Brad Childress or Mike McCarthy (1 Viewer)

[ScottyFargo]

Brad Childress is not a perfect Head Coach by any stretch of the imagination, and there are many reasons that have made him the butt of jokes. Particularly, however, Packer fans single out Brad Childress as a beacon of hope for them, and often exclaim their thanks that the Vikings have kept him on as their Head Coach for as long as they have, usually praying that the Vikings extend him so they can enjoy more years of, in their mind, poorly run Vikings football.

How fair is this interpretation of Coach Childress? Is Childress possibly better than Packer fans current coach Mike McCarthy? Let's compare and contrast the two.

Using these parameters:

Overall Career HC Record

Draft Success

Free Agency / Trade Success

Playoff Success

In Game Coaching Decisions

Player Use (as determined by skill)

Challenge Success

Penalties

Personality

State of Team

Career Record as HC:

Brad Childress' Career Record:

31/25

Mike McCarthy's Career Record:

31/25

Edge: PUSH (Till end of season, then Brad Childress will overtake him.)

Draft: This might be unfair because I don't know how much total influence either coach totally has in the final say (Triumvirate of Power in Minnesota, Nazi-Socialism in Green Bay?) However, Childress has been quoting at telling Harvin he was the one making the decision. Either way, Childress has had a dramatic amount of input in the Vikings draft since his hiring.

Draft History Highlights: Minnesota

‘06

Greenway, starting LBer

Cedric Griffin, starting CB

Ray Edwards, starting DE

Draft Miss: Tarvaris Jackson: 2nd Round

‘07

Adrian Peterson, greatest RB in the league, ROY

Sidney Rice, starting WR

Draft Miss: Marcus McCauley, 3rd Round

‘08

Tyrell Johnson, starting S

‘09

Percy Harvin, probably 2nd ROY

Phil Loadholt

Two contributing starters from this past draft, not too shabby.

Draft History Highlights: Green Bay

‘06

A.J. Hawk

Greg Jennings

Daryn Colledge?

’07

Justin Harrell

‘08

Jordy Nelson

Jermichael Finley

‘09

B.J. “Sore Eagles” Raji

Clay Matthews

T.J. Lang, screen door to Aaron Rodgers

Edge: Brad Childress

Free Agency / Trades:

Minnesota:

Bernard Berrian

Jared Allen

Brett Favre

Additionally, the Vikings did NOT overpay for Cutler. Long term Cutler may be the guy, but as far as this years window, harrassing Favre out of retirement was the right move. How can you argue with Jared Allen for a 1st and two 3rds?

Green Bay:

Charles Woodson

Brandon Chillar

Ahman Green

Youngest Team in the league strategy. Right now the Packers are winning just on the arm of Aaron Rodgers (Except for today against the winless Bucs, ouch.) I think their meekness in free agency is a weakness. They missed out on Randy Moss! Vikings would kill to get him back again. Again, how much of this is McCarthy's fault? Any idea? I think this is more Front Office, Teddy Thompson / Rick Speilman type stuff, but I think the HC's do factor in.

Edge: Brad Childress

Playoff Success:

Brad Childress 0/1

Mike McCarthy 1/1

Edge: McCarthy

In Game Coaching:

Childress

Pros:

Corrected special teams issues from last year

Won 40% of Challenges this year

Passing D corrected after Baltimore Blowout

Cons: Adrian Peterson use heavily criticized. Often looks lost concerning officials + screwups. Was not at all a "Kick ### Offense" until we got Favre (though now the Vikings are 2nd in the league in scoring…)

McCarthy

No corrections from 1st Viking/Packer game to 2nd

No running game since 2nd half of 07

Failed switch to 3-4, pulled Kampman out of position, players publicly airing gripes about how bad the switch is, only to recant later, under duress no doubt.

Edge: Early on McCarthy owned Childress, but after a 6-10 season and getting blown out by the Packers the last two games, I think Chilly's coming into his own.

