Growing sense Packers move on from Mike McCarthy End of Season

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Xenos said:

When your QB is a star like Rodgers, the blame is going to be on the HC. Though this does beg the question of who you can bring in that can work with Rodgers.

Right. Nobody buys Mike McCarthy jerseys. It's the same thing that happened with Favre...

Bring in Jim Harbaugh

He'd be my top choice if we make the mistake of letting MM go.

[Uncle Buck]

Cowherd sums up the Rodgers hype perfectly.

 

[pnies20]

4 hours ago, Xenos said:

Interesting analysis on the Packer's offense. The problem isn't just McCarthy, it's Rodgers as well. He just loves his broken plays too much. It's something that I've noticed since 2016.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/11/26/green-bay-packers-offense-problems-mike-mccarthy-aaron-rodgers

 

Aaaaaaaand I'm instantly convinced that the Browns should sign McCarthy 

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Uncle Buck said:

Cowherd...perfectly

No

[Gopher Trace]

 No, no, no, no, no don't do it, Brownies!! Mac is not the QB guru he has the reputation of being, not since he got Flynn to look passable some time ago. His fabled QB school is a joke, his schemes are outdated, and you guys really deserve better.

[Pugger]

6 hours ago, Gopher Trace said:

 No, no, no, no, no don't do it, Brownies!! Mac is not the QB guru he has the reputation of being, not since he got Flynn to look passable some time ago. His fabled QB school is a joke, his schemes are outdated, and you guys really deserve better.

Didn't McCarthy have to scrap his QB school because of the CBA?  

[JBURGE]

1 hour ago, Pugger said:

Didn't McCarthy have to scrap his QB school because of the CBA?  

yes

[Broncofan]

On 11/27/2018 at 2:26 AM, Jakuvious said:

So, I like DVOA. It's an interesting stat for comparison arguments (which offense is better, NO or LAR, that kind of thing.) But, in the context of this argument, I'm really not sure it matters or contributes much. DVOA is the kind of thing Packers fans can point to in "Top 10 offense" threads this offseason, but that's not really something that looks good on McCarthy's part. Saying that hey, the offense is pretty successful and efficient, but they don't score that many points along with that, actually sounds like a terrible job by that coach. That's the last place you want to be underachieving on an offense.

To me, this is a case of confirmatory bias.

If you believe McCarthy is a good coach, you point to how successful the O is by DVOA - which FTR, I believe is the most sound unit-based metric you can use.

If you believe McCarthy is a bad coach, you come to the exact same conclusion above - if the O is that good, how do they underperform their DVOA?   If it's a short stretch of games - bad luck, fluke TO's, dropped balls, etc.   But if it's over an extended time - coaching IMO has to be a clear influence. 

The thing is, if an O is underperforming DVOA over a long stretch of time, then there has to be a reason beyond just random chance.   Short samples, random chance is more likely.   But not if it's a sustained stretch.   So if anything, the DVOA argument, when you combine it with how the O has performed, and for how long - suggests VERY strongly that coaching and play-calling and in-game adjustments are a huge factor.  Because we know DVOA doesn't account for them, so a consistently underperforming team, then you have to look at what DVOA doesn't factor in.  And again, over a sustained period of time, you have to believe coaching is a big factor there.

And in case you think I'm bagging on the Packers alone - I think that applies across the board.   If we look solely at metrics, guess who one of the highest performing teams ends up year in and year out the last 5 years?  The Chargers.   And yet we know they underperform their metrics.   And there, we've never debated that the coaching in the Marty S era, and even more so, the Mike McCoy years held them back.    But somehow, we see the same type of data in Green Bay, and ppl want to give McCarthy a pass?  I just don't see it.

