although there were ten years between Super Bowls, they've won 5 of them. 

Didn't the Steelers and Saints go thru this same problem?  They ended up staying with their coaches and it has worked out, but I don't think they had a ego issue, not sure on that one.  Steelers defense was slumping, changing DC helped.  I remember reading statements that Tomlin should be fired back then.  Saints, the offense was slumping, people wanted Payton gone.  I remember there was talk of him going to Dallas.  One really super draft helped them and Payton is the man again.  My point is, there is no clear cut answer for the Packers problems.  It's a big risk either way you go.

[JBURGE]

I think at this point we are moving on. I am not interested in arguing whether or not we should move on. I have very mixed feelings about it.

We have two approaches I'm interested in. One would be to hire someone who has called plays like Bienamy or Lincoln Riley, keep Pettine, and bring in a young OC as well to learn under them.

The other route would be someone like Harbaugh, keep Pettine, and bring in someone like Zac Taylor, Shane Waldron (both from Rams) or Byron Leftwich or Joe Lombardi. Doesn't have to be one of those guys but you get the trend - for the most part guys who haven't called plays, or have in a limited capacity. 

I think we're less likely to go the 2nd route. As long as we don't hire Mike McCoy

[incognito_man]

What about Vic Fangio

[hitnhope]

19 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I'm gonna ask a question here.  I want specifics.  Specifics, not generalities.  I want words, actions, steps McCarthy could take. 

I am going to ask this question very clearly and put it really big and bold and red so that you can't ignore it:

What is McCarthy supposed to do about Rodgers refusing to throw the ball? 

Maybe McCarthy could stop being a full on meathead?   Going for it on 4th down when it is a bad play?  Not going for it on 4th down when it is the best option?

His plans are stale and predictable.  For example - 4th down and short:

If a McCarthy team lines up in a spread - we are simply trying to draw the other team offsides.   We will run all kinds of motion and the like.  Hasn't worked for years.

If a McCarthy team actually plans on running a play he will line up in a bunch formation with extra tight ends and everyone in tight.   He wants his pass blocking line to suddenly blow teams off the ball.  It sometimes works, but not as often as it would with a better plan that wasn't patently obvious.   It is making the 4th down conversion as difficult as it possibly could be.

You aren't going to change QB's right now.  For better or worse Rodgers is our guy now.   You really want to punish him, and all of us, with more of this next year?    What the two of them are doing together right now doesn't serve either Rodgers, McCarthy, or any Packers fan well.  Long past time for the messages you want to send.   McCarthy tried sending the message with the changing of QB coach,  how has that worked out?

Our only real option is to dip into the well and try and find a new staff that Rodgers works better with.   We aren't a lost cause yet, bring McCarthy back and the poison in the well becomes so strong it will not be fixed.   We can't afford to gamble with McCarthy again.   They both need to go their separate ways and hopefully find success that way.   They aren't going to find it forcing them on each other.   It has been getting worse for years now already.  

 

[Packerraymond]

14 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

When Belichick had the ability to cover poor drafts by signing whomever he damn well wanted to. 

You think McCarthy wouldn't have gotten a couple more Championship games or Super Bowls in if he'd been able to sign the equivalent of players Belichick had been able to sign? 

You are literally becoming hive-minded.  You literally just said Ted Thompson had mental deterioration.  You're gonna be calling McCarthy Fat Mike next. 

Did you watch the interview with Ted after he got elected to the Packer HOF? He's not well man. Literally just about anyone, sans you, can see it. There weren't many larger Ted supporters on here than me. 

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Did you watch the interview with Ted after he got elected to the Packer HOF? He's not well man. Literally just about anyone, sans you, can see it. There weren't many larger Ted supporters on here than me. 

So you think the Packers kept him around in another role at a point that would have been EASY to move on completely knowing he is unwell?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Norm]

35 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And maybe that will be the case.  But I'd rather gamble on that 6% chance that the new HC will win a Super Bowl than McCarthy is suddenly going to figure things out again.

Me too, if that's not clear. There's no question in my mind you have to move on

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

So you think the Packers kept him around in another role at a point that would have been EASY to move on completely knowing he is unwell?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

His role is to write scouting reports and give Gute advice if he asks for it. I fail to see your point? He's not fit to be the head decision maker and FO liason to the fans/media. However he's not dead, he can scout players and talk. Hell we don't even know if his is still with the team. His role was extremely minimal compared to being a GM.