Packers next Head Coach.. (1 Viewer)

[MrPack]

Getting into this thread a little late, but can somebody explain why all the love for Jim Bates? Why are people so dissappointed in the hiring of McCarthy because they should have hired Bates?

Bates did a very nice job with the defense this year. I think the speculation when he was brought in was that if Sherman was let go the job was his for the taking.I'm sure he is very dissapointed he didn't get the job, but I fail to see why it's a forgone conclusion he is going to leave. He's not going to get a HC job, so why not stick around another year and build on what he did this year and maybe be a hot commodity next year?

Or if the DEF gets even better, MAYBE he could land a deal like Gregg Williams just got.

 

[trader jake]

this move signals a few things to me:

1) the packers are/were in full rebuilding mode. you don't bring in a first time head coach if your strategy is to play for winning NOW

2) keeping the west coast offense could bring brett favre back for one more year, but if he elects to retire mike mccarthy is the perfect coach to work with aaron rodgers. he has worked with numerous QB's including brett favre in 99', joe montana, elvis grbac, matt hasselbeck, aaron brooks, jake delhomme, and just last year with alex smith. mccarthy's west coast offense plays to aaron rodgers strengths and (we all love brett, but) that's the single most important item for the packers to be successful over the next five years

3) from what i read mccarthy is a no non-sense, speak his mind, tough minded coach. imo that's exactly what the packers need and he's the type of leader that will work well in green bay

4) jim bates is gonzo. he got passed up in miami last year for saban and bolted...he'll do the same thing here. he has to be pissed that he didn't get the head coaching gig and he will move on to be a defensive coordinator elsewhere. i wouldn't be surprised if wade phillips (now with the chargers) comes over and runs the show on defense. he interviewed with thompson last week, but he's not really a head coaching kind of guy at this point. that raised some red flags to me that bates wasn't going to get the gig...it may have just been an interview to see if he could 'play nice' with mccarthy and if he was interested in coming over to the packers. again, this is just speculation on my part

5) the packers (with or without favre) are unlikely to make the playoffs next season. young head coaches with young players usually doesn't equal a playoff berth. especially when...

6) the huge amount of salary cap space is unlikely to be used this offseason. i'm sure that thompson will address a need or two through free-agency (depending on what they like in this years draft) but there won't be a huge splash with multiple stars being wooed to the pack. instead we'll see thompson lock up a younger player or two for the long haul and use the draft to build the team moving forward

7) the packers will not stay at #5 and make their 1st round selection. again, thompson's move indicates "long haul" to me and since that is the case he will move down in the draft to stock pile draft selections (adding a 2nd rounder or a few later picks). [speculation] the packers are rumored to be interested in USC RB lendale white and a few other players that are expected to go anywhere from #10 to #20 overall. these players make a lot more sense for the packers to select after moving down

8) you can wave bye bye to almost all of the packers who had their contract expire at the end of this season. the list:

Green Bay: C Mike Flanagan; FB William Henderon; G Grey Ruegamer; OT Kevin Barry; QB Craig Nall; RB Tony Fisher; DE Aaron Kampman; DT Grady Jackson; DE Kenny Peterson (RFA); LB Paris Lenon; K Ryan Longwell; LS Rob Davis; RB Najeh Davenport; RB Ahman Green; S Earl Little.

maybe a few of these guys will be retained - i'll say mike flanagan, william henderson, aaron kampman, grey ruegamer, and one of the running backs (if thompson elects to not go RB in round 1)9) fans will ##### and moan this entire off-season about how little ted thompson is doing to get better...not taking into account that the packers are not being built to win in 2006. just like when mike holmgren got the head job in green bay...and just like when he got the head job in seattle. ted thompson helped turn that roster around with the seahawks and look where they are now. give this some thought before you jump down ted thompson's throat or go crazy because the head coach isn't a "name" guy. he just has to be the name guy for green bay

i, for one, like the hiring of mike mccarthy as head coach of the packers

 

[KingPrawn]

I like Bates as a defensive coordinator but I don't see why people are dissappointed he didn't get the head coaching job. To use other peoples arguments that they have against McCarthy, Bates wasn't exactly in high demand by other teams either. I haven't heard of one interview that he had for a head coaching position. And yet this is held against McCarthy.And I think the defense made good strides statistically last year under Bates. My question is, was this because of Bates or because of the weak offenses and QBs they faced? They faced such QBs as Harrington, Garcia, Orton, Boller, Brooks, Brad Johnson, Charlie Batch, etc. It's hard not to look good statistically against that group.

