NFC North Intelligent, Civilized Discussion 09/10 season

[Moonboots]

Jason Wilde on WKLH this morning said that since Mike Murphy didn't hire any of these guys, that either Thompson / McCarthy stay...or they go.  They are pretty much a package deal.

Rumors have been flying for awhile that health problems were only part of the reason that John Jones was let go.  He wasn't really in line with Thompson's philosophies, so they brought in a president who would be.  The same goes for why Andrew Brandt was let go.  Now it appears that both of them may have been on the right track.

Point being, I doubt Murphy has the balls to buy out the contracts of Thompson and McCarthy three years early.  We're stuck with them for next year at a bare minimum, and perhaps more.  We'll be the youngest team in the league for a fourth straight year, and the accompanying mental mistakes with have that raw a roster will continue to rear their ugly head.  I hope I'm wrong on this.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

A guy I post with on another forum brought up another interesting point:

The worst part about it all, and this has nothing to do with today, is that teams DO NOT FEAR COMING TO LAMBEAU anymore. This used to be a game that every team in the league just marked as a L on their calender. Done deal. Not even worth talking about. Now it's just another game. This started under Sherman, and it's been made worse under TT.

And the reason is, none of these guys understand what it's like to be A PACKER.

Holmgren got it. Wolf got it. Reggie got it. I think Favre used to, but all the fracking Wrangler commercials and Blow Jobs from Madden have made him forget.

What franchise in ANY sport is like the Packers? Are you serious? A pro sport franchise that THRIVES in a city of 100,000 people? That's ridiculous. And during our magical run, it's was at least in a small part because guys like Wolf, Holmgren, and the players knew that being a Packer was just a touch different than playing pro sports in any other city.

That's gone. That 'magic' has been sucked out. To TT, this is just a job. To McCarthy, this is just a job. They don't get it, and maybe it's because I can't even put into words what it's supposed to be, that not everyone gets it.

Not trying to be inflammatory, but this is cliche, naive and on the verge of idiotic.

Those Holmgren/wolf teams weren't good because they "understood Green Bay", they were good because Wolf spotted a HOF QB and convinced Reggie to come there. The next few drafts, Wolf found some diamonds in the rough, and the franchise took off.

Reggie was great before he ever stepped foot in GB. His understanding/embracing the community had nothing to do with it. It made him a fan favorite, but it didn't make him better at football.

Brett always had personal demons, so playing in GB probably helped him, but again, the guy is a great QB because he has a huge arm, a big ego and good understanding of the game... not because he embraced a "100,000 person community". Favre is still successful in MN right now. What has he "forgotten" exactly?


I respect the GB franchise and it's unique place in pro sport. Honestly, I do. But, some fans get carried away with the whole "They don't understand GB" crap. This is pro sports. The teams with the most talent and best gameplan win the vast majority of games. Green Bay is different from all other communities, but not a magical place that can overcome those 2 facts. Talent and gameplan are what determine the outcome.

I know people have a romantic view of the Packers and Green Bay, and that makes it a great experience for the fans. But, you have to match those romantic feelings with cold hard logic if want to evaluate the team.

McCarthy and Thompson might not be successful in GB (I'd say TBD), but it's not because they don't "understand GB", it's because they haven't made the right personnel and gameplan moves.

[GGGG]

The worst part about it all, and this has nothing to do with today, is that teams DO NOT FEAR COMING TO LAMBEAU anymore. This used to be a game that every team in the league just marked as a L on their calender. Done deal. Not even worth talking about. Now it's just another game. This started under Sherman, and it's been made worse under TT.

And the reason is, none of these guys understand what it's like to be A PACKER.

That is meat-headed, lowest common denominator thinking.

The reason that they aren't winning has nothing to do when them understanding "what it's like to be a PACKER."  It is because the players and coaches aren't as good as their opponents.  Lambeau Field does give you a little bit of an advantage, but I am not sure that it gives you any more of an advantage than any other stadium.  The reason that the Packers won so many in a row at home in the mid 90s because they were a *great* team, with a *great* coach, assembled by a *great* general manager.

