You Are In Control. Who Replaces McCarthy?

[MacReady]

I really don't think it's coach speak. 

Last season was a complete pass on McCarthy's record.  Gute cannot judge his head coach when he had to start a QB whom he traded the following year for a sixth round pick. 

THIS season is going to be McCarthy's blemish year. 

If Payton gets three 7-9 seasons with Brees, McCarthy gets one 7-9-ish season with Rodgers. 

Next year after the talent matches up remotely with the rest of the league will be his true judgment season.  The more I think about it, the less likely I think it is that McCarthy gets fired. 

[packfanfb]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

So you think there is a distinction between "good football" and "making money" in the long-term?

Or think that Murphy thinks that?

I think Murphy is in the fortunate position of having a job with the Packers who are a unique franchise. Around the league there are some franchises where winning is directly correlated with making money. Some teams that don't win dont have fans show up to games, they don't sell merchandise, etc, and overall the bottom-line suffers. I think Green Bay, like a few other franchises, is a bit different. While playing good football helps make money, the correlation is not as strong or "dependent." Even with a bad patch, Packers fans are still going to games. Season tickets are still sold out. The team is still generating revenue locally and nationally, especially given the rich traditionof the team. The Packers brand is strong enough to survive patches of losing, or at least steady play, despite a dearth of championship appearances or repeated years of falling short. Because of this, there isnt the same pressure to "win, win, win" in GB, at least from a business standpoint. Less reactionary decisions, which can be good, but also more complacency, which can be bad. 

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I think Murphy is in the fortunate position of having a job with the Packers who are a unique franchise. Around the league there are some franchises where winning is directly correlated with making money. Some teams that don't win dont have fans show up to games, they don't sell merchandise, etc, and overall the bottom-line suffers. I think Green Bay, like a few other franchises, is a bit different. While playing good football helps make money, the correlation is not as strong or "dependent." Even with a bad patch, Packers fans are still going to games. Season tickets are still sold out. The team is still generating revenue locally and nationally, especially given the rich traditionof the team. The Packers brand is strong enough to survive patches of losing, or at least steady play, despite a dearth of championship appearances or repeated years of falling short. Because of this, there isnt the same pressure to "win, win, win" in GB, at least from a business standpoint. Less reactionary decisions, which can be good, but also more complacency, which can be bad. 

Do you have actual numbers to back this up? Were the Packers as profitable in the 80s (relative to the rest of the league) as they have been since, say 95 or so?

[{Family Ghost}]

There isn't one thing in those comments from Murphy that mentions McCarthy, or hints at his fate.  He's just trying to be as positive as he can be since the Packers still are technically alive.  A decision on Mac has probably already been made anyway .. not so sure it isn't Mac who would like a new start.  I'm hoping the Browns target Mac and we can figure out a way to finagle a draft pick from them to let him out of his final season in GB.  If that's the game plan Murphy would want everyone to think Mac is coming back.

[packfanfb]

6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Do you have actual numbers to back this up? We're the Packers as profitable in the 80s (relative to the rest of the league) as they have been since, say 95 or so?

Haven't looked at any numbers from the 80s when we sucked. All I know in terms of comparing success on the field versus in the pocketbook, it's interesting that despite our success in the 90s, the Packers were at a low point financially until they built the atrium in 2003. Believe our financial position in the league has improved dramatically since then. 

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, packfanfb said:

Haven't looked at any numbers from the 80s when we sucked. All I know in terms of comparing success on the field versus in the pocketbook, it's interesting that despite our success in the 90s, the Packers were at a low point financially until they built the atrium in 2003. Believe our financial position in the league had improved dramatically since then. 

The flip side of this too is with more money we can spend more on players too to build better football.

Some owners stay below the cap for a reason.

[Mazrimiv]

11 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Were the Packers as profitable in the 80s (relative to the rest of the league) as they have been since, say 95 or so?

The short answer is "No"

Not by a long shot

[packfanfb]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The flip side of this too is with more money we can spend more on players too to build better football.

Some owners stay below the cap for a reason.

I'm sure that adds another layer to the financial question as well...no real owner in GB. Probably presents both benefits and problems.

[Mr Anonymous]

36 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I really don't think it's coach speak. 

Last season was a complete pass on McCarthy's record.  Gute cannot judge his head coach when he had to start a QB whom he traded the following year for a sixth round pick. 

THIS season is going to be McCarthy's blemish year. 

If Payton gets three 7-9 seasons with Brees, McCarthy gets one 7-9-ish season with Rodgers. 

Next year after the talent matches up remotely with the rest of the league will be his true judgment season.  The more I think about it, the less likely I think it is that McCarthy gets fired. 