 

[KingPrawn]

this move signals a few things to me:

1) the packers are/were in full rebuilding mode. you don't bring in a first time head coach if your strategy is to play for winning NOW

2) keeping the west coast offense could bring brett favre back for one more year, but if he elects to retire mike mccarthy is the perfect coach to work with aaron rodgers. he has worked with numerous QB's including brett favre in 99', joe montana, elvis grbac, matt hasselbeck, aaron brooks, jake delhomme, and just last year with alex smith. mccarthy's west coast offense plays to aaron rodgers strengths and (we all love brett, but) that's the single most important item for the packers to be successful over the next five years

3) from what i read mccarthy is a no non-sense, speak his mind, tough minded coach. imo that's exactly what the packers need and he's the type of leader that will work well in green bay

4) jim bates is gonzo. he got passed up in miami last year for saban and bolted...he'll do the same thing here. he has to be pissed that he didn't get the head coaching gig and he will move on to be a defensive coordinator elsewhere. i wouldn't be surprised if wade phillips (now with the chargers) comes over and runs the show on defense. he interviewed with thompson last week, but he's not really a head coaching kind of guy at this point. that raised some red flags to me that bates wasn't going to get the gig...it may have just been an interview to see if he could 'play nice' with mccarthy and if he was interested in coming over to the packers. again, this is just speculation on my part

5) the packers (with or without favre) are unlikely to make the playoffs next season. young head coaches with young players usually doesn't equal a playoff berth. especially when...

6) the huge amount of salary cap space is unlikely to be used this offseason. i'm sure that thompson will address a need or two through free-agency (depending on what they like in this years draft) but there won't be a huge splash with multiple stars being wooed to the pack. instead we'll see thompson lock up a younger player or two for the long haul and use the draft to build the team moving forward

7) the packers will not stay at #5 and make their 1st round selection. again, thompson's move indicates "long haul" to me and since that is the case he will move down in the draft to stock pile draft selections (adding a 2nd rounder or a few later picks). [speculation] the packers are rumored to be interested in USC RB lendale white and a few other players that are expected to go anywhere from #10 to #20 overall. these players make a lot more sense for the packers to select after moving down

8) you can wave bye bye to almost all of the packers who had their contract expire at the end of this season. the list:

Green Bay: C Mike Flanagan; FB William Henderon; G Grey Ruegamer; OT Kevin Barry; QB Craig Nall; RB Tony Fisher; DE Aaron Kampman; DT Grady Jackson; DE Kenny Peterson (RFA); LB Paris Lenon; K Ryan Longwell; LS Rob Davis; RB Najeh Davenport; RB Ahman Green; S Earl Little.

maybe a few of these guys will be retained - i'll say mike flanagan, william henderson, aaron kampman, grey ruegamer, and one of the running backs (if thompson elects to not go RB in round 1)9) fans will ##### and moan this entire off-season about how little ted thompson is doing to get better...not taking into account that the packers are not being built to win in 2006. just like when mike holmgren got the head job in green bay...and just like when he got the head job in seattle. ted thompson helped turn that roster around with the seahawks and look where they are now. give this some thought before you jump down ted thompson's throat or go crazy because the head coach isn't a "name" guy. he just has to be the name guy for green bay

i, for one, like the hiring of mike mccarthy as head coach of the packers

and,

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

What a bad hire.  The 9'ers offense was one of the worst in NFL history last year.  Good luck all GB fans.  

So you want to base the hire just on what he did last year?

Why not - they fired just on this year.

If you believe this, you have no clue what you're talking about.

I see. Well I do believe that so perhaps you could help with the clues then. Do you think if Sherman had a winning record this year (for the sixth straight year) he would have still been fired?

More than likely not. Depends on the record.You really think they fired him based on one year? Not even remotely close to the truth. Read the Mike Sherman was fired thread for your answers.

