Ross Tucker Blasts McCarthy

by zebano on Nov 4, 2009 1:27 PM CST Comment 11 comments

I just wanted to point out this story by Ross Tucker on SI where he basically says MM blew the game for the Pack. he end with this quote:

What is indisputable, at least based upon this season, is the Vikings coaches have the upper hand against their counterparts in Green Bay.

Now that may relect more on MM than it does on Chilly, but it does suggest that Chilly is doing something right which is a long ways from my 2008 thoughts on his coaching ability.

This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

What's funny is...

We’ve had a couple threads going now where people want to declare Childress the greatest coach of all time because he, apparently, brought us good players.

Similarly in this case, the writer makes a good point about the coach scheming around your weaknesses, and helping out struggling players. What he doesn’t mention is the organizations culpability in having so little depth on the offensive line. I might be biased because that’s where I used to play, but for my money you really can’t spend enough on a good O-line. They can make an average quarterback, running back and in turn receivers look like all-stars. And the better the skill position players the better they will look with a solid line.

Other writers have been pointing out that Rodgers has been holding on to the ball way too long and putting too much pressure on his offensive line as well. Something McCarthy has publicly called him out on as well.

I thought the McCarthy hiring was a joke when it happened, then he surprised me and gave Green Bay a much bigger boost than Childress gave us when he was hired, but the second half of last season the tread started coming off the cheesy tires.

Fire Childress!

by dwarg on Nov 4, 2009 2:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Sure enough.

If you look at actual dollars spent on players over the last 5 years. The Vikings are #5 (and that’s counting one year of Red “Cheapskate” McCombs taking down our average) and the Packers are #30. We’re averaging $18 million more a year than they are and they are supposed to have a new/renovated stadium that brings in more money. Ask those Packers fans what all those team shares they bought and seat licensing fees are worth now.

That’s one reason I’ve been singing the praises of Zygi in these posts recently. He’s spending the money it takes to put the best product on the field. Unlike another ownership group in Minneapolis that IS getting a new stadium.

Also when you think about it, it makes you wonder how McCarthy got so much out of his team his first couple years when it took Childress more than $72 million dollars of additional money and 3 years to win the division over the Packers last year. And it’s amazing how well the Pack is doing considering the only teams that have spent less than them in that time period are the embarrassing Chiefs and the Buccaneers.

Fire Childress!

by dwarg on Nov 4, 2009 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be interested to see where the teams ranked through the '90s.

The Packers, it seems, never have to invest in high dollar players because their fans are always wiiling to accept mediocrity.

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Nov 4, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be interested in that too...

… I think you’re wrong. The Packers made major free agent acquisitions in the 90’s (Sean Jones, Reggie White, and several others whom I can picture in my head but whose names I forget just now). In fact, in the mid-90s, your old coach Dennis Green once criticized the Packers for trying to buy a title and building a team the wrong way…

What begins in fear usually ends in folly.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 4, 2009 4:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be interested in that too

But no there is not a Packer fan I know who is willing to accept mediocrity. They’ve only had two losing seasons over the past 18 remember?

by Donald Driver on Nov 5, 2009 10:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I knew that comment would get a response.

I guess I’m still remembering the 20 years trough the ‘70s and ’80s that the Pack only made it to the playoffs 1 time, but yet continued to sellout their games and extend their season ticket waiting list. During this time the fans DID accept mediocrity. To me it doesn’t seem that long ago, but I guess age is catching up to me.

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Nov 6, 2009 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's fair.

What begins in fear usually ends in folly.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 6, 2009 10:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My bad

I wasn’t alive back then but the fans my age have pretty strict expectations

by Donald Driver on Nov 6, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Packer fans are starting to notice that by the way.

Some of it is a natural result of Thompson’s philosophical objection to bringing in free agent talent (which obviously tends to be expensive). Some of it was inevitable due to Thompson’s decision to break up what was an aging team when he was hired as GM. But I think, and a few people agree (though probably not many) that the Packers have been fearing 2010 and beyond for a few years now. I think they were concerned about losing the salary cap, but probably more importantly, they are worried about a lockout or strike that deprives them of revenue for a full season. The Packers publicly adopted a financial objective of building its financial reserves to the point where they could operate the organization for a complete fiscal year using their reserves alone. Because there is no deep pocket owner, the only way to reach that objective was to limit expenses where they could (i.e., salaries) until they were comfortable with their financial circumstances.

Thompson’s refusal to participate in free agency has deepened over time. Earlier, he made significant free agent acquisitions in Woodson and Pickett, both of whom have played major roles in the defense for the last few years. But in the last 2 seasons, less than 5 free agents have been signed, and all of them for incredibly modest prices. The 2 signed this past offseason have already been cut. IF the league and the union are able to resolve the impasse they’re currently in, I think the Packers might loosen the purse strings again, though Thompson will obviously never be a regular or major player in free agency. But I know people who fear that if Jerry Jones and those like him get their way, the Packers will be relegated to 2nd or 3rd tier competitors, much like the small market baseball teams in the MLB…

What begins in fear usually ends in folly.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Nov 4, 2009 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Count me among the disagreers

I sincerely doubt that there will be a prolonged lockout, if there is one at all. The Packers are a wealthy team, they could certainly get free agents if they wanted to, it’s just TT’s philosophy.

by Donald Driver on Nov 5, 2009 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

McCarthy vs. Childress

I found the article pretty shocking because the public sentiment seems to be that McCarthy is a better coach. I think this stems from the way he carries himself as opposed to Childress and because of his playcalling/designing reputation. Interesting fact though-after next week (Vikings have a bye as I’m sure everyone knows), they’ll both have presided over 56 games with almost the exact same record. If the Pack beat the bucs then McCarthy will be 32-24 and Childress will remain 31-25. I personally believe that McCarthy’s a much better coach but I’d like to hear everyone else’s opinion.

by Donald Driver on Nov 5, 2009 10:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs