IS COACH MIKE OVERRATED?

[realitybytes]

I truly expected the secondary coach to be fired and was disappointed when he wasn't.

seems like it was just a couple years ago we were talking about how good whitt is. or maybe i'm misremembering that.

one thing's for sure though. the packers have brought in a few undrafted cornerbacks over the past few years that have ended up playing major roles.

 

[eyecatcher]

seems like it was just a couple years ago we were talking about how good whitt is. or maybe i'm misremembering that.

one thing's for sure though. the packers have brought in a few undrafted cornerbacks over the past few years that have ended up playing major roles.

True but man the footwork and technique by Randall and Rollins last year was so bad it was inconceivable. I'm hoping it was injury related and they both bounce back to at least rookie year ability. They both flashed great things their rookie year.

 

[TW]

Eye,

I would like to agree with you on what you said, but I can't do so on all of it. It's all in the eye of the beholder, and from my perspective, I have been watching a coach fail with superior talent. Last year does not stand alone, it stands as part of a body of work, and it's been bad, based on available talent.

Giving a pass for last year's defense is fine, if you'd like, but that doesn't account for all the years the defense has been just as bad. The injury excuse can be offered by every team, because they have them. You either have someone prepared to step up and be the next man, or you've failed as a coach to get them prepared. Our defensive players were not prepared, and that was obvious. Blown assignments accounted for long TDs, and the inability to distinguish who had responsibility for outside containment on runs was a disaster. Add in the fact that second year players showed little advancement in reading responsibilities, and I think it was a disaster. As far as schemes, we ended up "showing our intent" on defense, simply because of the personnel on the field. Teams constantly changed up and explored our weaknesses because of it. We essentially ended up playing a nickel package more often than our base defense, so it wasn't a 3-4, it was a 3-3, with 5 DBs. We surrendered first downs on third downs we should have made stops, because of this failure to disguise our intents. We had too many "specialists," and the opponents recognized our personnel packages and responded accordingly.

On offense, McCarthy and his staff became creative only after there was a leak to the press that some offensive players were less than happy about the vanilla offense they were running. McCarthy got mad, and it got him creative. Does that make him a good coach? Nope! He should have been creative all along. The offense just isn't the same after the loss of a couple of his offensive assistants who kept the creative juices flowing on that side of the ball.

 

[TW]

True but man the footwork and technique by Randall and Rollins last year was so bad it was inconceivable. I'm hoping it was injury related and they both bounce back to at least rookie year ability. They both flashed great things their rookie year.

Their footwork was terrible. They were crossing over, instead of shuttle steps, leaving them exposed to every cut back, or stop and go. Somebody failed to coach them, from what I saw. If it was injuries, they should both be fine the minute they hit the field this year.

I don't think the coaches wanted to see the defensive defections we had this year, but I think they believe in these two enough that they're going to make an impact this year. I sure hope they're right.

 

[eyecatcher]

Eye,

I would like to agree with you on what you said, but I can't do so on all of it. It's all in the eye of the beholder, and from my perspective, I have been watching a coach fail with superior talent. Last year does not stand alone, it stands as part of a body of work, and it's been bad, based on available talent.

Giving a pass for last year's defense is fine, if you'd like, but that doesn't account for all the years the defense has been just as bad. The injury excuse can be offered by every team, because they have them. You either have someone prepared to step up and be the next man, or you've failed as a coach to get them prepared. Our defensive players were not prepared, and that was obvious. Blown assignments accounted for long TDs, and the inability to distinguish who had responsibility for outside containment on runs was a disaster. Add in the fact that second year players showed little advancement in reading responsibilities, and I think it was a disaster. As far as schemes, we ended up "showing our intent" on defense, simply because of the personnel on the field. Teams constantly changed up and explored our weaknesses because of it. We essentially ended up playing a nickel package more often than our base defense, so it wasn't a 3-4, it was a 3-3, with 5 DBs. We surrendered first downs on third downs we should have made stops, because of this failure to disguise our intents. We had too many "specialists," and the opponents recognized our personnel packages and responded accordingly.

On offense, McCarthy and his staff became creative only after there was a leak to the press that some offensive players were less than happy about the vanilla offense they were running. McCarthy got mad, and it got him creative. Does that make him a good coach? Nope! He should have been creative all along. The offense just isn't the same after the loss of a couple of his offensive assistants who kept the creative juices flowing on that side of the ball.