McCarthy is a great QB developer.   He can definitely spot talent.   If ppl think he's a great O game planner pregame, no problem with that assessment either.  But he's consistently demonstrated a lack of adaptability in-game, and it's cost GB on many occasions - and ARod's not able to cover up for it as his play is changing.   To absolve ARod is a mistake, too - but instead of saying it's ARod's fault - I see it mostly that he can't make up for the hole McCarthy's gamecalling and lack of in-game adaptation (and personnel decisions) are putting him late in the game.

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

McCarthy is a great QB developer.   He can definitely spot talent.   If ppl think he's a great O game planner pregame, no problem with that assessment either.  But he's consistently demonstrated a lack of adaptability in-game, and it's cost GB on many occasions - and ARod's not able to cover up for it as his play is changing.   To absolve ARod is a mistake, too - but instead of saying it's ARod's fault - I see it mostly that he can't make up for the hole McCarthy's gamecalling and lack of in-game adaptation (and personnel decisions) are putting him late in the game.

I never trust broad statements like this without evidence. Which games did he fail to adjust? And what, specifically, were those failures?

I also don't think GB has been underperforming relative to their DVOA. Likely many fans think back to 2017. GBs offensive DVOA was below avg last year because we had Hundley starting half the games.

With Rodgers, MM has consistently been around top 5 offenses in the league. Rankings going backward from 2018: 6,4,11,1,3,1,7,5.

2015 (and probably 2018 by the end of it) will be outliers. Outliers that are very very similar to Payton's in NO during their bad stretch as well.

It all comes down to roster talent.

When the 3 rookie WRs turn into vets next year, it's not going to matter who the coach is. GBs offense is going to show improvement.

We will also hopefully have a healthy Jimmy Graham with a year of experience with Rodgers too.

MM didn't suddenly become a bad coach. The offense is struggling because we have pass-catchers (other than Adams) that Aaron doesnt trust, a skittish Aaron, and an offense that could use some talent influx/growth.

[Broncofan]

15 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I never trust broad statements like this without evidence. Which games did he fail to adjust? And what, specifically, were those failures?

I also don't think GB has been underperforming relative to their DVOA. Likely many fans think back to 2017. GBs offensive DVOA was below avg last year because we had Hundley starting half the games.

With Rodgers, MM has consistently been around top 5 offenses in the league. Rankings going backward from 2018: 6,4,11,1,3,1,7,5.

2015 (and probably 2018 by the end of it) will be outliers. Outliers that are very very similar to Payton's in NO during their bad stretch as well.

It all comes down to roster talent.

When the 3 rookie WRs turn into vets next year, it's not going to matter who the coach is. GBs offense is going to show improvement.

We will also hopefully have a healthy Jimmy Graham with a year of experience with Rodgers too.

MM didn't suddenly become a bad coach. The offense is struggling because we have pass-catchers (other than Adams) that Aaron doesnt trust, a skittish Aaron, and an offense that could use some talent influx/growth.

First, I respect you are taking a stance and defending your take with perspective.  It's not easy to be the minority voice.   We don't really learn unless we have these kind of discussions.

I get where you are coming from with wanting specifics - but at some point, you can't deny the Pack aren't living up to their DVOA when it comes to translating to output.   You say 2015 and 2018 are outliers - let's agree that 2017 (or at least hard to include as the same as other years) as a non-factor because Hundley is there for a good chunk.   But to turn it around - maybe 2016 is an outlier, and as of 2015-2018, McCarthy's simply not kept up with the game, and his in-game adjustments are failing?   It's literally the same data analysis - and it's an equally valid conclusion.   I know it's not necessarily going to sway you, but it's hard to deny the rationale. 

