***Packers fans coach thread***

[#1DieHardHawk]

It's quiet right now, and the professional sports forum is a graveyard so I'll go ahead and put this here.

First, I have to admit, I feel a little down for McCarthy. He got stuck with a roster full of sub-par talent due to Thompson, then suffered an inordinate number of injuries. It was the perfect storm, and he ends up as the fall guy.

That said, I do think his termination was the right move. Green Bay needs to start with a clean slate. The dilemma is how do you do that and still take advantage of the years that Rodgers has left? That's a huge challenge.

There are numerous names being floated, including Josh McDaniels, Matt LeFleur, Lincoln Riley, Bruce Arians, Pete Carmichael, John DeFilippo, Brian Flores, David Shaw, Dave Toub, Jeff Tedford, Vic Fangio, Pat Fitzgerald, and, yes, Matt Campbell. I wouldn't be shocked if Brohm's name surfaced as well.

At the end of the day, I think it's unlikely that the Packers look to the college ranks. Mark Murphy has ties to Fitzgerald, but I can't see Rodgers getting excited for that offensive scheme. Riley probably is the only college coach that would have serious consideration, unless Rodgers himself pushes hard for Tedford.

McDaniels is the sexy pick, and he probably would get a lot out of Rodgers, but, I just don't think he's a head coach. His personality is better suited at coordinator.

I also doubt that they will go with a defensive guy. My guess is that Pettine will be given a chance to stick around, but, you never know. They could go with someone like Fangio or Flores, and pair him with a new-age OC, such as Shane Waldron (Rams passing game coordinator).

It should be very interesting to see how things play out. Right now, LeFleur is the guy I'd watch, with Arians and Riley as the darkhorses.

 

[kicker22]

As someone that absolutely despises Green Bay I think the problem isn't so much McCarthy, but the amount of money they put into locking down Rodgers. Hard to invest in a veteran supporting cast when such a large chunk of money is tied up in your QB. Can only do so much through the draft.

 

[okeefe4prez]

As someone that absolutely despises Green Bay I think the problem isn't so much McCarthy, but the amount of money they put into locking down Rodgers. Hard to invest in a veteran supporting cast when such a large chunk of money is tied up in your QB. Can only do so much through the draft.

That's the problem with the whole NFL. There are two paths to winning the Super Bowl. #1 is to have a top 5 veteran QB and pray to God you have done well enough in the draft and can get some undervalued free agents that want to play there and you don't have any significant injuries. Like the Patriots. Or #2, get a guy on a rookie contract, hope he's good and that you have a cheap backup and build a really solid team that will all disappear once the QB gets paid. That's what the Eagles and Seahawks pulled off and the Rams and Chiefs are trying to do this year.

I think it has made the NFL unwatchable. There are way too many young guys in the League because they kick out so many guys after the first contract and it has made the defenses and o-lines just painful to watch. Half the game is now just throw it deep and pray for a miracle catch or pass interference.

 

[Xerxes]

As you said, McCarthy was the fall guy for Thompson poor drafting. But McCarthy probably deserved to get axed because he waited far too long to fire Capers and GB always has a shocking amount of injuries. Something is wrong with the strength and conditioning program there. No way a team has that type of injury luck for a decade. This goes all the way back to their Super Bowl season. They need to scrap that and go with something different.

The way I see it, GB doesn't have near the roster talent that Minnesota or Chicago has. That job isn't as attractive as some Packer fans think it is. And once Rodgers retires it could be the 1970s all over again in GB.

The have to hit a home run on this coaching search because this team doesn't have a lot of talent and they need someone to reign in Rodgers a little. With his arrogance, that won't be easy.

 

[okeefe4prez]

And once Rodgers retires it could be the 1970s all over again in GB.

No doubt. It is crazy that they got lucky with Favre and Rodgers. Rodgers slid into the 20's when they drafted him, IIRC. Having three franchise QBs in a row in this era is going to be very, very difficult and if they don't have a franchise QB, they are gonna enter an era of futility on par with the Lions.

 

[kicker22]

That's the problem with the whole NFL. There are two paths to winning the Super Bowl. #1 is to have a top 5 veteran QB and pray to God you have done well enough in the draft and can get some undervalued free agents that want to play there and you don't have any significant injuries. Like the Patriots. Or #2, get a guy on a rookie contract, hope he's good and that you have a cheap backup and build a really solid team that will all disappear once the QB gets paid. That's what the Eagles and Seahawks pulled off and the Rams and Chiefs are trying to do this year.

I think it has made the NFL unwatchable. There are way too many young guys in the League because they kick out so many guys after the first contract and it has made the defenses and o-lines just painful to watch. Half the game is now just throw it deep and pray for a miracle catch or pass interference.

As a Chief's fan I don't mind it too much, but you're absolutely right. I like it in the fact that it creates a competitive balance throughout the league, but something has to be done. Wonder if this will be addressed with the new collective bargaining agreement.