Personality:

Childress: Dressed up like a stewardess to cheer up the team after the tough road loss @ PGH.

McCarthy: Helped push Favre out of Green Bay.

Edge: Childress' transsexual morale booster.

Current State of Team:

Vikings: Improved Special Teams, improved passing game, defense taking a small step backwards (but picking up the slack in pass rush and pass d from earlier in the year), 7-1, 2.5 games in the lead for 2nd straight NFC North title…

Viking

Packers: Backbiting from defensive players, 4-4 with 2 "probably wins" on the schedule left, 6 moderate to difficult games otherwise. Defense can't stop all but the most inept teams. No D line, O line in shambles… swept by the Vikings, will have to try hard to get a wild card spot. Almost no chance of that after today's performance against the Bucs.

Edge: Childress

Final Score: Childress: 5 McCarthy: 1 Tie: 1

How do you guys see it?

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

I'm a Packer fan and I have never felt strongly that the Vikings should keep Childress on to ensure Packer success. Seems to me that you wasted a lot of time putting this poll and post together.

 

[KingPrawn]

Personality:

Childress: Dressed up like a stewardess to cheer up the team after the tough road loss @ PGH.

McCarthy: Helped push Favre out of Green Bay.

Edge: Childress' transsexual morale booster.

I suppose if you're in to that sort of thing . . .

 

[ScottyFargo]

I'm a Packer fan and I have never felt strongly that the Vikings should keep Childress on to ensure Packer success. Seems to me that you wasted a lot of time putting this poll and post together.

It's been a common sentiment ever since Childress' first, losing season as the Vikings HC, and has been expressed as recently as this week on this board. Not everyone may feel that way, as you don't. The fact is the two were hired to coach division rivals at the same time, Childress being hired by the Vikings before he could be interviewed by the Packers, so I feel the question is relevant.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

Holy Crap.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Holy Crap.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Childress isn't that good, but he is better than McCarthy. Both have done well with Favre, but while Childress won 10 games last year with Frerotte and Jackson at QB, McCarthy can't even be a winning coach with Aaron Rodgers, who is much better than either of those guys Minnesota had last year. I know there is a lot more to it than quarterbacks, and I frequently watch both guys made game day decisions that are puzzling to say the least, but McCarthy is much, much worse.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

Manute Bole or Uwe Blab?

 

[Serafino]

They are both equal meat heads. Don't over analyze their propensity to be meat heads. They will both be replaced sooner rather than later.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

They are both equal meat heads. Don't over analyze their propensity to be meat heads. They will both be replaced sooner rather than later.

 

[ScottyFargo]

They are both equal meat heads. Don't over analyze their propensity to be meat heads. They will both be replaced sooner rather than later.

They both have had their ups and downs, that's for sure.

 

[Norseman]

If a poll ever needed an other option (smoo), this is it.

 

[Pipes]

I give the slight edge to McCarthy but it's close and I believe they are both in the bottom half of the league. If this was a vote of the Thompson/McCarthy team vs Vikes GM/Childress this would be a runaway in favor of the Vikes.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Here's my take, and it pains me to say it.

They both suck. The only thing they have in common is that they both looked really smart when Favre was playing qb for them.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Here's my take, and it pains me to say it.They both suck. The only thing they have in common is that they both looked really smart when Favre was playing qb for them.

 

[basher]

you are a troll

 

[ScottyFargo]

you are a troll

You've got to be kidding me. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you can't deny that McCarthy got a PASS last year after the team fell apart, and now that the true colors are showing, the early criticism of Childress doesn't ring out as well. Especially when you consider that much of the criticism levied at Childress is that he is "wasting the talent" on the team with his bonehead coaching. That discounts how much of an impact he had in developing and attaining the talented players via draft, Free Agency and trade. Meanwhile, what has McCarthy done with the team that finished 13-3? Both coaches took over during a rebuild mode, I think it's only fair to take a look at them both.I promise I won't bring up any more facts when you bash Childress off-topically in other threads, though. If that's what you want to do, I mean.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I'm starting to think Mike McCarthy is one of the worst coaches in the league once you throw out the dopes like Mangini, etc.