FWIW, I don't think you're getting any better play from JG - he's been declining physically for 3+ years.   He's just a jump-ball box-out RZ guy now.   I do think you will get better play from the rookie WR's (I actually think Kumerow is a guy who could really help you guys get a real slot weapon, to go with ESB/MVS's progression).  I get your point is that if 2019 shows a marked improvement, you'll point to other factors than MM being gone as why they are better.  And they're valid (outside of better JG play, that's a pipe dream IMO).  It's just hard to deny the take that coaching isn't a valid factor here either - you want to point to 2015 & 2018 as outliers, and you want to disqualify 2017 for Hundley.   I actually agree with 2017...but then, the opposite take that 2016 is the outlier has just as much, if not more credibility.   You want to disqualify 2017, totally fair.  But then you are trying to include 2 of the last 3 years as the outlier.  I'm leaning far more to 2016 as the one that we should consider discarding.  Either way, we don't have to agree.   Just maybe look at it from the flip side, and you'll see why this take is gaining steam.

 

[JBURGE]

3 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I never trust broad statements like this without evidence. Which games did he fail to adjust? And what, specifically, were those failures?

I also don't think GB has been underperforming relative to their DVOA. Likely many fans think back to 2017. GBs offensive DVOA was below avg last year because we had Hundley starting half the games.

With Rodgers, MM has consistently been around top 5 offenses in the league. Rankings going backward from 2018: 6,4,11,1,3,1,7,5.

2015 (and probably 2018 by the end of it) will be outliers. Outliers that are very very similar to Payton's in NO during their bad stretch as well.

It all comes down to roster talent.

When the 3 rookie WRs turn into vets next year, it's not going to matter who the coach is. GBs offense is going to show improvement.

We will also hopefully have a healthy Jimmy Graham with a year of experience with Rodgers too.

MM didn't suddenly become a bad coach. The offense is struggling because we have pass-catchers (other than Adams) that Aaron doesnt trust, a skittish Aaron, and an offense that could use some talent influx/growth.

First, I respect you are taking a stance and defending your take with perspective.  It's not easy to be the minority voice.   We don't really learn unless we have these kind of discussions.

I get where you are coming from with wanting specifics - but at some point, you can't deny the Pack aren't living up to their DVOA when it comes to translating to output.   You say 2015 and 2018 are outliers - let's agree that 2017 (or at least hard to include as the same as other years) as a non-factor because Hundley is there for a good chunk.   But to turn it around - maybe 2016 is an outlier, and 2015-2018, McCarthy's simply not kept up with the game, and his in-game adjustments are failing?   It's literally the same data analysis - and it's an equally valid conclusion.   I know it's not necessarily going to sway you, but it's hard to deny the rationale. 

FWIW, I don't think you're getting any better play from JG - he's been declining physically for 3+ years.   He's just a jump-ball box-out RZ guy now.   I do think you will get better play from the rookie WR's.  I get your point is that if 2019 shows a marked improvement, you'll point to other factors than MM being gone as why they are better.  And they're valid.  It's just hard to deny the take that coaching isn't a factor here - you want to point to 2015 & 2018 as outliers, and you want to disqualify 2017 for Hundley.   I actually agree with 2017...but then, the opposite take that 2016 is the outlier has just as much, if not more credibility.   You want to disqualify 2017, totally fair.  But then you are trying to include 2 of the last 3 years as the outlier.  I'm leaning far more to 2016 as the one that we should consider discarding.  Either way, we don't have to agree.   Just maybe look at it from the flip side, and you'll see why this take is gaining steam.

I don't have anything to add to either of these viewpoints, I agree with bits from both. Just wanted to say I love the exchange and it's nice seeing posters with opposing viewpoints have a intelligent and respectful discussion. <3

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

To me, this is a case of confirmatory bias.

If you believe McCarthy is a good coach, you point to how successful the O is by DVOA - which FTR, I believe is the most sound unit-based metric you can use.

If you believe McCarthy is a bad coach, you come to the exact same conclusion above - if the O is that good, how do they underperform their DVOA?   If it's a short stretch of games - bad luck, fluke TO's, dropped balls, etc.   But if it's over an extended time - coaching IMO has to be a clear influence. 