[GOMU1104]

Time for McCarthy to be honest.  I am so sick of his coach speak.

"We didn't do the right things and its a coaching thing and an execution thing"

great, so FIX IT.  This is the 9th week of the season, and you still have this many coaching problems?

FIRE SLOCUM first of all.  Maybe that will wake up the team of zombies playing special teams out there.

This pretty much sums it all up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo3uxqwTxk0&feature=related

FIX IT

[Moonboots]

Relax, fellas. I didn't make the post, but I'm going to disagree that it doesn't present a viable opportunity.  Coaching and talent wins on the field. That much is a given.  But this team is playing flat, uninspired football.  In Green Bay, there is a ready-made opportunity to instill some pride in these players and give them something extra to play for (other than, of course, the millions of dollars we pay them for a 17 week season).  It's something that doesn't exist in Jacksonville or Carolina.  I'd urge you to go read the way Reggie White spoke of Green Bay.  He carried the same reverential tone that most of the fans do.  Sure, he was the best defensive player on the planet (save, maybe, Lawrence Taylor) but he instilled that same pride in every man on that roster.  Hell, you think guys like Craig Newsome, Doug Evans, Brian Williams, and George Koonce are world beaters?  Heck no.  We had White and Butler, and a bunch of solid, smart football players.  On offense?  A lights out QB, an overachieving starting RB, a converted FB as our backup RB, a mish mosh group of moderately talented receivers, and a gritty, veteran O-line.

If you don't believe there was something extra on that team, you're kidding yourself.  They assembled an incredible coaching staff that utilized every resource available to them, and that includes instilling a pride and responsibility for WHO they're playing for.  

[Moonboots]

Brett always had personal demons, so playing in GB probably helped him, but again, the guy is a great QB because he has a huge arm, a big ego and good understanding of the game... not because he embraced a "100,000 person community". Favre is still successful in MN right now. What has he "forgotten" exactly?

I also want to address this one.  Some may call this naive, but I really don't think Brett's career would have taken off in any other place than Green Bay.  History will never tell us, but he was at a dead end in Atlanta and Ron Wolf seemed to be the only guy who thought he had a big future in the league.  Had he gone to a place with some bright lights and a true night life, we might have never seen Favre the way we have for the past 18 years.  The combination of Holmgren's tutelage and the mellow, distraction-free community in Green Bay was the perfect mix for Favre.

RE: What has he 'forgotten'? I don't want to speak for the guy who made the post, but I can only assume that he's speaking of an underlying assumption that since Thompson (and to a lesser degree, McCarthy) came to town, Favre has been playing more for the name on the back of the jersey than he had been previously in GB.  I can't be sure, though.  He's found a good situation in Minnesota, and that's that.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Relax, fellas. I didn't make the post, but I'm going to disagree that it doesn't present a viable opportunity.  Coaching and talent wins on the field. That much is a given.  But this team is playing flat, uninspired football.  In Green Bay, there is a ready-made opportunity to instill some pride in these players and give them something extra to play for (other than, of course, the millions of dollars we pay them for a 17 week season).  It's something that doesn't exist in Jacksonville or Carolina.  I'd urge you to go read the way Reggie White spoke of Green Bay.  He carried the same reverential tone that most of the fans do.  Sure, he was the best defensive player on the planet (save, maybe, Lawrence Taylor) but he instilled that same pride in every man on that roster.  Hell, you think guys like Craig Newsome, Doug Evans, Brian Williams, and George Koonce are world beaters?  Heck no.  We had White and Butler, and a bunch of solid, smart football players.  On offense?  A lights out QB, an overachieving starting RB, a converted FB as our backup RB, a mish mosh group of moderately talented receivers, and a gritty, veteran O-line.