 

[az_prof]

Good post and thoughtful analysis doesn't appear overly Homer to me.

I do think the edge goes to Childress. You left out the acquisition of Hutchinson at OG as a FA move under Childress.

Aside from the TJax experiment it is hard to fault Childress' personnel moves. He has been above average there. Where I do see him as not doing so well is game management. Maybe part of it was the QB but before this year we always seemed to waste time in the last two minutes of the game, waste time outs, and displayed bad play calling. I think Favre may be audibiling at the line and changing up some bad play calls and he clearly runs clock management well--so Favre may be covering up for some bad coaching. But Childress really wanted Favre so maybe he knew that was a problem and identified getting a veteran QB like Favre as the best way to address it. Another thing that I think is attributable to coaching is mistakes: good teams don't have as many dumb penalties and costly turn overs and I think coaching has something to do with that. Childress may be improving because in the past penalties and turn over have killed the Vikings. This year they seem to have that under control.

I was not a fan of Childress but he seems to be improving and he is clearly improving more than McCarthy. Neither is a top 10 HC, but Childress gives me hope that he could become one.

 

[Titus Pullo]

both have flirted with being slightly above average but mccarthy has shown more times of being below average. mccarthy has also shown to be more stubborn in his decisions and not make needed changes. neither will ever be great but the stewardess gets the vote here.

 

[sho nuff]

The mistake is that you took any criticism of Childress as having anything to do with Mike McCarthy.

 

[sho nuff]

you are a troll

You've got to be kidding me. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you can't deny that McCarthy got a PASS last year after the team fell apart, and now that the true colors are showing, the early criticism of Childress doesn't ring out as well. Especially when you consider that much of the criticism levied at Childress is that he is "wasting the talent" on the team with his bonehead coaching. That discounts how much of an impact he had in developing and attaining the talented players via draft, Free Agency and trade. Meanwhile, what has McCarthy done with the team that finished 13-3? Both coaches took over during a rebuild mode, I think it's only fair to take a look at them both.I promise I won't bring up any more facts when you bash Childress off-topically in other threads, though. If that's what you want to do, I mean.

What does McCarthy have to do with Childress though?Seems you are always just mad CHildress took a beating on these boards and you always try to compare.McCarthy is bad right now...terrible even.This does not mean Childress is suddenly a great coach.I really don't want either of them in GB at this point.

 

[az_prof]

you are a troll

You've got to be kidding me. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you can't deny that McCarthy got a PASS last year after the team fell apart, and now that the true colors are showing, the early criticism of Childress doesn't ring out as well. Especially when you consider that much of the criticism levied at Childress is that he is "wasting the talent" on the team with his bonehead coaching. That discounts how much of an impact he had in developing and attaining the talented players via draft, Free Agency and trade. Meanwhile, what has McCarthy done with the team that finished 13-3? Both coaches took over during a rebuild mode, I think it's only fair to take a look at them both.I promise I won't bring up any more facts when you bash Childress off-topically in other threads, though. If that's what you want to do, I mean.

What does McCarthy have to do with Childress though?Seems you are always just mad CHildress took a beating on these boards and you always try to compare.McCarthy is bad right now...terrible even.This does not mean Childress is suddenly a great coach.I really don't want either of them in GB at this point.

Since most of that criticism came from Cheeseheads I disagree: how does moldy cheese taste?