Here's a synopsis: He choked in big games, wasn't a good game coach, made poor game decisions. Couldn't win the big game.

Those are your basic reasons. This season was rife with injuries and had no bearing on why he was fired.

Thanks for helping me out. I just hate being clueless.It just seems strange to say that if he had another winning season he probably would not have been fired - and then say this season was rife with injuries and had no bearing on why he was fired.

 

[WIFANBOY]

this move signals a few things to me:

1) the packers are/were in full rebuilding mode. you don't bring in a first time head coach if your strategy is to play for winning NOW

So when they described the process as reloading and not rebuilding in todays press conference, they were lying?

 

[trader jake]

this move signals a few things to me:

1) the packers are/were in full rebuilding mode. you don't bring in a first time head coach if your strategy is to play for winning NOW

So when they described the process as reloading and not rebuilding in todays press conference, they were lying?

semanticsthe second ted thompson took over as gm he decided to rebuild/reload/rewhatever

 

[Tony Jabroni]

[/i

this move signals a few things to me:

1) the packers are/were in full rebuilding mode.  you don't bring in a first time head coach if your strategy is to play for winning NOW

2) keeping the west coast offense could bring brett favre back for one more year, but if he elects to retire mike mccarthy is the perfect coach to work with aaron rodgers.  he has worked with numerous QB's including brett favre in 99', joe montana, elvis grbac, matt hasselbeck, aaron brooks, jake delhomme, and just last year with alex smith.  mccarthy's west coast offense plays to aaron rodgers strengths and (we all love brett, but) that's the single most important item for the packers to be successful over the next five years

3) from what i read mccarthy is a no non-sense, speak his mind, tough minded coach.  imo that's exactly what the packers need and he's the type of leader that will work well in green bay

4) jim bates is gonzo.  he got passed up in miami last year for saban and bolted...he'll do the same thing here.  he has to be pissed that he didn't get the head coaching gig and he will move on to be a defensive coordinator elsewhere.  i wouldn't be surprised if wade phillips (now with the chargers) comes over and runs the show on defense.  he interviewed with thompson last week, but he's not really a head coaching kind of guy at this point.  that raised some red flags to me that bates wasn't going to get the gig...it may have just been an interview to see if he could 'play nice' with mccarthy and if he was interested in coming over to the packers.  again, this is just speculation on my part

5) the packers (with or without favre) are unlikely to make the playoffs next season.  young head coaches with young players usually doesn't equal a playoff berth.  especially when...

6) the huge amount of salary cap space is unlikely to be used this offseason.  i'm sure that thompson will address a need or two through free-agency (depending on what they like in this years draft) but there won't be a huge splash with multiple stars being wooed to the pack.  instead we'll see thompson lock up a younger player or two for the long haul and use the draft to build the team moving forward

7) the packers will not stay at #5 and make their 1st round selection.  again, thompson's move indicates "long haul" to me and since that is the case he will move down in the draft to stock pile draft selections (adding a 2nd rounder or a few later picks).  [speculation] the packers are rumored to be interested in USC RB lendale white and a few other players that are expected to go anywhere from #10 to #20 overall.  these players make a lot more sense for the packers to select after moving down

8) you can wave bye bye to almost all of the packers who had their contract expire at the end of this season.  the list:

Green Bay: C Mike Flanagan; FB William Henderon; G Grey Ruegamer; OT Kevin Barry; QB Craig Nall; RB Tony Fisher; DE Aaron Kampman; DT Grady Jackson; DE Kenny Peterson (RFA); LB Paris Lenon; K Ryan Longwell; LS Rob Davis; RB Najeh Davenport; RB Ahman Green; S Earl Little.

maybe a few of these guys will be retained - i'll say mike flanagan, william henderson, aaron kampman, grey ruegamer, and one of the running backs (if thompson elects to not go RB in round 1)9) fans will ##### and moan this entire off-season about how little ted thompson is doing to get better...not taking into account that the packers are not being built to win in 2006. just like when mike holmgren got the head job in green bay...and just like when he got the head job in seattle. ted thompson helped turn that roster around with the seahawks and look where they are now. give this some thought before you jump down ted thompson's throat or go crazy because the head coach isn't a "name" guy. he just has to be the name guy for green bay

i, for one, like the hiring of mike mccarthy as head coach of the packers

and,

I am not as eloquent as others participating in this thread but:

After 24 hrs to soak in I am still content with the hire.

1.Barring Mooch, this is a coach that could sway #4 to return. Good enough for me. (For those that think #4 is a liability and can't compete at an NFL level anymore, I like good herb too, so puff-puff-pass).

2.McCarthy is a QB tutor first and foremost. With Rodgers waiting in the wings, this was a hire that could soften the blow of #4 retiring. Hot topic round town is MM wanted Rodgers with the #1 pick this past draft, hence, an eagerness to move on. Take this with a grain of salt, people.

3.IF he can retain Jim Bates as DC, this is nothing but gravy for GBP fans.

Let's take a look at the upcoming offseason:

--Javon Walker returning to the team is like an extra 1st Rd draft pick.

--We have 15+ million to work with in FA. (Approximately 28+ if #4 retires) We have never had such an amount of money to work with, ever. Granted, TT is a 'tightwad' but this doesn't hurt future endeavors.

--A young, hungry, defense. (Once again, IF Bates is kept, I see no reason why this unit cannot improve on the showing of this year.) AND Kampman will be re-signed. I'll bet my left testicle...

--A high draft pick that can be used to pay IMMEDIATE dividends for the 1st time in over a decade. I will also echo earlier statements that TT's 1st draft was a success. (The Sporting News is already touting S Nick Collins as a future Pro-Bowl player)

I may be a blind, drooling, homer but the future of the Green and Gold Warriors is not as bleak as some suggest, haters.....

Edited to add:I'd like to see them keep Craig Nall

 

[MrPack]

What a bad hire.  The 9'ers offense was one of the worst in NFL history last year.  Good luck all GB fans.  

So you want to base the hire just on what he did last year?

Why not - they fired just on this year.

If you believe this, you have no clue what you're talking about.

I see. Well I do believe that so perhaps you could help with the clues then. Do you think if Sherman had a winning record this year (for the sixth straight year) he would have still been fired?

More than likely not. Depends on the record.You really think they fired him based on one year? Not even remotely close to the truth. Read the Mike Sherman was fired thread for your answers.

Here's a synopsis: He choked in big games, wasn't a good game coach, made poor game decisions. Couldn't win the big game.

Those are your basic reasons. This season was rife with injuries and had no bearing on why he was fired.

Thanks for helping me out. I just hate being clueless.It just seems strange to say that if he had another winning season he probably would not have been fired - and then say this season was rife with injuries and had no bearing on why he was fired.

Hey, believe what you want. Whatever floats your boat skippy.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

What a bad hire.  The 9'ers offense was one of the worst in NFL history last year.  Good luck all GB fans.  

So you want to base the hire just on what he did last year?

Why not - they fired just on this year.

If you believe this, you have no clue what you're talking about.

I see. Well I do believe that so perhaps you could help with the clues then. Do you think if Sherman had a winning record this year (for the sixth straight year) he would have still been fired?

More than likely not. Depends on the record.You really think they fired him based on one year? Not even remotely close to the truth. Read the Mike Sherman was fired thread for your answers.

Here's a synopsis: He choked in big games, wasn't a good game coach, made poor game decisions. Couldn't win the big game.

Those are your basic reasons. This season was rife with injuries and had no bearing on why he was fired.

Thanks for helping me out. I just hate being clueless.It just seems strange to say that if he had another winning season he probably would not have been fired - and then say this season was rife with injuries and had no bearing on why he was fired.

This is an interesting cut from JSOnline today. It's another example of Sherman not getting along with his assistants(which is one reason he was let go)."According to an NFL source, Atlanta offensive line coach Jeff Jagodzinski, a West Allis native and Packers assistant from 1999-2003, appears to be the leading candidate to run McCarthy's offense. McCarthy indicated that he would probably call plays next year, but in Jagodzinski the new Packers coach would have someone capable of designing the running game and integrating the tight ends into the offense.

Jagodzinski was fired from Mike Sherman's staff after the 2003 season allegedly because of a personality conflict with the head coach. Team sources have said Jagodzinski, the tight ends coach, often challenged Sherman and offensive coordinator Tom Rossley on their game-planning and became a nuisance to the head coach."

I'm glad some assistants were trying to call Sherman and Rossley out for their predictable play calling.

 

[sho nuff]

I'm really not sold on this hiring, but I'm also not ready to cast McCarthy into the depths of head coach hell yet either

This may have been mentioned in this thread already but one interesting point my boss brought up as we were talking about it this morning was that possibly McCarthy is just a transition guy. Face it, the Packers are in (or ready to begin) a rebuilding phase. Possibly he wanted to throw someone in the driver seat until the majority of the pieces are in place and then in 2 years or so will bring in his 'big name' coach. Thoughts?

Thoughts...I think that is ridiculous....for several reasons...while the Packers may be "rebuilding"...they already have alot of youth...a good cap number...now a good draft pick...a QB preparing to begin his NFL career as well.And Thompson cannot afford to wait for a few years to have success...or he will be out of a job as well.

 

[sho nuff]

Adam Shefter reporting that "One of the reasons that they went for him is that he is very close with Brett Favre, as close as Brett Favre can be with a coach....They speak once a week....And now there are a lot of people around the league who expect Brett Favre to return now because McCarthy is the coach...."

Just now on NFL Total Access.

This is pure speculation to stir up talk...nothing more.If Thompson wanted to do that it would have been Mooch...or even to keep others happy...Bates.

Instead he did his job, which is not to make the fans and press happy, and got the guy he wanted.

 

[sho nuff]

Adam Shefter reporting that "One of the reasons that they went for him is that he is very close with Brett Favre, as close as Brett Favre can be with a coach....They speak once a week....And now there are a lot of people around the league who expect Brett Favre to return now because McCarthy is the coach...."

Just now on NFL Total Access.

Horrible hire. How long do you think Brett is going to play? And you're that desperate to have him back next year? I'd be pissed if I was a Packer fan.

Thankfully you are not with insight like that.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Adam Shefter reporting that "One of the reasons that they went for him is that he is very close with Brett Favre, as close as Brett Favre can be with a coach....They speak once a week....And now there are a lot of people around the league who expect Brett Favre to return now because McCarthy is the coach...."

Just now on NFL Total Access.

Horrible hire. How long do you think Brett is going to play? And you're that desperate to have him back next year? I'd be pissed if I was a Packer fan.

Thankfully you are not with insight like that.

I love to root against them though, so I'm pretty happy right now.

 

[sho nuff]

Adam Shefter reporting that "One of the reasons that they went for him is that he is very close with Brett Favre, as close as Brett Favre can be with a coach....They speak once a week....And now there are a lot of people around the league who expect Brett Favre to return now because McCarthy is the coach...."

Just now on NFL Total Access.

Horrible hire. How long do you think Brett is going to play? And you're that desperate to have him back next year? I'd be pissed if I was a Packer fan.

Thankfully you are not with insight like that.

I love to root against them though, so I'm pretty happy right now.

Course you are...probably basing it all on his one year in San Fran too.Luckily, our fan base is a bit more educated than that and does not just jump off of a bridge because a guy on a first year coaching staff inheriting a team that went 2-14 the year before with a rookie QB and little to no talent on offense....you get the picture...

 

[packersfan]

this move signals a few things to me:

1) the packers are/were in full rebuilding mode. you don't bring in a first time head coach if your strategy is to play for winning NOW

I don't think that would be any different regardless of who the new head coach was. First off, most of the top candidates would have been first-time head coaches so McCarthy is hardly unique in that respect. Secondly, and more importantly, the Packers are devoid of much talent and depth thanks to Sherman's inept work as a GM so they clearly need a massive infusion of talented players. An overhaul was going to happen no matter who the head coach was.

2) keeping the west coast offense could bring brett favre back for one more year, but if he elects to retire mike mccarthy is the perfect coach to work with aaron rodgers. he has worked with numerous QB's including brett favre in 99', joe montana, elvis grbac, matt hasselbeck, aaron brooks, jake delhomme, and just last year with alex smith. mccarthy's west coast offense plays to aaron rodgers strengths and (we all love brett, but) that's the single most important item for the packers to be successful over the next five years

That's the plan. It's debatable how much influence McCarthy had on many of the QBs listed above but that's certainly the selling point -- his ability to be a good developer of QBs.

