You Are In Control. Who Replaces McCarthy?

[Mr. Fussnputz]

4 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

I know you won't see this but everyone else will.

Since you're continuing this narrative, I'll interject with the facts. McCarthy's policy was to block coaches under contract from interviewing with other teams. That why AVP didn't sign an extension prior to last season. If the possibility to become an OC came up, he wanted the ability to interview. Saying he "chose to leave a full year before doing so" is nonsense.

After the mess of a season the Packers had in 2017 those OC opportunities did not materialize. AVP did not want to leave. You can't spin his desire to allow himself the chance to move up in the coaching ranks into AVP looking to leave for the same position. No matter how many times you say it, it's simply not true. McCarthy chose to FIRE him. Whether it was because he needed a scapegoat for Hundley's performance, or because he was threatened by AR and AVP's close relationship, or both, McCarthy FIRED AVP. Van Pelt did not depart on his own. Given the structure McCarthy forced on these guys of having to work off renewals in order to have a chance to better themselves, a non-renewal of contract is a FIRING.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2752289-edgar-bennett-alex-van-pelt-reportedly-fired-as-packers-oc-qbs-coaches

I'll add that the stories now coming out illustrate that nothing has improved with the presence of Frank Cignetti as QB coach. The line of communication between QB and HC if anything is worse. That's just another strike against MM.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/01/aaron-rodgers-says-packers-let-quarterbacks-coach-go-without-consulting-me/?utm_term=.8ea866a5dbff

 

Having been involved in HR things (but never as an HR director) for many years, I concur that failing to extend a contract past one year is almost the equivalent of firing someone. It's the equivalence of putting someone on notice that their job performance is not adequate. The fact that MM's contract was only extended one year tells me that MM started the season the hot seat. 

As for AVP, if MM had wanted to keep AVP, he could have offered him a nice long extension, and then granted him permission to interview. If AVP failed to get the new job, he would have been back in Green Bay with a secure contract. Either MM wanted to force AVP out, or he bungled the process. Given MM's game management skills either are likely. 

[Mr Anonymous]

5 minutes ago, Leader said:

Is there actual evidence of this?

Is somebody actually quoted to that effect? Like.....maybe VP himself?

What do you think? You think he wanted to go from being Aaron Rodger's QB coach to being Andy Dalton's QB coach on a shakier coaching staff?

I'm really surprised how you continue to attach yourself to the hip of this guy and his crazy, unfounded notions. You may not like me and it must bite seeing everything I've said about this situation now coming out as fact, but fighting it further just means being on the wrong side of the truth.

[incognito_man]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Having been involved in HR things (but never as an HR director) for many years, I concur that failing to extend a contract past one year is almost the equivalent of firing someone. It's the equivalence of putting someone on notice that their job performance is not adequate. The fact that MM's contract was only extended one year tells me that MM started the season the hot seat. 

As for AVP, if MM had wanted to keep AVP, he could have offered him a nice long extension, and then granted him permission to interview. If AVP failed to get the new job, he would have been back in Green Bay with a secure contract. Either MM wanted to force AVP out, or he bungled the process. Given MM's game management skills either are likely. 

Has MM offered that type of contract to any other assistant coaches? Everything Ive read on this indicates that type of structure is standard operating procedure under MM.

If that's the case, how is the handling of AVP a unique power move intended to piss off Rodgers vs just another example of a coach moving on like every other instance of the same handling?

Why is this move under the microscope? How was this handled differently than any other coaching move under MM?

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

What do you think? You think he wanted to go from being Aaron Rodger's QB coach to being Andy Dalton's QB coach on a shakier coaching staff?

I'm really surprised how you continue to attach yourself to the hip of this guy and his crazy, unfounded notions.

This is incorrect and doesnt actually answer my question.

Far as I know.....

VP told MM he wanted out some time before his contract was due to expire.
Now - I find out - (which I'm not contesting one way of the other....) that VP might have wanted the GB OC job.

Those are the only "truths" we know.

Now - you're saying this:

After the mess of a season the Packers had in 2017 those OC opportunities did not materialize. AVP did not want to leave. You can't spin his desire to allow himself the chance to move up in the coaching ranks into AVP looking to leave for the same position. No matter how many times you say it, it's simply not true. McCarthy chose to FIRE him. Whether it was because he needed a scapegoat for Hundley's performance, or because he was threatened by AR and AVP's close relationship, or both, McCarthy FIRED AVP. Van Pelt did not depart on his own. Given the structure McCarthy forced on these guys of having to work off renewals in order to have a chance to better themselves, a non-renewal of contract is a FIRING.

All I'm asking you is if you have any proof for the comments made there?

• VP didnt want to leave.
• MM fired him as a scapegoat for Hundley.
• Suddenly - VP didnt depart on his own.

Do you have any proof for any of these thoughts - or are they just conjecture on your part?
You're answer with some rhetorical questions doesnt address those asked.