 

[sho nuff]

you are a troll

You've got to be kidding me. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you can't deny that McCarthy got a PASS last year after the team fell apart, and now that the true colors are showing, the early criticism of Childress doesn't ring out as well. Especially when you consider that much of the criticism levied at Childress is that he is "wasting the talent" on the team with his bonehead coaching. That discounts how much of an impact he had in developing and attaining the talented players via draft, Free Agency and trade. Meanwhile, what has McCarthy done with the team that finished 13-3? Both coaches took over during a rebuild mode, I think it's only fair to take a look at them both.I promise I won't bring up any more facts when you bash Childress off-topically in other threads, though. If that's what you want to do, I mean.

What does McCarthy have to do with Childress though?Seems you are always just mad CHildress took a beating on these boards and you always try to compare.McCarthy is bad right now...terrible even.This does not mean Childress is suddenly a great coach.I really don't want either of them in GB at this point.

Since most of that criticism came from Cheeseheads I disagree: how does moldy cheese taste?

If the cheeseheads were just going off on how great McCarthy was...and the only time he got praise was in 2007...I would agree.But I don't see many saying that last year or this year...yet some still think its some competition between the two coaches.Well, not some...but a very small few. Look at the old fire childress thread to see. Plenty of people criticizing Childress that are not Packer fans.

 

[ScottyFargo]

The mistake is that you took any criticism of Childress as having anything to do with Mike McCarthy.What does McCarthy have to do with Childress though?Seems you are always just mad CHildress took a beating on these boards and you always try to compare.McCarthy is bad right now...terrible even.This does not mean Childress is suddenly a great coach.I really don't want either of them in GB at this point.

It was very common for Packer fans to say they were glad they had McCarthy and not Childress. As we all know by now, Childress was hired by the Vikings before he could interview with the Packers. Their tenures as coaches have always been destined to be compared, even before the ouster of Favre and the subsequent salvation story that has followed. That's why I see a very clear line between trying to analyze these two coaches as being applicable. They were both hired into the same division on rival teams, and for much of the tenure it appeared to critics that Childress wasn't going to ever succeed. He still might not, but I wanted to look at the alternative.As recently as this past week a Packer fan tried to find solace in the fact that the Vikings have Childress as their HC and not a "real" coach. It never made sense to me. You said the same thing when I compared criticism of Harvin to that of the Packers 2 defensive 1st round picks. (How the Vikings were not going to get production out of Harvin in his rookie year, which I compared to the idea that the Packers were going to count on their rookie 1st round picks.) I think you can compare coaches and players on opposing teams with the same critical eye, and I think that it should be done before anybody jumps to a conclusion.You are right though, simply because McCarthy is performing to here-to-fore "Childress" levels of bad, doesn't correlate that Childress is now good. The Vikings are 7-1 with a 3 game lead in the NFC North, and to some that might mean nothing, as well. Or, the team that Childress has been helping to build over the course of his tenure is peaking. Maybe that doesn't mean he's a good coach to some, but for me, I am glad that the Vikings have had his input on who to draft / collect in FA (thanks for the Hutch miss, that's a big one.) over McCarthy, who apparently isn't able to coach the team he's been given.

 

[packersfan]

Both of them appear to be a helluva lot better head coaches with Brett Favre than without him.

 

[scrumptrulescent]

Mentally Challenged Fight!

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

how does moldy cheese taste?

Um......

 

[deep vacuum]

Both of them appear to be a helluva lot better head coaches with Brett Favre than without him.

 

[encaitar]

Both of them appear to be a helluva lot better head coaches with Brett Favre than without him.

You won't find too many GREAT head coaches that didn't have a HOF QB to coach.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I voted Childress.

If any Packer fan wants clues as to the current GB team, look no further than the MCCarthy/Haslett years with the Saints.

 

[sho nuff]

The mistake is that you took any criticism of Childress as having anything to do with Mike McCarthy.What does McCarthy have to do with Childress though?Seems you are always just mad CHildress took a beating on these boards and you always try to compare.McCarthy is bad right now...terrible even.This does not mean Childress is suddenly a great coach.I really don't want either of them in GB at this point.