3) from what i read mccarthy is a no non-sense, speak his mind, tough minded coach. imo that's exactly what the packers need and he's the type of leader that will work well in green bay

Agreed. However, I don't know too many head coaches who come in saying they're going to be soft and be pushovers and allow the players to walk all over them.

4) jim bates is gonzo. he got passed up in miami last year for saban and bolted...he'll do the same thing here. he has to be pissed that he didn't get the head coaching gig and he will move on to be a defensive coordinator elsewhere. i wouldn't be surprised if wade phillips (now with the chargers) comes over and runs the show on defense. he interviewed with thompson last week, but he's not really a head coaching kind of guy at this point. that raised some red flags to me that bates wasn't going to get the gig...it may have just been an interview to see if he could 'play nice' with mccarthy and if he was interested in coming over to the packers. again, this is just speculation on my part

I never believed Bates should get the head coaching job. I have zero problems with how the situation played out in that regard. He's an incredible defensive coordinator but I don't believe the Packers should have hired a 60-year-old first-time (essentially) head coach. That said, McCarthy's replacement for Bates (and I agree he's gone) may be his most significant hire. Bates was an outstanding coordinator and did a superb job of molding a large amount of crap into an improved defensive unit. And given the inherent problems that will exist should Rodgers take over at QB the Packers MUST have a solid (at worst) defense going forward. That's their best recipe for success with a young QB who is going to struggle. So McCarthy can't afford to screw that hire up.

5) the packers (with or without favre) are unlikely to make the playoffs next season. young head coaches with young players usually doesn't equal a playoff berth. especially when...

I agree with that although the division is still a weak one with only one above-average team and that's a team with major offensive questions so really anything can happen. But I don't think the playoffs are something Packer fans should hope for in 2006.

6) the huge amount of salary cap space is unlikely to be used this offseason. i'm sure that thompson will address a need or two through free-agency (depending on what they like in this years draft) but there won't be a huge splash with multiple stars being wooed to the pack. instead we'll see thompson lock up a younger player or two for the long haul and use the draft to build the team moving forward

I fear this will be the case and I fear the ramifications. I do not need to see Thompson make a huge splash in free agency but with only 5 draft picks and the massive amount of talent that needs to be added I believe he MUST acquire as much talent as possible through free agency. The Packers are not in a position to do much through the draft with what they have right now so unless Thompson is able to turn 5 picks into several more (which is certainly possible) I believe he needs to augment the draft with strong free-agent pickups. But given Thompson's loathing of free agency he may not go that route. That money's no good if it just sits there.

7) the packers will not stay at #5 and make their 1st round selection. again, thompson's move indicates "long haul" to me and since that is the case he will move down in the draft to stock pile draft selections (adding a 2nd rounder or a few later picks). [speculation] the packers are rumored to be interested in USC RB lendale white and a few other players that are expected to go anywhere from #10 to #20 overall. these players make a lot more sense for the packers to select after moving down

I've been advocating trading down for months. With only 5 picks I think that's the route Thompson should go if he's able to get a good offer for the pick.

8) you can wave bye bye to almost all of the packers who had their contract expire at the end of this season. the list:

Green Bay: C Mike Flanagan; FB William Henderon; G Grey Ruegamer; OT Kevin Barry; QB Craig Nall; RB Tony Fisher; DE Aaron Kampman; DT Grady Jackson; DE Kenny Peterson (RFA); LB Paris Lenon; K Ryan Longwell; LS Rob Davis; RB Najeh Davenport; RB Ahman Green; S Earl Little.

maybe a few of these guys will be retained - i'll say mike flanagan, william henderson, aaron kampman, grey ruegamer, and one of the running backs (if thompson elects to not go RB in round 1)

I'd agree on all counts there.