If you don't believe there was something extra on that team, you're kidding yourself.  They assembled an incredible coaching staff that utilized every resource available to them, and that includes instilling a pride and responsibility for WHO they're playing for.  

I can get with that, but what does New England use as their "extra"? In their first superbowl win they were the underdogs by a lot, and obviously St. Louis had more talent. New England didn't have the Packers culture. How were they able to do it?

I agree with you that a winning culture and attitude have to be established, but I don't think it's unique to GB.

If Reggie had gone to Carolina and won a superbowl, he'd probably talk differently about that experience.

Certainly culture and attitude can help a team win, but realistically that culture can be established anywhere, especially if you have a HOF defensive end and HOF QB (favre in the 90's or Brady now).

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I also want to address this one.  Some may call this naive, but I really don't think Brett's career would have taken off in any other place than Green Bay.  History will never tell us, but he was at a dead end in Atlanta and Ron Wolf seemed to be the only guy who thought he had a big future in the league.  Had he gone to a place with some bright lights and a true night life, we might have never seen Favre the way we have for the past 18 years.  The combination of Holmgren's tutelage and the mellow, distraction-free community in Green Bay was the perfect mix for Favre.

RE: What has he 'forgotten'? I don't want to speak for the guy who made the post, but I can only assume that he's speaking of an underlying assumption that since Thompson (and to a lesser degree, McCarthy) came to town, Favre has been playing more for the name on the back of the jersey than he had been previously in GB.  I can't be sure, though.  He's found a good situation in Minnesota, and that's that.

I agree that the small community probably helped Brett stay out of trouble in his personal time, which allowed him to develop as a QB.

So, in that case, the community probably did impact performance on the field. But, had Holmgren been coaching in Cleveland, and if Brett had gone there instead... he still probably would have been a great player.

GB is a unique community, but it's a short drive to Milwaukee, so if a player is really destined to find trouble... he will find it.

[Moonboots]

I can get with that, but what does New England use as their "extra"? In their first superbowl win they were the underdogs by a lot, and obviously St. Louis had more talent. New England didn't have the Packers culture. How were they able to do it?

I agree with you that a winning culture and attitude have to be established, but I don't think it's unique to GB.

If Reggie had gone to Carolina and won a superbowl, he'd probably talk differently about that experience.

Certainly culture and attitude can help a team win, but realistically that culture can be established anywhere, especially if you have a HOF defensive end and HOF QB (favre in the 90's or Brady now).

Oh, I completely agree.  I didn't mean to imply that some measure of team pride CAN'T be instilled in Carolina or Jacksonville, or that utilizing history is the only means of establishing a winning culture.  There's other ways.  Belichick has found it.  Others have as well, by their own design.  Not only does McCarthy not seem to possess any of this innovative "design," but the fact that the history is there means it should be a consideration.  Even Mike Sherman had a grand appreciation for it and used it in his style of motivation, and his teams had four straight 10+ win seasons and three straight division titles.  And Mike Sherman was no elite game planner.  

It's a tough concept to make tangible, I realize. And maybe that guy's post was a bit over the top, but he doesn't have the entirely wrong idea.  The 2003 Packers team started 2-3 and were 6-6 at one point before running the table to take the division from the formerly 6-0 Vikings.  I know you remember that.  The same thing in 2004. The Pack started 1-4, and then went 9-2 over the final 11 to take the division under Sherman.  His teams believed.  If a McCarthy coached team starts 1-4 or 2-3? Heck, bury them.  They're 4-4 right now, and just about everyone is burying them as it is.  There's no life on this team.  I sure hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm going to have to see it to believe it at this point.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Oh, I completely agree.  I didn't mean to imply that some measure of team pride CAN'T be instilled in Carolina or Jacksonville, or that utilizing history is the only means of establishing a winning culture.  There's other ways.  Belichick has found it.  Others have as well, by their own design.  Not only does McCarthy not seem to possess any of this innovative "design," but the fact that the history is there means it should be a consideration.  Even Mike Sherman had a grand appreciation for it and used it in his style of motivation, and his teams had four straight 10+ win seasons and three straight division titles.  And Mike Sherman was no elite game planner.  

It's a tough concept to make tangible, I realize. And maybe that guy's post was a bit over the top, but he doesn't have the entirely wrong idea.  The 2003 Packers team started 2-3 and were 6-6 at one point before running the table to take the division from the formerly 6-0 Vikings.  I know you remember that.  The same thing in 2004. The Pack started 1-4, and then went 9-2 over the final 11 to take the division under Sherman.  His teams believed.  If a McCarthy coached team starts 1-4 or 2-3? Heck, bury them.  They're 4-4 right now, and just about everyone is burying them as it is.  There's no life on this team.  I sure hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm going to have to see it to believe it at this point.

Sherman's teams started horribly. Did the player's suddenly remember they were the "packers" and then start to win? Did the Vikings suddenly remember they were "the vikings" and start to lose?

I would just say that Sherman probably wasn't a great coach, but had enough talent that they could save his season (see Fontes, Wayne), and Tice wasn't a good enough coach to get the Vikes to close out.

I think we agree for the most part, and I completely believe in a "Winning culture" (watch Tony Dungy's NFL films from back in TB).

But, I don't think there is "packer mystique" in modern day sports.

I know we love to think that there is such a thing in pro sports, but that mystique is created when teams have talent and are well coached, not because there is magic in being a Packer or a patriot or a bengal.

[Moonboots]

Sherman's teams started horribly. Did the player's suddenly remember they were the "packers" and then start to win? Did the Vikings suddenly remember they were "the vikings" and start to lose?

I would just say that Sherman probably wasn't a great coach, but had enough talent that they could save his season (see Fontes, Wayne), and Tice wasn't a good enough coach to get the Vikes to close out.

I think we agree for the most part, and I completely believe in a "Winning culture" (watch Tony Dungy's NFL films from back in TB).

But, I don't think there is "packer mystique" in modern day sports.

I know we love to think that there is such a thing in pro sports, but that mystique is created when teams have talent and are well coached, not because there is magic in being a Packer or a patriot or a bengal.

Can they be a function of one another?  When the Bengals are a good football team, they call it being a good football team.  When the Packers are a good football team, they call it the Packer mystique.  Perhaps just different names for the exact same concept?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Can they be a function of one another?  When the Bengals are a good football team, they call it being a good football team.  When the Packers are a good football team, they call it the Packer mystique.  Perhaps just different names for the exact same concept?

Perfectly stated.

I guess that's why I get up on my soapbox about "Packer Mystique"... it's really just creating a winning culture, which isn't a unique concept or magic that exists only at Lambeau.

The Packers got their butts whipped by the Vikes in the 70's and the Bears in the 80's.

There was no mystique back then, and it's not because the players "didn't understand what it means to be a PACKER" (to quote the original poster), it's because the players in GB sucked.

Chicken or the egg I suppose. You need a winning culture to win, but a winning culture really only develops WHEN YOU WIN.

[JimmyBIToldYa]

I dont care where you live.

Why would you include only the last 4 drafts? That makes a whole lot of sense...

It does make sense because thats the time that McCarthy and Childress has been at their respective locations...

[Hards Alumni]

It does make sense because thats the time that McCarthy and Childress has been at their respective locations...

Ted Thompson drafts, not McCarthy.

[GOMU1104]

It does make sense because thats the time that McCarthy and Childress has been at their respective locations...

Not an apt way of comparing the two.  The GMs draft, not the HCs

[RawdogDX]

So if the packers fix their offensive line problems they still won't be a good team because they don't respect GB, don't have a winning culture, and don't understand what it means to be a packer? 

Whew, that is a releif...
I was afraid that one or two shrewd personel moves could turn them into a power house. 

[Moonboots]

So if the packers fix their offensive line problems they still won't be a good team because they don't respect GB, don't have a winning culture, and don't understand what it means to be a packer?  