 

[okeefe4prez]

As a Chief's fan I don't mind it too much, but you're absolutely right. I like it in the fact that it creates a competitive balance throughout the league, but something has to be done. Wonder if this will be addressed with the new collective bargaining agreement.

I just don't know what you can do in the CBA to fix it short of a positional salary cap. But then if you have a positional salary cap, guys will flock to either good teams or places they like so teams like KC, Minnesota and GB will be screwed.

I cut my NFL viewing way back in 2014 when the new TV deal jammed in too many commercials, but in the games I have watched, it seems that the model is basically to pay a QB, a WR and a LT on offense and then pay one guy on each level of the defense. So there are like 5 or 6 good veterans on most teams. Of course, if you have a QB on a rookie scale, you can load up with more veterans and maybe have a good o-line like Dallas or a good defense like the Rams. I agree that it is good from a competitive perspective because it means a team like the Chiefs can get a window of hope, but the downside is that unless Mahomes turns into a top 5 veteran after he loses his supporting cast, the Chiefs will go right back to above average - just enough to tease you, but never good enough to win it all. I think Mahomes will be legit, though, and with the impending retirements of the older generation of QBs, they could be positioned nicely for awhile.

 

[EstronHawkKing]

As a Bears fan, I love this. Watching the demise of the Packers, they are a bunch of old guys now. Can't wait until it happens to the Patriots, hope the football gods don't allow them to have home field advantage in the playoffs. If so, they are a lock for another Super Bowl.

 

[83Hawk]

McCarthy is far from being the fall guy. It is true Thompson was not a good GM, and Green Bay’s strength and conditioning was horrible, but........
McCarthy was not a good coach. If it wasn’t for Rodgers he would have been shown the door years ago. Too many one and done’s in the playoffs. I was done with McCarthy after his idiotic playcalling vs Seattle choked away a Super Bowl appearance.

I’m hoping Howdy Doody doesn’t screw up the hire (but I don’t have a lot of confidence right now). My candidate is Brian Kelly.

 

[kicker22]

I just don't know what you can do in the CBA to fix it short of a positional salary cap. But then if you have a positional salary cap, guys will flock to either good teams or places they like so teams like KC, Minnesota and GB will be screwed.

I cut my NFL viewing way back in 2014 when the new TV deal jammed in too many commercials, but in the games I have watched, it seems that the model is basically to pay a QB, a WR and a LT on offense and then pay one guy on each level of the defense. So there are like 5 or 6 good veterans on most teams. Of course, if you have a QB on a rookie scale, you can load up with more veterans and maybe have a good o-line like Dallas or a good defense like the Rams. I agree that it is good from a competitive perspective because it means a team like the Chiefs can get a window of hope, but the downside is that unless Mahomes turns into a top 5 veteran after he loses his supporting cast, the Chiefs will go right back to above average - just enough to tease you, but never good enough to win it all. I think Mahomes will be legit, though, and with the impending retirements of the older generation of QBs, they could be positioned nicely for awhile.

I actually like your idea about the positional cap, but who knows. From a management perspective though it makes absolutely no sense to me how you can pay a player knowing that in doing so you can't afford to give him a supporting cast. I guess regardless of how good I think Rodgers is, I just don't see the rational behind paying that type of money for a QB in the later stages of his career and not being able to give him the weapons needed to compete. What's the point. Move on with another option and provide that guy with the playmakers needed to be competitive.

But as a hater of all things GB, they've got there QB locked up, so now they can continue to lose to the Arizona's of the league and battle it out for the division cellar and we're all happy.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I actually like your idea about the positional cap, but who knows. From a management perspective though it makes absolutely no sense to me how you can pay a player knowing that in doing so you can't afford to give him a supporting cast. I guess regardless of how good I think Rodgers is, I just don't see the rational behind paying that type of money for a QB in the later stages of his career and not being able to give him the weapons needed to compete. What's the point. Move on with another option and provide that guy with the playmakers needed to be competitive.

But as a hater of all things GB, they've got there QB locked up, so now they can continue to lose to the Arizona's of the league and battle it out for the division cellar and we're all happy.

It's all just game theory. They lost Favre at the end of his career and it was no big deal because he was way past his prime, but can you imagine the fanbase if they lost Rodgers to the Vikings and the Vikes went on to win a Super Bowl?

I think a good front office can make a team just good enough to mask the cap implications of a franchise QB, but if you are plagued with injuries or have two bad drafts, it will get ugly real quick. That's where the Packers are. You see it with the Steelers, too. LeVeon wants a ton of money, but their front office (and NE's) has been the best at playing the free agency game going back to the '90's. They are brilliant at identifying guys who are just good enough as replacements for star veterans. Pittsburgh used to churn through LBs and when they left, they all sucked.

Where the issue is really confounding to me is the cut below the Hall of Fame caliber guys. Paying a guy like Flacco or Stafford can really hobble a team and I have no clue why these teams throw so much at those guys, but that is what has made parity possible.