The thing is, if an O is underperforming DVOA over a long stretch of time, then there has to be a reason beyond just random chance.   Short samples, random chance is more likely.   But not if it's a sustained stretch.   So if anything, the DVOA argument, when you combine it with how the O has performed, and for how long - suggests VERY strongly that coaching and play-calling and in-game adjustments are a huge factor.  Because we know DVOA doesn't account for them, so a consistently underperforming team, then you have to look at what DVOA doesn't factor in.  And again, over a sustained period of time, you have to believe coaching is a big factor there.

And in case you think I'm bagging on the Packers alone - I think that applies across the board.   If we look solely at metrics, guess who one of the highest performing teams ends up year in and year out the last 5 years?  The Chargers.   And yet we know they underperform their metrics.   And there, we've never debated that the coaching in the Marty S era, and even more so, the Mike McCoy years held them back.    But somehow, we see the same type of data in Green Bay, and ppl want to give McCarthy a pass?  I just don't see it.

McCarthy is a great QB developer.   He can definitely spot talent.   If ppl think he's a great O game planner pregame, no problem with that assessment either.  But he's consistently demonstrated a lack of adaptability in-game, and it's cost GB on many occasions - and ARod's not able to cover up for it as his play is changing.   To absolve ARod is a mistake, too - but instead of saying it's ARod's fault - I see it mostly that he can't make up for the hole McCarthy's gamecalling and lack of in-game adaptation (and personnel decisions) are putting him late in the game.

I don't think  McCarthy is a bad coach but we have seen in the past when a coach and his team drift apart for a lot of reasons and this is what appears to be happening up in GB.  I said this in the Packers subforum - it might be a good thing for both McCarthy and the team to part ways and start fresh.

[incognito_man]

11 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

First, I respect you are taking a stance and defending your take with perspective.  It's not easy to be the minority voice.   We don't really learn unless we have these kind of discussions.

I get where you are coming from with wanting specifics - but at some point, you can't deny the Pack aren't living up to their DVOA when it comes to translating to output.   You say 2015 and 2018 are outliers - let's agree that 2017 (or at least hard to include as the same as other years) as a non-factor because Hundley is there for a good chunk.   But to turn it around - maybe 2016 is an outlier, and as of 2015-2018, McCarthy's simply not kept up with the game, and his in-game adjustments are failing?   It's literally the same data analysis - and it's an equally valid conclusion.   I know it's not necessarily going to sway you, but it's hard to deny the rationale. 

FWIW, I don't think you're getting any better play from JG - he's been declining physically for 3+ years.   He's just a jump-ball box-out RZ guy now.   I do think you will get better play from the rookie WR's (I actually think Kumerow is a guy who could really help you guys get a real slot weapon, to go with ESB/MVS's progression).  I get your point is that if 2019 shows a marked improvement, you'll point to other factors than MM being gone as why they are better.  And they're valid.  It's just hard to deny the take that coaching isn't a valid factor here either - you want to point to 2015 & 2018 as outliers, and you want to disqualify 2017 for Hundley.   I actually agree with 2017...but then, the opposite take that 2016 is the outlier has just as much, if not more credibility.   You want to disqualify 2017, totally fair.  But then you are trying to include 2 of the last 3 years as the outlier.  I'm leaning far more to 2016 as the one that we should consider discarding.  Either way, we don't have to agree.   Just maybe look at it from the flip side, and you'll see why this take is gaining steam.

 

This is all valid as well. I didn't mean to imply that 2015 and 2018 were outliers in the sense of them being throwaway data, just in the sense there are other issues to be examined that can possibly explain the drop in production.

Just like other really good coaches have had in the past due to roster talent issues.

I still suspect GB will finish in the top 10 in 2018 as well. We are currently sitting at 5th, actually now. I thought we might have dropped after the MIN game.

I just apply Occam's razor, and note that this has been a consistent concern for the offense this year (that some fans have noted/suggested there would be growing pains with a corps of inexperienced WRs). The other two vets (Cobb and Allison) have been injured all year forcing rookies on the field.