Whew, that is a releif...
I was afraid that one or two shrewd personel moves could turn them into a power house.  

It's not necessarily part of the problem, but it certainly doesn't help matters when your GM's primary concern is to remain the youngest team in the league every year and your head coach is more concerned about "pad level" than creativity in the offense.  Perhaps the bigger issue, at least concerning respect, Packer culture, and the rest of this tongue-in-cheek post is that neither Thompson or McCarthy are visible in the community or accommodating in any way.  When you're winning, people will shrug it off.  When you're losing, you're less likely to get the benefit of the doubt.  Despite his 4-12 season at the end, Sherman was generally well liked across the state.  Sure, many thought it was time to part ways, but not because they disliked Sherman.  He had a keen appreciation for Packers history and strived to keep his team connected to that, and people were definitely drawn to it.

And thinking this team is one or two personnel moves from being a powerhouse is wishful thinking, unfortunately.  I think 60% of the line will have to be retooled over the next few years.  When the holdovers from the Wolf/Sherman eras are gone (Driver, Harris, Tauscher, Clifton), as well as Woodson, holes are going to start springing up elsewhere, too.  A feature back would be a wonderful addition, because as much as I like Grant he's just a guy.  He'll get 1100 yards a year on 3 per carry and a few 150 yard games against cupcake teams. 

Special teams remains woeful.

I'm not necessarily as worried about the defense for the next few years.  Kampman is just out of his element, and will probably be gone after this year.  Get Capers a few more 3-4 type players and give everyone else an extra off season to let the scheme and all of its intricacies set in, and they'll be fine.  I just can't be sure McCarthy will be there to see it through.


I recently watched a few 2007 Packers games and a few things immediately jumped out at me.  Favre is more deliberate in his drop and the ball came out much faster than it does for Rodgers.  Also, negative plays were negated almost entirely.  That team was rarely in a bad down-and-distance situation, and we often looked at 2nd and 5 or less to begin series.  Of course, play calling displayed a variety of slants, misdirection, designed pump fakes, screens and the like.  None of that anymore.  Just bland run plays, deep drops, and long passes.  The question is.... why?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

neither Thompson or McCarthy are visible in the community or accommodating in any way.  When you're winning, people will shrug it off.  When you're losing, you're less likely to get the benefit of the doubt.  

I agree with most of what you said, but the coaches are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they are losing, but visable the community, people will be thinking things like "Yea, he's a good guy, but I'd rather have Holmgren because he won. McCarthy is just too nice to win in today's NFL. " (EXAMPLE MIKE SHERMAN)

If they don't go out in the community and they lose (like now), people say it's because the coaches and players don't understand GB. (EXAMPLE: MIKE MCCARTHY)

Coaches are always going to get too much heat and too much credit.

[Moonboots]

I agree with most of what you said, but the coaches are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they are losing, but visable the community, people will be thinking things like "Yea, he's a good guy, but I'd rather have Holmgren because he won. McCarthy is just too nice to win in today's NFL. " (EXAMPLE MIKE SHERMAN)

If they don't go out in the community and they lose (like now), people say it's because the coaches and players don't understand GB. (EXAMPLE: MIKE MCCARTHY)

Coaches are always going to get too much heat and too much credit.

That's true to an extent.  Winning does solve everything. But Sherman left with the respect of much of the Packers fan base and media, not to mention three straight division titles.  He was no slouch of a coach.  His teams had an identity and stuck to it.  His teams were disciplined.  They didn't blow leads, especially to bad teams. He was a terrible GM though.  I'd take Sherman over McCarthy in a heartbeat.

I never buy the "too nice" excuse. Tony Dungy managed to win just fine.  Holmgren could be a hothead on Sundays, but was generally well liked by his players and the media/fans.  Very different guy away from football. I haven't heard many people speak very highly of McCarthy as a person, even when he was winning.  By most accounts he's a complete jackass.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

That's true to an extent.  Winning does solve everything. But Sherman left with the respect of much of the Packers fan base and media, not to mention three straight division titles.  He was no slouch of a coach.  His teams had an identity and stuck to it.  His teams were disciplined.  