 

[kicker22]

It's all just game theory. They lost Favre at the end of his career and it was no big deal because he was way past his prime, but can you imagine the fanbase if they lost Rodgers to the Vikings and the Vikes went on to win a Super Bowl?

I think a good front office can make a team just good enough to mask the cap implications of a franchise QB, but if you are plagued with injuries or have two bad drafts, it will get ugly real quick. That's where the Packers are. You see it with the Steelers, too. LeVeon wants a ton of money, but their front office (and NE's) has been the best at playing the free agency game going back to the '90's. They are brilliant at identifying guys who are just good enough as replacements for star veterans. Pittsburgh used to churn through LBs and when they left, they all sucked.

Where the issue is really confounding to me is the cut below the Hall of Fame caliber guys. Paying a guy like Flacco or Stafford can really hobble a team and I have no clue why these teams throw so much at those guys, but that is what has made parity possible.

Agreed, it just kills me from an organizational standpoint that "they've got their guy" and as a result they're battling for the bottom of the division. At the same time, Rodgers got all the money that he wanted (knowing what could have happened) so now he can enjoy while he and his franchise get to enjoy it battling to stay out of the cellar. So I guess I'm happy for both parties.

I guess I just don't feel bad at all for guys like Rodgers or Bell.

 

[mopkins]

McCarthy has had 11 years of prime Aaron Rodgers and has only made one super bowl. That's gotta be a tough pill for Packers fans to swallow.

On the flip side, the Packers front office gave Rodgers so much money to make him happy that this seems to be the result. They haven't had a decent running back in years, their receivers aren't what they used to be, and their defense needs some massive upgrades.

 

[kicker22]

McCarthy is far from being the fall guy. It is true Thompson was not a good GM, and Green Bay’s strength and conditioning was horrible, but........
McCarthy was not a good coach. If it wasn’t for Rodgers he would have been shown the door years ago. Too many one and done’s in the playoffs. I was done with McCarthy after his idiotic playcalling vs Seattle choked away a Super Bowl appearance.

I’m hoping Howdy Doody doesn’t screw up the hire (but I don’t have a lot of confidence right now). My candidate is Brian Ferentz.

FIFY

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

The next CBA negotiations are likely to get real ugly, primarily due to the points made above. Teams recognize that you have to have a franchise QB to compete, but, the price to do so, can completely handcuff a team for years. Ironically, you end up worse than you were to begin with.

As others have said, the best bet is to get lucky with young stars that pan out quick, and take advantage of the first set of contracts. It will be very interesting to see what happens with Chicago once Trubisky, Cohen and Roquan Smith come to the negotiation table, right around the time that Mack's next contract is looming, combined with a lack of 1st round picks to compensate.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

As you said, McCarthy was the fall guy for Thompson poor drafting. But McCarthy probably deserved to get axed because he waited far too long to fire Capers and GB always has a shocking amount of injuries. Something is wrong with the strength and conditioning program there. No way a team has that type of injury luck for a decade. This goes all the way back to their Super Bowl season. They need to scrap that and go with something different.

The way I see it, GB doesn't have near the roster talent that Minnesota or Chicago has. That job isn't as attractive as some Packer fans think it is. And once Rodgers retires it could be the 1970s all over again in GB.

The have to hit a home run on this coaching search because this team doesn't have a lot of talent and they need someone to reign in Rodgers a little. With his arrogance, that won't be easy.

The injuries have been amazing. Hard to say what the issue is, but, even in '10 with the SB win, they led the league with the number of players on IR.

Just looking at this season on defense, the Packers lost two starting defensive linemen, two starting LBs, one starting safety and one starting CB. That's half of your starting defense. Unreal.

 

[Northside Hawk]

WSCR out of Chicago has floated Pat Fitzgerald's name too, but immediately followed it up with trepidation that Rodgers wouldn't be too excited about that hire.

One would have to think Rodgers going to have some say in all this, but as some have said his own salary is going to be a factor in building a team around him.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

It's funny how Rogers got paid and now that because of his huge contract they don't have the $ left over to spread around to other pieces that they aren't doing very well. Football is a team game to state the obvious. Others have stated the two main ways of building a team. If your going to have a star qb in their prime making the $ Rogers is you gotta have a ton of young players doing well on their rookie contracts because they can't afford to go get a Kallil Mack and say Amari Cooper both. (just examples) You can get maybe one other big ticket guy but that'd be about it and even that isn't enough... Look the NFC North has gotten better (minus the Lions) and the Packers have taken a step back. Not all the coaches fault by any means. They are probably due for a clean start but even that won't quickly turn them around

 

[kicker22]

WSCR out of Chicago has floated Pat Fitzgerald's name too, but immediately followed it up with trepidation that Rodgers wouldn't be too excited about that hire.

One would have to think Rodgers going to have some say in all this, but as some have said his own salary is going to be a factor in building a team around him.

I'd just let Rodgers completely responsible for the hire...That way he's responsible financially and in terms of x's and o's.

 

[eveningnewsteam]

Paul Chryst