9) fans will ##### and moan this entire off-season about how little ted thompson is doing to get better...not taking into account that the packers are not being built to win in 2006. just like when mike holmgren got the head job in green bay...and just like when he got the head job in seattle. ted thompson helped turn that roster around with the seahawks and look where they are now. give this some thought before you jump down ted thompson's throat or go crazy because the head coach isn't a "name" guy. he just has to be the name guy for green bay

Packer fans have every right to have high expectations for an organization that has proven to be a playoff team for most of the last 13 years. That's the situation Thompson walked into with his eyes wide open so I'm not going to cut him any slack on that count. What I want to see him do is improve the talent base and depth and improve the team in 2006. Again, I'm not expecting a playoff berth but I do expect to see improvement and I don't believe that's too much to ask for. After a 4-12 season it should be demanded.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Adam Shefter reporting that "One of the reasons that they went for him is that he is very close with Brett Favre, as close as Brett Favre can be with a coach....They speak once a week....And now there are a lot of people around the league who expect Brett Favre to return now because McCarthy is the coach...."

Just now on NFL Total Access.

Horrible hire. How long do you think Brett is going to play? And you're that desperate to have him back next year? I'd be pissed if I was a Packer fan.

Thankfully you are not with insight like that.

I love to root against them though, so I'm pretty happy right now.

Course you are...probably basing it all on his one year in San Fran too.Luckily, our fan base is a bit more educated than that and does not just jump off of a bridge because a guy on a first year coaching staff inheriting a team that went 2-14 the year before with a rookie QB and little to no talent on offense....you get the picture...

I've met your fan base and I'm not sure educated is the word I'd use.... Hey good luck with him. Coaches have to start somewhere. But I think you're being a bit of a blind homer if you don't think that maybe this was done to intice Favre to stick around and that is likely a poor idea unless he was truly the best candidate for the job.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Adam Shefter reporting that "One of the reasons that they went for him is that he is very close with Brett Favre, as close as Brett Favre can be with a coach....They speak once a week....And now there are a lot of people around the league who expect Brett Favre to return now because McCarthy is the coach...."

Just now on NFL Total Access.

Horrible hire. How long do you think Brett is going to play? And you're that desperate to have him back next year? I'd be pissed if I was a Packer fan.

Thankfully you are not with insight like that.

I love to root against them though, so I'm pretty happy right now.

Course you are...probably basing it all on his one year in San Fran too.Luckily, our fan base is a bit more educated than that and does not just jump off of a bridge because a guy on a first year coaching staff inheriting a team that went 2-14 the year before with a rookie QB and little to no talent on offense....you get the picture...

I've met your fan base and I'm not sure educated is the word I'd use.... Hey good luck with him. Coaches have to start somewhere. But I think you're being a bit of a blind homer if you don't think that maybe this was done to intice Favre to stick around and that is likely a poor idea unless he was truly the best candidate for the job.

And you're bing a bit of a blind hater.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Adam Shefter reporting that "One of the reasons that they went for him is that he is very close with Brett Favre, as close as Brett Favre can be with a coach....They speak once a week....And now there are a lot of people around the league who expect Brett Favre to return now because McCarthy is the coach...."

Just now on NFL Total Access.

Horrible hire. How long do you think Brett is going to play? And you're that desperate to have him back next year? I'd be pissed if I was a Packer fan.

Thankfully you are not with insight like that.

I love to root against them though, so I'm pretty happy right now.

Course you are...probably basing it all on his one year in San Fran too.Luckily, our fan base is a bit more educated than that and does not just jump off of a bridge because a guy on a first year coaching staff inheriting a team that went 2-14 the year before with a rookie QB and little to no talent on offense....you get the picture...

I've met your fan base and I'm not sure educated is the word I'd use.... Hey good luck with him. Coaches have to start somewhere. But I think you're being a bit of a blind homer if you don't think that maybe this was done to intice Favre to stick around and that is likely a poor idea unless he was truly the best candidate for the job.

And you're bing a bit of a blind hater.

Never heard that phrase used before.

 

[sho nuff]

I've met your fan base and I'm not sure educated is the word I'd use....

Hey good luck with him. Coaches have to start somewhere. But I think you're being a bit of a blind homer if you don't think that maybe this was done to intice Favre to stick around and that is likely a poor idea unless he was truly the best candidate for the job.