Still, our running game has been excellent which propels the offensive dvoa. This is probably another reason people interpret a gap in production and dvoa: they are used to Rodgers being THE OFFENSE. Now, when the passing game struggles, our running game is propping the offense up a bit.

MM is charged with the entire offense, not just the passing game. So I suspect this is another disconnect.

[Broncofan]

Just now, Pugger said:

I don't think  McCarthy is a bad coach but we have seen in the past when a coach and his team drift apart for a lot of reasons and this is what appears to be happening up in GB.  I said this in the Packers subforum - it might be a good thing for both McCarthy and the team to part ways and start fresh.

I think we have to stop thinking of binary choices - as I said, McCarthy is a terrific QB developer, and he can spot talent, and his 1H results for his teams suggests VERY strongly that he's doing some really good pre-game planning.    So it's not like he's chopped liver.  But the difference with good and mediocre teams often comes to coaching, if the team's output is consistently not matching the more objective based analysis.   Bad HC is probably too strong.  But time to part ways in GB?  Man, it's hard for me to disagree.

 

[Broncofan]

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

This is all valid as well. I didn't mean to imply that 2015 and 2018 were outliers in the sense of them being throwaway data, just in the sense there are other issues to be examined that can possibly explain the drop in production.

Just like other really good coaches have had in the past due to roster talent issues.

I still suspect GB will finish in the top 10 in 2018 as well. We are currently sitting at 5th, actually now. I thought we might have dropped after the MIN game.

I just apply Occam's razor, and note that this has been a consistent concern for the offense this year (that some fans have noted/suggested there would be growing pains with a corps of inexperienced WRs). The other two vets (Cobb and Allison) have been injured all year forcing rookies on the field.

Still, our running game has been excellent which propels the offensive dvoa. This is probably another reason people interpret a gap in production and dvoa: they are used to Rodgers being THE OFFENSE. Now, when the passing game struggles, our running game is propping the offense up a bit.

MM is charged with the entire offense, not just the passing game. So I suspect this is another disconnect.

Yeah, I get the point you're making - if the reasons why GB is struggling are less to do with MM than they do the other reasons, then 2019 will improve regardless, and you'll lose all of the other stuff that even his harshest critics agree he brings.   

At some point, though, especially if the ARod-MM relationship is not lock-solid sound anymore, well, then you have to move on.   And if MM's weaknesses are the reasons why GB can't take the next step, then you are likely way better off, because they will amplify some of the improvements 2019 will bring naturally on O.  And then with your CB's expected progression in year 2, and 2 1st round picks next year, man, you've really got something cooking in Lambeau again.

Believe it or not, John Fox was incredibly well-thought of in DEN - because we all knew it was Peyton running the O, and he did a GREAT job developing the team rosters and fundamentals.  But after 2014's loss in the AFC playoff game, it was so obvious he was never going to be the guy to bring us the title.   It doesn't change that he was actually a great HC for a long time at developing teams - but couldn't get them to the title.   What happened in CHI was that the game passed him by.    I'm not saying MM is the same for sure, and even if he is, it's not nearly to the same degree (because Fox in CHI was an utter horror show, GB's never been that bad, and hey, MM does have that title to his resumé) - but at some point, the game often evolves past coaches or players.   

Now, maybe I'm projecting the DEN experience prematurely on GB, and if so, I & the others (for different reasons) will be wrong.   It's not like we know for sure.  It's just that there's more than just knee-jerk reactivity going on here, that's my main point - it's not even a half-season, or 1.5 season trend people are seeing.  Believe me, if it was just 2017-8, given you had a backup last year for half the season, I'd be saying it's premature.  I know you believe it's for other reasons, it's just hard to deny the opposite take doesn't have real validity though, given how long we're seeing this problem exist in GB.  All good either way, excellent talk.