It was very common for Packer fans to say they were glad they had McCarthy and not Childress. As we all know by now, Childress was hired by the Vikings before he could interview with the Packers. Their tenures as coaches have always been destined to be compared, even before the ouster of Favre and the subsequent salvation story that has followed. That's why I see a very clear line between trying to analyze these two coaches as being applicable. They were both hired into the same division on rival teams, and for much of the tenure it appeared to critics that Childress wasn't going to ever succeed. He still might not, but I wanted to look at the alternative.As recently as this past week a Packer fan tried to find solace in the fact that the Vikings have Childress as their HC and not a "real" coach. It never made sense to me. You said the same thing when I compared criticism of Harvin to that of the Packers 2 defensive 1st round picks. (How the Vikings were not going to get production out of Harvin in his rookie year, which I compared to the idea that the Packers were going to count on their rookie 1st round picks.) I think you can compare coaches and players on opposing teams with the same critical eye, and I think that it should be done before anybody jumps to a conclusion.You are right though, simply because McCarthy is performing to here-to-fore "Childress" levels of bad, doesn't correlate that Childress is now good. The Vikings are 7-1 with a 3 game lead in the NFC North, and to some that might mean nothing, as well. Or, the team that Childress has been helping to build over the course of his tenure is peaking. Maybe that doesn't mean he's a good coach to some, but for me, I am glad that the Vikings have had his input on who to draft / collect in FA (thanks for the Hutch miss, that's a big one.) over McCarthy, who apparently isn't able to coach the team he's been given.

First off...most said that of McCarthy when? In 2007...most fans also see what McCarthy was doing then vs. now is night and day.Second...last week's Packer fan comment. This has nothing to do with McCarthy. Admitting McCarthy sucks...and is possibly even worse than Childress...I too am happy Minny has Childress and not a "real" coach as he said. Not sure why that does not make sense to you. Many people...non-Packer fans too...think Childress is not a great coach. Not sure why you think its just Packer fans.I think you can compare them just fine. The problem is, your comparison seems to come solely out of the amount of criticism that Childress has taken and you act as if you are slighted by that as a fan.

 

[ScottyFargo]

The mistake is that you took any criticism of Childress as having anything to do with Mike McCarthy.

What does McCarthy have to do with Childress though?

Seems you are always just mad CHildress took a beating on these boards and you always try to compare.

McCarthy is bad right now...terrible even.

This does not mean Childress is suddenly a great coach.

I really don't want either of them in GB at this point.

It was very common for Packer fans to say they were glad they had McCarthy and not Childress. As we all know by now, Childress was hired by the Vikings before he could interview with the Packers. Their tenures as coaches have always been destined to be compared, even before the ouster of Favre and the subsequent salvation story that has followed. That's why I see a very clear line between trying to analyze these two coaches as being applicable. They were both hired into the same division on rival teams, and for much of the tenure it appeared to critics that Childress wasn't going to ever succeed. He still might not, but I wanted to look at the alternative.As recently as this past week a Packer fan tried to find solace in the fact that the Vikings have Childress as their HC and not a "real" coach. It never made sense to me. You said the same thing when I compared criticism of Harvin to that of the Packers 2 defensive 1st round picks. (How the Vikings were not going to get production out of Harvin in his rookie year, which I compared to the idea that the Packers were going to count on their rookie 1st round picks.)

I think you can compare coaches and players on opposing teams with the same critical eye, and I think that it should be done before anybody jumps to a conclusion.

You are right though, simply because McCarthy is performing to here-to-fore "Childress" levels of bad, doesn't correlate that Childress is now good. The Vikings are 7-1 with a 3 game lead in the NFC North, and to some that might mean nothing, as well. Or, the team that Childress has been helping to build over the course of his tenure is peaking. Maybe that doesn't mean he's a good coach to some, but for me, I am glad that the Vikings have had his input on who to draft / collect in FA (thanks for the Hutch miss, that's a big one.) over McCarthy, who apparently isn't able to coach the team he's been given.

