we all know how it happened, and we all know the giant rift it created with fans. There's no sense acting like it was an easy decision from a Front office standpoint with no repercussions because we all witnessed them.
McCarthy is a great coach
- Thread starter Beebe82
- Start date
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
You are engaging in a non-sequitur. In post #192 you quoted my post which discussed the quality of talent – or more specifically the relative lack thereof - Campen has had available to work with. Your comment was “Remember Larry Beghitol (sic)?” In an attempt to point out your non-sequitur, I posted yes I remember Beightol and I remember Joe Bugel and neither of them have anything to do with the talent, or lack of talent Campen has had to work with. I could have picked anyone or anything to make the point that like Beightol, he or it had nothing to do with the talent available to Campen. But to address your question, yes Bugel was comparable to Beightol because both coached OL in the NFL. Not only that but Bugel coached the “Hogs” of the Washington Redskins, an OL unit which was very instrumental in two Super Bowl victories. So to answer your question which has nothing to do with my post: Yes, in my opinion Bugel was on the same level as Beightol.
No, it wouldn’t “become a fact” because the comment I was responding to was a hypothetical about the past. Neither is it a fact that if Rodgers left the Packers for some reason Thompson and McCarthy would be instantly gone. That’s your opinion, just as it was Sanguine camper’s opinion about past hypothetical events.
ChesterfieldCheesehead
Cheesehead
With the way Aaron was talking in the post game conference I would have to say either there was no problem ever between the two or it is done and Mike won because him saying Mike was sending them in great blah blah blah. I think it goes to say they hopefully are getting on the same page
I would like to read about it, can you link the articles please?
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
As red4tirbe suggests, why don’t you post every article you find in the Green Bay paper(s) that supports your point of view that Thompson is about to be fired? That certainly would be better than the link red4tribe posted on your behalf. That writer only quoted McGinn reporting that members of the Packers personnel department – and now McCarthy – are frustrated Thompson doesn’t sign more free agents. That does not mean Murphy is about to fire Thompson. Hell, if the people in the Packers pro personnel department didn’t complain that Thompson rarely acquires vets that would be a story. Think of it: They spend all of their time evaluation NFL players and that information is rarely used to acquire one of the players they evaluate. And as far as McCarthy being frustrated, what’s the source of that? Was it a one-time comment or is it an ongoing theme? If it’s the latter, does he have Murphy’s ear more than Thompson? If this is a common theme in Green Bay papers, post the links.
Last edited:
Some contend that Rodgers has been the reason for McCarthy's success. Well, of course he is. A great coach without a great quarterback won't be so great. Sorta stands to reason, doesn't it? Look at it this way, Bill Belicheck was not a great coach until Brady. His record at Cleveland and New England before Brady? 51-65
Hardly a good record for a "great" coach.
According to this link:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/
McCarthy has the 16th best win/loss record (minimum 50 games) in the HISTORY of the NFL.
Facts tend to show that McCarthy is a much better than average coach.
Mark
Hardly a good record for a "great" coach.
According to this link:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/
McCarthy has the 16th best win/loss record (minimum 50 games) in the HISTORY of the NFL.
Facts tend to show that McCarthy is a much better than average coach.
Mark
milani
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 5,371
- Reaction score
- 2,267
Yes, I will say that MM is a very good coach. Belichick is a great coach. Both have benefited from a HOF QB. The difference I see is that BB game plans for a specific opponent much better. It is not just about what " we do " as a team. He works to take away the opponent's strength first. He also adjusts better in games than does MM. MM even had the benefit of Favre his first 2 seasons. And the year Brady went down for the season in week 1 the Pats still finished at 11-5 with Matt Cassel at QB. That is a feat I doubt could occur under MM using a Matt Flynn or a Scott Tolzien to go 15 games. BB has been able to maximize just about every rookie or player acquisition from elsewhere remarkably. The Ted Thompson philosophy is quite different. Except for a handful of players he likes to be home grown. As if someone who has developed elsewhere is forbidden fruit,
Didn't mm beat bill last year? And almost beat bill with Matt Flynn?
All due respect, what does that prove?
His point was that Bill takes away the best assest of a team...also that Bill can adjust...
That didn't work to well vs MM and the Pack.... so maybe MM is a pretty good coach and people should be happy he is ours
Carl
Cheesehead
How about providing links to the articles? Instead of having people do research to back up your point for you.
Carl
Cheesehead
Thanks. If he is though, he again has a very off interpretation.
milani
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 5,371
- Reaction score
- 2,267
He did. More power to him. Brady and Bill also beat MM 35-0 at Lambeau in 2006. But you have to go back to Mike
Sherman who actually went into Foxboro in 2001 with a depleted secondary and still beat the B's.
Sherman who actually went into Foxboro in 2001 with a depleted secondary and still beat the B's.
JBlood
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,159
- Reaction score
- 467
Vikings just fired their offensive line coach. They must hold that coach accountable for the line's performances. Interesting.
milani
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 5,371
- Reaction score
- 2,267
Not sure why. AP leads the league in rushing and Bridgewater holds the ball too long. They don't fire our coach.
JBlood
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,159
- Reaction score
- 467
It appears they want better performance out of their offensive line, which ranked 29th in the league in pass protection. Now, there are some who will say that is due to inferior talent, or blame T Bridge; and continue on the same. But it seems pretty obvious the head coach decided inferior coaching was a significant contributing factor; so he made a change. It appears Zimmer isn't content with winning the division.
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
Just as it appears McCarthy doesn't think it's the coaching of the OL that has led to their problems. For example, Campen looked like a genius (if you think it's all - or mostly - about coaching) the last half of last season. Unless you blame Campen for injuries and the lack of one adequate backup OT on the roster...
JBlood
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,159
- Reaction score
- 467
Look up the DVOA rankings of Campen's lines since 2007. The only pass protection line in the top 10 was the one he inherited from Philbin in 2007. Blame it on personnel if you wish. I think the personnel has changed quite a bit through the years without any significant improvement. That leaves coaching as a logical avenue of change to me. It's fine with me if you disagree.
Patriotplayer90
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2015
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 130
Patriots have an easier road to the championship each season. GB would probably have been to the SB a few more times in the Rodgers era if they had that path instead of facing the beastly defenses each year.
I think that is a highly subjective evaluation.
AFC has had Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Devner and Colts. I would say they are as highly competitive as the NFC. And they have done relatively well since 2000 in the super bowl vs the NFC.
Not quite sure where that analyses is coming from.
Patriotplayer90
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2015
- Messages
- 1,874
- Reaction score
- 130
I put most of those teams in the same category as GB. Denver could certainly be scary, but they have had a QB who has been unsuccessful in the postseason for one reason or another. NE is definitely top dog each year.
Those SF and Seattle defenses were just brutal, with an unreal amount of talent and QBs who could throw better than most and run faster than most RBs. Now you've got Carolina who has that dynamic quality and Arizona as well. Since the year GB won the playoffs, the NFC has really seemed to evolve, while it's pretty much the status quo still in the AFC.
Similar threads
