You Are In Control. Who Replaces McCarthy?

[skibrett15]

10 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Now that the truth is finally getting out, hopefully we can all get on the same page and start rooting for the right changes and decisions to be made. I have genuine hope for the first time in a long time and think more people here will share that hope.

I can't tell which cult you're the @Leader of.

[Gopher Trace]

 McCarthy gave Rodgers the green-light to change plays at the 'line. If your stance is that Rodgers should not be changing plays and stick with what Mac calls (again, the coach that elects to PUNT on 4th & 2 when the game is on the line is the guy you are arguing he should defer to) then you are making an argument against McCarthy every bit as much as one against Rodgers. That was his call.

 

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

I think the takeaway is that a few here were correct about Rodgers changing plays at the line A LOT which wrecks continuity with the game manager (MM).

Unfortunately this isn't a problem that will be solved with a new HC except for the possibility that Rodgers isn't comfortable enough with a new scheme to make as many changes 😂

Hasn't caused any serious issue until this year. I think Mac firing Van Pelt (or not seeking to retian him) was an incredibly stupid move looking back on it. Having QB who can read a defense and get out of bad looks is a huge weapon. The communication back to McCarthy from Aaron and the QB coach seems to be heavily lacking. We have a 3rd string QB relaying messages to our coach. That's embarrassing.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Hasn't caused any serious issue until this year. I think Mac firing Van Pelt (or not seeking to retian him) was an incredibly stupid move looking back on it. Having QB who can read a defense and get out of bad looks is a huge weapon. The communication back to McCarthy from Aaron and the QB coach seems to be heavily lacking. We have a 3rd string QB relaying messages to our coach. That's embarrassing.

I don't think he fired van pelt though did he? Just didn't renew a contract. I thought the article stated that van pelt wanted to look into a coordinator position.

This reads way more like Rodgers wanted him as OC in GB but MM had other ideas so van pelt left for an opportunity elsewhere.

Do you know that van pelt wanted to stay here as the QB coach? I'd be surprised if that were actually the case.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I don't think he fired van pelt though did he? Just didn't renew a contract. I thought the article stated that van pelt wanted to look into a coordinator position.

This reads way more like Rodgers wanted him as OC in GB but MM had other ideas so van pelt left for an opportunity elsewhere.

Do you know that van pelt wanted to stay here as the QB coach? I'd be surprised if that were actually the case.

He took a job as QB coach of Andy Dalton on a staff that had probably the highest risk of being canned at season end. If the departure was on his own accord that was one bad whim to act on. To me the evidence says he was told they were moving on.

[incognito_man]

7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

He took a job as QB coach of Andy Dalton on a staff that had probably the highest risk of being canned at season end. If the departure was on his own accord that was one bad whim to act on. To me the evidence says he was told they were moving on.

Right, but it is known he didn't renew his contract (the year before) because he was looking to explore opportunities as a coordinator.

Looks like maybe he just misjudged his value.

 

[packfanfb]

16 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I don't think he fired van pelt though did he? Just didn't renew a contract. I thought the article stated that van pelt wanted to look into a coordinator position.

This reads way more like Rodgers wanted him as OC in GB but MM had other ideas so van pelt left for an opportunity elsewhere.

Do you know that van pelt wanted to stay here as the QB coach? I'd be surprised if that were actually the case.

I doubt Aaron would have **** all over the organization on national television for letting Van Pelt walk if Van Pelt didn't want to come back. Given his relationship to Van Pelt, Rodgers was probably in the know.

[TheBitzMan]

9 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Right, but it is known he didn't renew his contract (the year before) because he was looking to explore opportunities as a coordinator.

Looks like maybe he just misjudged his value.

 

He turned down an extension in 2016 to see if he could get a coordinator position after 2017. In 2017 Rodgers got hurt and no one was going to give him a coordinator job after seeing what Hundley did on the field. Whether he would've gotten a coordinator job with a healthy Rodgers we will never know but I think it is pretty clear that Rodgers wanted him back and logic says he would've come back rather than go to Dalton.

