Mike McCarthy: Programs win championships

[Da-news-now]

Green Bay Packers head coach Mike McCarthy spoke with reporters at the start of his team's 2017 training camp about how his football program is constructed to foster sustained success.

Continue reading...

 

[Mark87]

There he goes again with that "program"

 

[TW]

He's telling the truth. His "program" is geared to avoid losing, despite having potentially the best offense in the NFL. Problem is, we're nearly at the bottom on defense, and it's not being corrected.

Every year we hear the same predictions, and end up with the same results, and somewhere within the Board of Directors has to be at least one person who says; "Hey! Winning 9 or 10 games isn't winning a Super Bowl! We have the talent! Why isn't it happening?"

Alas, this is the same attitude that eventually turned us into the doormat of the NFL during the 70s and 80s. They rely way to much on the gate at Lambeau Field being their "poll" as to how successful they are. When people quit showing up, it will be too damned late, because the Packers don't have a base area of 15 to 20 million people to draw from, for attendance.

 

[Dubz41]

He's telling the truth. His "program" is geared to avoid losing, despite having potentially the best offense in the NFL. Problem is, we're nearly at the bottom on defense, and it's not being corrected.

Every year we hear the same predictions, and end up with the same results, and somewhere within the Board of Directors has to be at least one person who says; "Hey! Winning 9 or 10 games isn't winning a Super Bowl! We have the talent! Why isn't it happening?"

Alas, this is the same attitude that eventually turned us into the doormat of the NFL during the 70s and 80s. They rely way to much on the gate at Lambeau Field being their "poll" as to how successful they are. When people quit showing up, it will be too damned late, because the Packers don't have a base area of 15 to 20 million people to draw from, for attendance.

Kind of comparing apple to oranges. The 70s and 80s were leaderless. After the Super I and II teams the Packers got old in a hurry. The advent of free agency also has changed the landscape. But, through all that there was never a case of people not showing up. This is from Packers.com:

Sold out since 1960 and on a season-ticket basis since 1961 (326 consecutive regular-season games, not including replacement games, at the start of the 2017 season), Lambeau was not the Packers’ only regular-season home until 1995. The team maintained two separate ticket packages after moving all games to Green Bay, eliminating four annual dates at Milwaukee County Stadium.
“Gold” ticket holders (made up primarily of former Milwaukee season patrons) have a three-game package consisting of the annual Midwest Shrine preseason contest plus the second and fifth regular-season home games each year. “Green” season customers (made up of original Green Bay ticket holders) have a seven-game package consisting of the annual Bishop’s Charities preseason game and the remaining six regular-season contests.
The block of additional seats in 2003 helped the Packers remove roughly 3,600 names from their season-ticket waiting list – which at the start of the 2017 season had more than 131,000 names on it – between both ticket packages. The 7,000-plus new seats in 2013 helped the Packers remove another 5,000 names from the list. Additionally, Brown County residents without season tickets have a chance to purchase 3,000 bowl tickets on a game-by-game basis; in 2016, 7,500 residents were randomly selected from a list and were able to purchase four tickets. Disabled-accessible seats also increased dramatically through both projects, rising from 56 to 756 in 2003, and to 876 currently.

I understand and agree with MMs 'program' perspective push back. When you get close to the Ring you have to grab it- not take a half assed swipe and wait till next year.

 

[TW]

I know about the 70s & 80s. I was a season ticket holder. Four seats, and one of the original sponsors of the Packer Hall of Fame, and a lifetime member/sponsor. It was a rudderless ship, no leadership, and it started on the board, where they'd grown accustomed to filled seats, and accepted less, because they were making money.

Regardless of McCarthy's words, I don't believe he's doing as good a job as he should, because this team has had dynasty written all over it since he got there, and he's failed to produce the big wins that prove it. The difference between Green Bay and New England is stark. The Pats get guys to fill holes, and generally excel year after year because of the man running the team on the sideline. Belichek is a winner, McCarthy is an "also-ran."

Apples to oranges do compare in one respect. Both are fruits, and the fruit in the NFL is the Lombardi Trophy and all those rings that people in the organization get to wear.

 

[ChampionshipBelt]

I completely agree, TW.

To add to your comments:

Our defense in the playoffs have given up an average of 41 points per game since AR has been starting QB which is also basically having MM as coach. The Patriots have given up 23 points per game on average in the playoffs on defense since BB arrived. The Patriots have 5 titles and we have 1. I think that tells it all right there.

 

[Half Empty]

I certainly am no fan of the Packer D, 2010 excepted, of course. And, certainly, just using numbers doesn't account for how the game might have been played differently. However, that's something we'll never know, and if I've got this right, the playoff losses in question were:

2009 - 45/51 - obviously a win with any kind of D
2011 - 20/37 - still a loss if they give up 23
2012 - 31/45 - another with with a decent D
2013 - 20/23 - a loss despite hitting the Pats number on the head
2014 - 22/28 - holding them to 23 is still a loss (although being an OT game makes it confusing)
2015 - 20/26 - holding them to 23 is still a loss (although being an OT game makes it confusing)
2016 - 21/44 - still a loss if they give up 23

Thus, that's seven playoff losses, only two of which would have otherwise been wins

 

[TW]

I don't think you can use the points scored by the Packers and apply it against a 23 point factor given up by the Pats. The assumption being made by saying we'd win or lose against that figure is on pure numbers, and doesn't factor in the situations within the game, like time of possession, number of plays, and general control of the game, and field. That can't be shown in pure numbers.

What is a fact that we have always been a "little short" of the win because of our defense. Even when we get a lead, and it's precarious, McCarthy draws in his defense, playing prevent, trying to control the clock, and all it does is give the opposition a chance to pull themselves back into the game.

If you look at all those losses, no matter how many points the Packers scored, they would have been in it, and could have scored and won it, if the defense held. But, as we all know, they haven't held up in playoffs, and if the Packers scored 35 points per game, in all of them, they would have lost 4 of 7.

It is what it is.... the Capers defense is not effective.

 

[realitybytes]

I don't think you can use the points scored by the Packers and apply it against a 23 point factor given up by the Pats. The assumption being made by saying we'd win or lose against that figure is on pure numbers, and doesn't factor in the situations within the game, like time of possession, number of plays, and general control of the game, and field. That can't be shown in pure numbers.

What is a fact that we have always been a "little short" of the win because of our defense.

i think halfempty has a legitimate point because we were more than just a "little short" in 2011, 2012 and 2016. those were big-time losses with an embarrassingly bad showing on defense. when you lose by two to three and a half touchdowns in a playoff game, you probably didn't belong there to begin with. but i think 2013 - 2014 could have been wins with just a little bit better showing on defense.

 

[realitybytes]

what really grinds my gears about our defense is the amount of resources that we have poured into the defense with very little to show for it.

in 2015, three of our top four picks (damarious randall, quinten rollins and jake ryan) were defense; last year, four of our top five (kenny clark, kyler fackrell, blake martinez and dean lowry); and this year our first four (kevin king, josh jones, montravius adams and vince biegel).

these picks better start paying off soon, or this team will just literally drop off the cliff because we're certainly not spending many valuable picks on the offense. and yet the two players out of those three drafts who have contributed most to the success of the team so far are ty montgomery and aaron ripkowski. that's not a good sign.