Sherman was so well liked and his teams were so disciplined and successful that the organization fired him after 1 bad season. 

"Just win, baby" is the most honest phrase in sports.

[Moonboots]

Sherman was so well liked and his teams were so disciplined and successful that the organization fired him after 1 bad season. 

"Just win, baby" is the most honest phrase in sports.

Correction. Ted Thompson fired Mike Sherman.  After he had gotten an extension.  It will be interesting to see how much hypocrisy is shown if McCarthy doesn't right ship this year.

[RawdogDX]

And thinking this team is one or two personnel moves from being a powerhouse is wishful thinking,

No it's not.  I'm a bears fan.  Add a probowl tackle, an above avg og, and give the D another year to learn the 3-4 and they should be a good team next year.  Than again all of you people have me buying into this mentality that rogers hasn't been responsible for a single loss of his carreer so far.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Correction. Ted Thompson fired Mike Sherman.  After he had gotten an extension.  It will be interesting to see how much hypocrisy is shown if McCarthy doesn't right ship this year.

Toche. But, I didn't hear a lot of "outrage" when it happened.


Show me a winning coach or QB (*cough, Favre, cough cough*), I'll show you a guy who is liked by the players and the fans.

Remember in week 3 when the Jets were good and the locker room was a great environment because Favre was gone? Yea, I haven't heard that anymore now that the Jets are mediocre.

I'm not trying to make this about Favre... I'm just saying pro sports is about winning.

Winning = Liking... doesn't matter if you are Ted Thompson, Mike McCarthy, Mike Ditka or Brett Favre.

[Moonboots]

No it's not.  I'm a bears fan.  Add a probowl tackle, an above avg og, and give the D another year to learn the 3-4 and they should be a good team next year.  Than again all of you people have me buying into this mentality that rogers hasn't been responsible for a single loss of his carreer so far.

Rodgers is a good QB.  He's not yet great.  You can win lots of games with him as he is now, but he CAN get better, and I expect him to.  I'd put about 25% of the sacks this year on him, as a rough estimate.  No other offense in the league operates like ours does right now.  An overwhelming percent of the time in most NFL offenses, you'll see the designed 3 step, 5 step, 7 step drop and the ball is OUT to the corresponding routes that match up with the drops.  Even when Aaron isn't pressured, he looks to escape the pocket.  There's no timing routes, and Aaron's greatest weakness (other than the perceived holding on to the ball too long) is his inability to throw the ball before a receiver's break.  He needs to see the receiver's numbers before the ball comes out, which explains his need to buy so much time.

Your Bears neutralized our quick slant game in the first game of the season, and every team since then has played our wide receivers to the inside.  Try that against Favre, and we'd take the outside release, then run a comeback route towards the sidelines with Favre releasing the ball to a spot, the receiver breaking, and the ball being there.  The quick slant and the sideline comeback were our bread and butter in '07.  For whatever reason, Aaron doesn't seem to have the confidence to make that throw yet.  So now two staples of our offense have been knocked out, and we're having major troubles adjusting everything else around it.

The sad part is, in my opinion, Aaron has the arm to MAKE the throw.  He just needs to be comfortable with it. I guess it's the next step in the progression of a 2nd year starting QB.

[wadesworld]

How AWFUL is it going to be when Green Bay misses the playoffs because of a loss to the TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS, their only loss of the season?  Just unbelievable.  Let's see if they realize that putting pressure on quarterbacks is going to work (like the players had been lobbying for), or if they'll go back to sitting in their Cover 3 and get shredded again.

And the penalties and sacks are STILL unbearable.  It is disgusting.  EVERY week.  You would think they could at least IMPROVE on ONE of those things, but it just gets worse.

All of that said, this was a good win.  Great performance by the defense.