First off...most said that of McCarthy when? In 2007...most fans also see what McCarthy was doing then vs. now is night and day.Second...last week's Packer fan comment. This has nothing to do with McCarthy. Admitting McCarthy sucks...and is possibly even worse than Childress...I too am happy Minny has Childress and not a "real" coach as he said. Not sure why that does not make sense to you. Many people...non-Packer fans too...think Childress is not a great coach. Not sure why you think its just Packer fans.

I think you can compare them just fine. The problem is, your comparison seems to come solely out of the amount of criticism that Childress has taken and you act as if you are slighted by that as a fan.

Can you imagine what a real coach would do in Minnesota? If Chilly can take the team to two NFC North titles in a row...a real coach probably could do that in one season. That would be impressive.

 

[Titus Pullo]

Can you imagine what a real coach would do in Minnesota? If Chilly can take the team to two NFC North titles in a row...a real coach probably could do that in one season. That would be impressive.

here's another thought. how many super bowl rings would favre have if he spent his entire career with the vikings? my vote would be 2 going for 3.

 

[sho nuff]

Can you imagine what a real coach would do in Minnesota? If Chilly can take the team to two NFC North titles in a row...a real coach probably could do that in one season. That would be impressive.

Id say the real coach would not have the best player in the NFL as a spectator during crunch time so often.Which is why Chilly gets blasted quite often.

And Im glad your goal is to win 2 NFC North titles.

Congrats on being the top team in a bad division for 2 years. I know last year was their first "North" title...but most teams strive for more than winning in what is a bad division.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Can you imagine what a real coach would do in Minnesota? If Chilly can take the team to two NFC North titles in a row...a real coach probably could do that in one season. That would be impressive.

Id say the real coach would not have the best player in the NFL as a spectator during crunch time so often.Which is why Chilly gets blasted quite often.

And Im glad your goal is to win 2 NFC North titles.

Congrats on being the top team in a bad division for 2 years. I know last year was their first "North" title...but most teams strive for more than winning in what is a bad division.

Yeah, he gets blasted for that, but in the Vikings one loss this season, he had Peterson in there at the end trying to make up for the score. I think it varies from situation to situation, and at this point, it hasn't cost them any games. Also, the impact may be over exaggerated given the FF aspect of Childress taking Peterson off the field. However, it should be noted that Peterson's catching more balls and making more plays out of the backfield this year, now that they have a real QB. So there's improvement there too, which actually hinged more on Peterson's ability to improve in the passing game.Any criticisms on what Childress allows in the red zone are warranted, but I don't see it as big of a problem as it has been in the past. That's what you want from a coach, looking to improve on where he's not met expectations before.

 

[Raider Nation]

 

[ScottyFargo]

McCarthy never woulda ran up the score on the Cowboys like that.

 

[Go Pack]

It's pretty obvious this was posted by a Vikes fan based on the biased examples. It is too ridiculous to even dig into. In the end neither coach is anything better than average at best.

 

[Jason Wood]

I honestly think they're both middling coaches. Capable of winning when the ingredients are right, but not likely to be responsible for winning too many games over their career that an average coach wouldn't.

 

[encaitar]

I honestly think they're both middling coaches. Capable of winning when the ingredients are right, but not likely to be responsible for winning too many games over their career that an average coach wouldn't.