While I don't completely disagree with you, MM has the second best winning percentage of active coaches. The best is Belicheck followed by MM then Arians. I have not been happy with the D and have pushed for firing Capers and MM in the past. I just think that calling him clueless and some of the other strong terms used is a little overboard. Winning it all takes a little luck as well as good play, health and coaching. I can't fault MM for everything that has gone wrong with the team just like you can't give him credit for everything that has gone right. Other than Bill B, who would be a better coach?

 

[Cheesedog]

The nuts and bolts of that article are spot on. MM is not an offensive genius by any stretch. he's pretty average at best. Nothing fancy, nothing that pushes the envelope, and nothing that has had an effect on the NFL as a whole..

Now, most NFL teams across NFL history have had these types of coaches. MM is just lucky enough to have had 2 NFL HOF QB's in a row to work with so his numbers will of course be higher.

Then again, you can say that about almost every NFL coach that has had success in the history of the NFL. What you need to look at to really judge him is what effect he's had on the league. Did he innovate a new offense that other coaches are copying? Does he force defenses to have to rethink their schemes in order to stop GB? Nope, not by a long shot. Nobody is scared of MM, they're scared of Arod. So in that respect MM is a fairly normal, middle of the road NFL coach. The fact he's had 2 HOF QBs and only one 1 SB is pretty much all you need to know.

MM's strength seems to be as a manager, keeping the team stable. He's like an investor who always takes the safe investments. he won't get cleaned out by a bad choice, but he's never going to strike it big. And on average over the long term he keeps just above the average.

If you think this is OK depends on your expectations. OK with winning the division and a playoff game, sometimes 2? MM is your guy... You want another SB title and a guy who will push the envelope and take some bad seasons in exchange for a title? MM will drive you nuts..

MM is the coaching version of TT... Wouldn't be surprised to see him in a front office in 5-10 years.

 

[rpiotr01]

My biggest criticism of MM is that he tends to be too insular in play design and system. I think it's why you see some guys criticize him for not adjusting while others can point out multiple adjustments he's made - both sides are right. It's just that when MM evolves it's all coming from his own thought process so by nature it's limited in scope. It's really a lot of pressure to put on himself. How nice would it be to add someone from, say, the Pats offensive system to add fresh ideas and a fresh take on our play designs? Instead MM keeps it in house or trains guys in his program first and foremost before elevating them. It's like having a great chef who can only cook French food - your growth is limited when you intentionally limit what you expose yourself to.

Everything gets a little stale after a while and MMs offense is no exception. Open the doors a little more and you can get out in front of the league again rather than playing catch-up.

One further point, I take issue with the idea that AR is responsible for MMs success. Flat out, AR would not be the player he is without MM. Period. AR has been carrying the team in recent years but you can't look past those early years. The worst camp QB I've ever seen was Rodgers in 2005.

 

[TW]

I have to agree with Rodgers being a product of a system, as rp points out. It's a system that allows Rodgers to use his skills to the best of his ability, and that is thanks to the system from the day Rodgers arrived in GB.

But, the system itself is fairly generic, and the nuances of how it worked, and why, was often a product of top OCs, and assistants, as much as it was from the HC. It was a coaching team effort, and now there seems to be a vacuum in the staff, which doesn't allow for them to improve their ability to be unpredictable.

 

[realitybytes]

The worst camp QB I've ever seen was Rodgers in 2005.

totally agree. he looked like a deer in the headlights. he really didn't look that much better in 2006. i thought we wasted a draft pick. in 2007, the light came on. he looked good in preseason, and then he had that game in dallas where we could finally see his potential.

that was back when mm could still run his quarterback school (before the new cba).

 

[TW]

I remember those early years with Rodgers. All the comments we heard from writers, and fans, about how we'd blown that pick.

I felt than, as I always have, that an NFL QB needs to sit, and learn, for at least two years, possibly three, before they should take the field other than in preseason. There's such a fine line between confidence and hesitation in plays that the last thing you need to do is kill that confidence. Most QBs thrown in too early, end up failing, or never reaching the potential they may have had.

I believe the NFL should have a #3 QB rule, which is a guy who you keep who doesn't apply to the roster limits. If you choose to go with two QBs, you don't gain a spot, but lose the #3 QB spot. You should be allowed to activate that man, during a game, in an emergency, but it must only be "if" one of your two active QBs are removed from the game, and will not return. This would cover injuries, and stop teams from just arbitrarily using #3 any time they wanted. In essence, it would be like they do with the regular 53 man roster, but be a "designated position player." The player, in that spot, can only enter the game at QB.

If this was allowed, teams could develop that next QB within their system, and this constant scramble to see who they can dig out wouldn't happen. There would be more consistency in play.