Hue Jackson just got canned in CLE. He may not have wanted to go back to CINCY - but CINCY may have been the only job offer and he has bills to pay.

 

[Leader]

@Mr Anonymous

I just noticed you'd edited your initial comment with this:

"You may not like me and it must bite seeing everything I've said about this situation now coming out as fact, but fighting it further just means being on the wrong side of the truth"

This has nothing to do whatsoever with our discussion. I dont dislike anybody on this board and my personal feelings have nothing to do with this discussion. I'm simply asking you for evidence to support your comments.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. No problem - not a hassle - but you're not presenting things as opinion. You're declaring them to be truths  -  as done again on your latest comment.

Fine.

All I'm asking is from what verifiable source are these truths coming from?

[Packerraymond]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

So you're in the camp that thinks both MM and AVP lied when they stated the decision had been made a year ago and that AVP "looks forward not backward"?

It's completely impossible in your mind that AVP kept some of his professional goals from his employee?

Lol "lied" are you aware of the term coach speak?

What Mac or Gute say to the media needs to be taken with the finest grains of salt.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

There's always cogence and coherence to my posts.  I just have to use a lot of hyperbole around here because people are overcome with fanmind mentalities, even when they don't make sense. 

What's more powerful in NFL fandom than logic, history, repeated trends with 50+ years of tried and true realities is a couple drunks in a bar who multiply each time they say something out of anger or frustration.

The idea of firing McCarthy isn't something that's genius, nor obvious.  It started 3 years ago when Rodgers started struggling and somebody decided to pin it on McCarthy for his offense being old and stale even though we had geriatrics and injured second year pros in down years playing WR that year.  So they started saying it was McCarthy.  Two drunks in a bar agreeing turned into 6 drunks in a bar agreeing, and then 6 became 12, 12 became 24, 24 became 48 and that 48 slowly started infecting non-drunks. 

Confirmation bias started playing its role.  They'd point to isolated plays and blame them on McCarthy, making sweeping accusations of an entire offense after one play.  Those one plays multiplied as the years went on and suddenly it's the entire offense.

Nevermind we have been a good offense and even had strong offensive performances with Brett Hundley, including 30 points in Pittsburgh - WITH Hundley, those isolated plays turned into microcsms of an entire offense. 

It kept snowballing, gathering momentum until now when everybody assumes it's the right decision to fire because of those two drunks in a bar snowballing into everybody believing it to be true in spite of years and years and years of NFL history to refute firing a successful head coach being a good idea. 

The idea that McCarthy firing started from a drunk guy in a bar is a pretty awful take. 

There's a lot of knowledgeable members of the fan base who staunchly supported Mac through the "hot seat" talk in the off-season want him gone. Myself included.

My big problem with the team is that it's 10-16-1 the last two seasons. If it takes being a "infected" by the fan base idiots to find that unacceptable, than we've got issues.

[packfanfb]

17 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Has MM offered that type of contract to any other assistant coaches? Everything Ive read on this indicates that type of structure is standard operating procedure under MM.

If that's the case, how is the handling of AVP a unique power move intended to piss off Rodgers vs just another example of a coach moving on like every other instance of the same handling?

Why is this move under the microscope? How was this handled differently than any other coaching move under MM?

Several reasons: 

1. We are a losing football team right now.

2. Rodgers spoke about it publicly in a negative way and at least inferred some disdain towards MM about VP leaving.

3. The move affected Rodgers directly (QB coach). 

3. Rodgers is arguably playing his most inconsistent football in his career on the heels of this move. Correlation? Who knows. 

4. There is a known rift (whether big or small) between Rodgers and MM. Widened by VP leaving? Who knows. 

5. It comes on the heels of the some of the poorest QB play in the NFL last year under Hundley, raising an interesting question why our QB coach left town. Was VP partially a scapegoat for Hundley complete failure of development or is the move unrelated? Who knows. 

These are a few of the reasons why this move in particular has captured the spotlight versus other "less important" positional coach moves. 

[incognito_man]

9 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Lol "lied" are you aware of the term coach speak?

What Mac or Gute say to the media needs to be taken with the finest grains of salt.

But not what Aaron says, right? 😉

Those we agree with we can take at their word. Those we don't we can declare as "coach speak"

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

My big problem with the team is that it's 10-16-1 the last two seasons. If it takes being a "infected" by the fan base idiots to find that unacceptable, than we've got issues.

The Packers are not 10-16-1 in a vacuum. 

Poor drafts, poor defensive talent, re-signings that provided a quarter of their anticipated value, Rodgers being injured, Montgomery making an idiot move, a Jones fumble that could have happened to any RB, four missed field goals, a BS roughing penalty that otherwise ends in an interception and a victory, Rodgers coming back against the Panthers before he was quite ready and having a bad game due to physical limitations. 