How much credit to these coaches get for the talent of their teams though? Green Bay is definitely more talented today than they were before McCarthy. A lot of that credit goes to Thompson, but McCarthy and his staff have obviously done a great job of coaching the talent out of their players. Sure he's a poor game day coach, but that's only a part of coaching.Childress is part of the so called "triangle of authority" in Minnesota and he certainly doesn't deserve all the credit for the Vikings' talented roster, but it was written into his contract that he had the final say on drafts and free agents. So, he deserves quite a bit of the credit IMO. Anyone around the Vikings during the Tice era could tell you how lacking in talent that team was. I would've put them around the 8th or 9th worst talented team in the league at the time and that would be with a homer bias. Now, most people would put them among the most talented teams in the league after only 4 years of Childress as a coach.Sure, you have to expect them to do something with that talent and I'm sure it's expected of both of them. Dungy built a talented team in Tampa, but was fired because they never realized their potential and Gruden took that team to a title immediately upon his arrival. Mangini (gasp) put a lot of talented building blocks in place in NY and Rex is the benefactor of that now. So I have no doubt they'll be expected to go deep into the playoffs with their teams' respective talents, but give both of them credit for putting together a group of talented guys. I'm sure fans in Oakland, Detroit, and Cleveland will be more than willing to tell you that this isn't always easy to do.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

This may be the wrong thread to attempt a meaningful discussion on the topic, but I wonder on what basis the wise posters of this forum purport to be able to judge the job an NFL coach is doing (other than just looking at the W-L record over a number of years, which I think is the only meaningful metric)? Most of us have not ever attended a single, full NFL practice, much less an entire training camp and season's worth of practice sessions, never taken part in a single coaches meeting, never viewed a minute of game film (the lifeblood of an NFL coach), seen a gameplan, stood on the sidelines during a game, etc., etc. On what basis do any of us purport to say an NFL coach is good or bad?

As for McCarthy, his accomplishments this season were truly amazing in many respects. As an offensive-minded head coach (largely ceding defensive duties to Dom Capers), McCarthy directed an offense that scored the most points in the entire history of the Packers franchise. His offense in 2009 is the only in NFL history to have a 4,000 yard passer, two 1,000 yard receivers and a 1,200 yard rusher. Every single Packer practice (OTAs, training camp and all season long) has a period devoted entirely to ball security - protecting the ball on offense and stripping it on defense. His emphasis on protecting the ball has paid huge dividends as the Packers led the NFL in turnover differential by a huge margin (+24, 9 better than the next best team; they had only one rushing fumble by a RB all year.) In his second season as a starter, Aaron Rodgers had more yards and a higher passer rating this year than Brett Favre ever had in his entire 16 year career in Green Bay. Rodgers third down passer rating of 133+ was the highest in the NFL in 10 years.

His special teams have been terrible for three seasons, which in my opinion is the most important criticism of McCarthy's time in Green Bay. Kicking, coverage, punting - all have cost them games over the past two seasons. He professes to not be concerned regarding the large numbers of penalties, but they have clearly cost him some games. He's had double-digit wins in two of his three seasons, but has also lost twice in the playoffs as a favorite - two devastating losses.

As for Childress, he strikes me as a weenie, but he has obviously done well, winning the NFC North twice in a row and today has a great shot at playing in a superbowl. How can anyone criticize that performance?

For those who would criticize these coaches, or identify them as no better than average while looking around the league, I would ask on what basis you make that judgement?

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

McCarthy never woulda ran up the score on the Cowboys like that.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

They are both equal meat heads. Don't over analyze their propensity to be meat heads. They will both be replaced sooner rather than later.

This. Frankly I think both have flourished in large part to how weak the NFC has been. Both are probably in the bottom half of coaches in the league if not lower.I'd take McCarty in a heartbeat over Childress (who frankly lucked into not being on the hotseat with the somewhat lucky Favre situation. If Sanchez doesn't fall to the Jets, the vikes probably aren't in the playoffs.

 

[Mr.Pack]

McCarthy never woulda ran up the score on the Cowboys like that.

Childress would never had the chance if not for Brent.And don't you mean between coach Faver and McCarthy? Brent is really running the show there, we all know this.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Childress is still one of the worst coaches in the NFL.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Update: McCarthy wins.

 

[Sabertooth]

Both are better Xs and Os guys than motivators. Neither are all that great at game calling.

 

[brett4pack]

I was completely baffled until I realized this was a poll from 2009...

 

[trader jake]

Can we get a recount?