Lol. And what are you going to say when McCarthy is canned in one month's time? I suppose you'll say it was what took place in December. I can't wait until they finish strong, go 8-7-1, and he still gets shown the door.

[AlexGreen#20]

19 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I think Murphy is in the fortunate position of having a job with the Packers who are a unique franchise. Around the league there are some franchises where winning is directly correlated with making money. Some teams that don't win dont have fans show up to games, they don't sell merchandise, etc, and overall the bottom-line suffers. I think Green Bay, like a few other franchises, is a bit different. While playing good football helps make money, the correlation is not as strong or "dependent." Even with a bad patch, Packers fans are still going to games. Season tickets are still sold out. The team is still generating revenue locally and nationally, especially given the rich traditionof the team. The Packers brand is strong enough to survive patches of losing, or at least steady play, despite a dearth of championship appearances or repeated years of falling short. Because of this, there isnt the same pressure to "win, win, win" in GB, at least from a business standpoint. Less reactionary decisions, which can be good, but also more complacency, which can be bad. 

The CBA and revenue sharing makes it impossible for an NFL team to lose money no matter how disinterest the local fan base is. The part of the TV contracts that each team gets are enough to cover all the expenses even before local "unshared" revenue is accounted for.

7.8 billion dollars was distributed to the 32 NFL teams in 2016. $244,000,000 per team. The Salary Cap in 2016 was $155,270,000. They had almost $90,000,000 to cover miscellaneous expenses PER TEAM before they even considered another source of revenue.

The difference between a locally unsuccessful NFL team and a successful one is the difference between "Unfathomably profitable" and "Jesus Christ, We Need Another God Damn Scrooge McDuck Vault"

[MacReady]

Just now, Mr Anonymous said:

Lol. And what are you going to say when McCarthy is canned in one month's time?

I'll say I was wrong, which is what I am the first to do every time I am wrong.  Unlike some anonymous people who don't ever fess up to being wrong. 

Yep, I'll say I was wrong.  Just like I did when Thompson was demoted.  Just like I did when Clay Matthews didn't return to a good pass rusher this year.  Just like I did when the Saints didn't implode like I thought they would. 

I have no problem admitting I was wrong just like I have no problem admitting when I'm right.  I'm above .500 on my predictions, but nobody is perfect, and I freely acknowledge that, in spite of the reputation I have here, and searches through threads on topics I have a strong opinion on can prove that.

It's just too bad we can't see your updated opinion on how it was a colossal failure and a turning point in the Packers history that they didn't draft the below average inside linebacker Tremaine Edmunds instead of the pro bowl caliber cornerback. 

Lol. 

[AlexGreen#20]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I'll say I was wrong, which is what I am the first to do every time I am wrong.  Unlike some anonymous people who don't ever fess up to being wrong. 

Yep, I'll say I was wrong.  Just like I did when Thompson was demoted.  Just like I did when Clay Matthews didn't return to a good pass rusher this year.  Just like I did when the Saints didn't implode like I thought they would. 

I have no problem admitting I was wrong just like I have no problem admitting when I'm right.  I'm above .500 on my predictions, but nobody is perfect, and I freely acknowledge that, in spite of the reputation I have here, and searches through threads on topics I have a strong opinion on can prove that.

It's just too bad we can't see your updated opinion on how it was a colossal failure and a turning point in the Packers history that they didn't draft the below average inside linebacker Tremaine Edmunds instead of the pro bowl caliber cornerback. 

Lol. 

[MacReady]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Prove PFF wrong in this case.  He's one of the lowest-rated ILB in the league this year according to them. 

At any rate, even if PFF is completely wrong in this case and Edmunds is playing as well as Alexander, which I don't think he is, the guy I replied to continues to neglect positional value and railed on Gute for taking Alexander (and getting an additional first round pick) instead of drafting Edmunds or James.

And I get frustrated by people who take these hard stances and then disappear as soon as they're wrong.  Some people, like me, admit their hard stances are wrong and face the music.  Others make all these claims and then completely disappear when they're proven wrong, and that's just not cool. 

[AlexGreen#20]

Edmunds has been nothing short of phenomenal in both games I've watched (@Vikings, and Packers). Like All-Pro caliber play. While I suspect that those might probably be his two best games, I can't see anyway that's a below average ILB.

All that said, **** yeah give me Alexander over Edmunds, the guy is an ILB. 

And yeah, people that don't own it are the worst.

[Pugger]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Mark Murphy not sounding like he's ready to fire McCarthy, and I love it:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/12/01/packers-ceo-im-not-ready-to-give-up-on-the-season/

What else would you expect him to say?  And he only addressed the play on the field.  He isn't going to talk about anything else in public and he shouldn't.