From what I have seen of Thompson so far...his last thought is what will please Favre...if he wanted to keep Favre he would have kept Sherman first...if not, he would have hired Mooch. Thompson wanted his guy and did not care what fans thought of it...Does not take a homer to realize that there were things Bates could have done to really entice Favre...this was not really one of them.

 

[MrPack]

Adam Shefter reporting that "One of the reasons that they went for him is that he is very close with Brett Favre, as close as Brett Favre can be with a coach....They speak once a week....And now there are a lot of people around the league who expect Brett Favre to return now because McCarthy is the coach...."

Just now on NFL Total Access.

Horrible hire. How long do you think Brett is going to play? And you're that desperate to have him back next year? I'd be pissed if I was a Packer fan.

Thankfully you are not with insight like that.

I love to root against them though, so I'm pretty happy right now.

Why? What do you know that Ted Thompson, Marty Schottenheimer, Mike Nolan, and Joe Horn don't?

Please, enlighten us.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've met your fan base and I'm not sure educated is the word I'd use....

Hey good luck with him. Coaches have to start somewhere. But I think you're being a bit of a blind homer if you don't think that maybe this was done to intice Favre to stick around and that is likely a poor idea unless he was truly the best candidate for the job.

From what I have seen of Thompson so far...his last thought is what will please Favre...if he wanted to keep Favre he would have kept Sherman first...if not, he would have hired Mooch. Thompson wanted his guy and did not care what fans thought of it...Does not take a homer to realize that there were things Bates could have done to really entice Favre...this was not really one of them.

Good luck with him. Been through this twice recently, and about to again, as a Bills fan. Gregg Williams? And was Pittsburgh's offense really that impressive under Mularkey? Hope it works out better for you guys than it has so far for us.

 

[sho nuff]

I've met your fan base and I'm not sure educated is the word I'd use....

Hey good luck with him. Coaches have to start somewhere. But I think you're being a bit of a blind homer if you don't think that maybe this was done to intice Favre to stick around and that is likely a poor idea unless he was truly the best candidate for the job.

From what I have seen of Thompson so far...his last thought is what will please Favre...if he wanted to keep Favre he would have kept Sherman first...if not, he would have hired Mooch. Thompson wanted his guy and did not care what fans thought of it...Does not take a homer to realize that there were things Bates could have done to really entice Favre...this was not really one of them.

Good luck with him. Been through this twice recently, and about to again, as a Bills fan. Gregg Williams? And was Pittsburgh's offense really that impressive under Mularkey? Hope it works out better for you guys than it has so far for us.

Yes...the same Gregg Williams whose defenses in TN were very good and in Washington are very good...and the guy who will coach when Gibbs retires.Might want to look at other things in the Bills organization besides just the HC.

Though I do not think Williams was ready yet to be an HC.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've met your fan base and I'm not sure educated is the word I'd use....

Hey good luck with him. Coaches have to start somewhere. But I think you're being a bit of a blind homer if you don't think that maybe this was done to intice Favre to stick around and that is likely a poor idea unless he was truly the best candidate for the job.

From what I have seen of Thompson so far...his last thought is what will please Favre...if he wanted to keep Favre he would have kept Sherman first...if not, he would have hired Mooch. Thompson wanted his guy and did not care what fans thought of it...Does not take a homer to realize that there were things Bates could have done to really entice Favre...this was not really one of them.

Good luck with him. Been through this twice recently, and about to again, as a Bills fan. Gregg Williams? And was Pittsburgh's offense really that impressive under Mularkey? Hope it works out better for you guys than it has so far for us.

Yes...the same Gregg Williams whose defenses in TN were very good and in Washington are very good...and the guy who will coach when Gibbs retires.Might want to look at other things in the Bills organization besides just the HC.

Though I do not think Williams was ready yet to be an HC.

Well that was my point. He was not at all ready to be a head coach. You're right that in hindsight we can see that maybe the fault should go more with the GM. Of course, you guys might be saying that in a couple of years as well.

 

[trader jake]

packersfan,when you take the time to write out a long post it makes it all worth it when you read a well-written, well thought out reply - the law 09