The Packers were very much in over 3/4 of those 27 games you mentioned. 

If you continue calling McCarthy's team 10-16-1 without acknowleding the massive amounts of things that you can't blame McCarthy for, yeah, I'm gonna put you in that infected fan base category. 

[Mr Anonymous]

14 minutes ago, Leader said:

@Mr Anonymous

I just noticed you'd edited your initial comment with this:

"You may not like me and it must bite seeing everything I've said about this situation now coming out as fact, but fighting it further just means being on the wrong side of the truth"

This has nothing to do whatsoever with our discussion. I dont dislike anybody on this board and my personal feelings have nothing to do with this discussion. I'm simply asking you for evidence to support your comments.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. No problem - not a hassle - but you're not presenting things as opinion. You're declaring them to be truths  -  as done again on your latest comment.

Fine.

All I'm asking is from what verifiable source are these truths coming from?

Fair enough, I have no beef with you and respect your contributions here. Just as I have known things in the past and stated them here only to have it come out publicly later, all I have to offer on the AVP situation is what I've heard unsourced. Recalling what I went through this past year, stating things I knew as fact without being able to prove it at the time, I don't want to go there again. So people can believe me or not, and I will not argue with anyone who chooses not to, but AVP only went to Cincinnati because MM showed him the door.

[incognito_man]

3 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Several reasons: 

1. We are a losing football team right now.

2. Rodgers spoke about it publicly in a negative way and at least inferred some disdain towards MM about VP leaving.

3. The move affected Rodgers directly (QB coach). 

3. Rodgers is arguably playing his most inconsistent football in his career on the heels of this move. Correlation? Who knows. 

4. There is a known rift (whether big or small) between Rodgers and MM. Widened by VP leaving? Who knows. 

5. It comes on the heels of the some of the poorest QB play in the NFL last year under Hundley, raising an interesting question why our QB coach left town. Was VP partially a scapegoat for Hundley complete failure of development or is the move unrelated? Who knows. 

These are a few of the reasons why this move in particular has captured the spotlight versus other "less important" positional coach moves. 

Exactly. I agree 100%. 

So because of this, people think a dramatic reason must accompany it.

I see zero reason why the more logical explanation of "MM handled this like every other coaching move he's ever done".

That explanation is less dramatic and therefore less interesting and appealing to some however.

[Packerraymond]

6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

But not what Aaron says, right? 😉

Those we agree with we can take at their word. Those we don't we can declare as "coach speak"

You think players have to follow the same rules? Seriously? Lol.

The reason these sources are saying it's such a mess in the locker room is because Ted tried to force that ability to speak openly with emotion away from the players. That doesn't happen in the pros.

The players can say whatever they want. They have guaranteed contracts tied to the salary cap. Coaches don't. Aaron's words are subtly said as to be open for the interpretation you're trying to poorly convince people of, but anyone with any sort of deciphering skills knows what he's saying.

Also you keep saying this was some "power move" by Mac. Literally no one said that. It's as simple as Mac chose Cingretti over AVP, and he was wrong. Just like he was wrong bringing Philbin back. Hindsight? Sure, but Gute gets to use that, and that's why Mac will probably be fired.

[Packerraymond]

4 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

The Packers are not 10-16-1 in a vacuum. 

Poor drafts, poor defensive talent, re-signings that provided a quarter of their anticipated value, Rodgers being injured, Montgomery making an idiot move, a Jones fumble that could have happened to any RB, four missed field goals, a BS roughing penalty that otherwise ends in an interception and a victory, Rodgers coming back against the Panthers before he was quite ready and having a bad game due to physical limitations. 

The Packers were very much in over 3/4 of those 27 games you mentioned. 

If you continue calling McCarthy's team 10-16-1 without acknowleding the massive amounts of things that you can't blame McCarthy for, yeah, I'm gonna put you in that infected fan base category. 

There's a saying that excuses are like......

Excuses are a short term thing, when you get to sample sizes like 50+ games (where we're like .500) those are trends where excuses don't apply.

[squire12]

6 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

The Packers are not 10-16-1 in a vacuum. 

Poor drafts, poor defensive talent, re-signings that provided a quarter of their anticipated value, Rodgers being injured, Montgomery making an idiot move, a Jones fumble that could have happened to any RB, four missed field goals, a BS roughing penalty that otherwise ends in an interception and a victory, Rodgers coming back against the Panthers before he was quite ready and having a bad game due to physical limitations. 

The Packers were very much in over 3/4 of those 27 games you mentioned. 

If you continue calling McCarthy's team 10-16-1 without acknowleding the massive amounts of things that you can't blame McCarthy for, yeah, I'm gonna put you in that infected fan base category. 

The reasons you are listing is what the CLE, DET, BUF, etc of the league use.  Poor drafts, poor talent, FA failures, injuries, in game player mistakes, penalties, etc.  Eventually, you are the product of your record.