The article also says that McCarthy was jaded because Van Pelt had Rodgers's ear and if he was fired for that, you can understand why Rodgers would be upset. 

[incognito_man]

7 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I doubt Aaron would have **** all over the organization on national television for letting Van Pelt walk if Van Pelt didn't want to come back. Given his relationship to Van Pelt, Rodgers was probably in the know.

This isn't at odds with anything I said...the distinction is that VP maybe wanted to be OC but we moved on with a different OC.

[incognito_man]

13 minutes ago, TheBitzMan said:

He turned down an extension in 2016 to see if he could get a coordinator position after 2017. In 2017 Rodgers got hurt and no one was going to give him a coordinator job after seeing what Hundley did on the field. Whether he would've gotten a coordinator job with a healthy Rodgers we will never know but I think it is pretty clear that Rodgers wanted him back and logic says he would've come back rather than go to Dalton.

The article also says that McCarthy was jaded because Van Pelt had Rodgers's ear and if he was fired for that, you can understand why Rodgers would be upset. 

I don't buy that take in the article though. Just a writers opinion.

Makes far more sense to me that VP wanted a promotion in the league, GB was not the place he was going to get it. So he moved on.

This coincides perfectly with MMs statement that it was mutual decision to part ways. i.e. VP: I want to be OC, can I be that here now since the position is vacant? MM: no, but we'd love to keep you as QB coach. VP: no thanks.

This is very common especially in high stakes fields. If you get passed over for a promotion, you don't stick around...

[Mr Anonymous]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

I don't buy that take in the article though. Just a writers opinion.

Makes far more sense to me that VP wanted a promotion in the league, GB was not the place he was going to get it. So he moved on.

This coincides perfectly with MMs statement that title was mutual decision I part ways. i.e. VP: I want to be OC, can I be that here now since the position is vacant? MM: no, but we'd love to keep you as QB coach. VP: no thanks.

This is very common especially in high stakes fields. If you get passed over for a promotion, you don't stick around...

[incognito_man]

A better question is: would VP be a better OC than Philbin?

MM almost certainly didn't think so.

Will be curious to see if anyone in the league gives him a shot after their year in Cincinnati.

[TheBitzMan]

Just now, incognito_man said:

I don't buy that take in the article though. Just a writers opinion.

Makes far more sense to me that VP wanted a promotion in the league, GB was not the place he was going to get it. So he moved on.

This coincides perfectly with MMs statement that it was mutual decision to part ways. i.e. VP: I want to be OC, can I be that here now since the position is vacant? MM: no, but we'd love to keep you as QB coach. VP: no thanks.

This is very common especially in high stakes fields. If you get passed over for a promotion, you don't stick around...

That's fair and possible. 

I just have a hard time believing Rodgers would air McCarthy out on national radio if Van Pelt turned the position down/didn't want to come back. Rodgers didn't run to the defense of any one else including his OC who had just been fired. 

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, TheBitzMan said:

That's fair and possible. 

I just have a hard time believing Rodgers would air McCarthy out on national radio if Van Pelt turned the position down/didn't want to come back. Rodgers didn't run to the defense of any one else including his OC who had just been fired. 

Rodgers certainly wouldn't be privy to that conversation either though. When he made that comment perhaps he had no idea MM would have welcomed him back as QB coach.

Or perhaps Rodgers lobbied hard for VP as OC and was bummed he didn't get it.

[TheBitzMan]

4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Rodgers certainly wouldn't be privy to that conversation either though. When he made that comment perhaps he had no idea MM would have welcomed him back as QB coach.

Or perhaps Rodgers lobbied hard for VP as OC and was bummed he didn't get it.

If Rodgers was close enough to eat dinners with Van Pelt's family, I am pretty sure Rodgers would know if Van Pelt was offered a position to come back.