Comments on Tundra Vision: McCarthy Plays To His Strengths Again...Just In Ti...

Also, there was some mini discussion of "qual...

2009-11-28T11:10:51.264-06:00

Also, there was some mini discussion of "quality opponent". The definition of quality opponent will always be a bit nebulous. The definition of "quality win" as against a team with a winning record is practical but it is circular too because each team's win/loss record is dependent on the "quality" of opponent they played. A middle of the road team may be defined as "quality" three games into the season when two of their wins were against the Browns and Lions, and I think the 49'ers have played some very good teams - Cards, Vikings, Texans, Colts. All this to say that "quality" win is pretty relative and though for the team, it is wins and losses that count and there are no moral victories (close games lost are losses too) I would disagree with anonymous about the 49'ers not because they are that great a team wins v losses but on a relative scale. Our team needed badly to put together a couple good performances in a row and in particular, protect the qb. We needed to show that our offense had a new identity, not just that we played one game running slants and screens and sticking with the ground game. The 49'ers are great against the run and though they don't get a lot of sacks (tied for 12th I think) they do get pressure and so to our offense, this was a quality opponent, not the best, but not terrible. They lost to the Colts by 4. This team was one dropped INT away from beating the Vikings (the Brett Favre TD would never have happened). Now, our defense against their offense, yes, they don't have a great qb, but Vernon Davis was (not sure if he still is) the TE scoring the most TD's in the league and Gore is another quality running back so they presented challenges that way as we saw later on in the game when we were playing softer D. So though C.D. you, didn't include them as quality, I do based on the matchups they presented to us and the timing of the game. We will certainly face much tougher foes and will have to come away with wins against upper eschelon teams if we ever expect to be considered one ourselves which is another case for the relativity. We are 7-4 and most fans are still questioning whether we are a "quality" team or not when our record and standing in the Wildcard race clearly state that we are.

This is a great post on the other strength of coac...

2009-11-28T10:26:01.185-06:00

This is a great post on the other strength of coach McC. He has always been very organized and hits his "targets" but you bring up another strength that he is creative. Creativity motivates players...there was excitement about the "big five" players were talking about it and for the most part, I liked it (except when it was third and goal on the one yard line). You are also right that wins (though money is also a factor) will determine whether he keeps his job. I am still skeptical but if McC keeps A-Rod on his feet, we will be scoring over twenty a game. This will make a big difference since even with Woodson, our D will struggle to keep up against teams like Saints or Vikings who have QB's playing at a high level AND a deeper group of wideouts. McCarthy still has a lot to prove to me, but you are completely right that when a coach gets a team three wins in a row when their backs are against the wall, they need to get props. I think your post alluded to the mystery that is still looming over this whole scenario..."Why did it take so long to figure out what worked?" Everybody else knew it and the fact that we have no solid answer to that question leads one to wonder if we can be sure of what offense we will see in the future.

IPB: It was because of the 5 wide set that Rodgers...

2009-11-27T10:37:15.179-06:00

IPB: It was because of the 5 wide set that Rodgers was sacked, the first play of the 4th quarter.

Also, in this game, they went 5 wide and Rodgers was sacked, too, but because Clifton stood still expecting the tooth fairy to give him some money or something...

Now, I don't remember exactly if it was 4 wide with a TE or 5 wide per say, but it was definitely an empty backfield, with only the OL protecting...

I'll take it that the 5-wideout set comment is...

2009-11-26T08:50:46.713-06:00

I'll take it that the 5-wideout set comment is directed at myself.

In 2008, we did lose James Jones almost right away, and then MAC tried to bring him back too early later on in the season which negated his potential effectiveness. Still, MAC hardly ever used even the 4-wideout set. It was basically 3-man of just two with a TE on passing downs and Donald Lee hasn't got the greatest hands in the League, does he?

Overview of the Rosters and how GBP goes about replacing players that are let go or injured for the season - nominally TT will invariably elevate a Wideout of the Practice Squad or go and sign one, as he just recently did earlier this season. So, it isn't like we don't have available personnel at that position. What we're dealing with is a HC who won't make the opportunity for his QB when he actually should.

Last week, we got everyone back - you can doublecheck that fact on the Dope Sheet (for today's Lions game). Finley was back, as was Jordy Nelson. Did we see a 5-wideout play during the Niners game? I may be busy taking care of our Membership throughout the game, but I don't remember seeing it used at all.

The great thing was we saw Rodgers doing his 3-step drops and getting rid of the ball -- a situation MAC wasn't using hardly at all for the first 8 games. Only recently has he re-employed that option, as CD as deftly described.

As far as Rodgers getting hit all the time - 2 things stand out:
1) Wideouts running the route and then stopping their attempts to move beyond that and get open. Donald Driver keeps his motor going, but the others seem to pause.
2) No matter how you slice it, Daryn Colledge IS the weak link on the Line. Rodgers has just commented on Deitrich-Smith stepping in for a series while Colledge sat down nursing his ankle and it was instantly noticable who should really be out there. This week, we get to see him step in at Center. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but as Bootlegger comments, the guy has a nasty streak in him and that's what this O-Line needs. Campen ain't nurturin' it.

It's nice to have Tauscher back, but everyone has to seeriously understand that this has to be the last season for both Markus and Cliffy. TJ Lang, I think, is ready to step in at RT. But, we'll need to replace Cliffy.

Right off, I'd rather replace our Offensive Line Coach and then see how things turn out. No one has improved as they should under Campen. But, that's another Blog.

rofl happy thanksgiving to all but I am still w...

2009-11-25T09:11:30.996-06:00

rofl

happy thanksgiving to all

but I am still waiting for the names of the five WRs you want to be in on a 5 wr set

dont you follow the injury list?

did you not watch the queen game closely? it was not just 7 step drops that got rodgers hit

hey, happy holiday and some great football One of...

2009-11-25T09:08:33.159-06:00

hey, happy holiday and some great football

One of the things to be thankful for is good writing and you provide it.

I forgot to ask ... You wrote: "With vete...

2009-11-25T08:43:46.875-06:00
I forgot to ask ...

You wrote:
"With veteran Brett Favre under center, McCarthy started utilizing max protection sets to give the receivers time to open up their routes. At times, the Packers sent only two receivers out for passes, but Favre was able to do more in the passing game. Bubba Franks became almost a blocking-only tight end, often lining up in the backfield for either pass protection or run blocking."

Question is: Why would MAC go away from his 'utilizing max protection' concept, just because he finally had HIS quarterbsck under Center?

If the fans had that answer, they might be a little more understanding, at least .... but only a little.

Got any extrapolations for us?

CD - I know of 3 other games we would have won had...

2009-11-24T22:34:34.640-06:00
CD - I know of 3 other games we would have won had MAC initiated his tactics (ala da Niners) sooner than he has. Do you have any conception that maybe we would have beaten Favre at Lambeau had he avoided those 7-step drops all game long? The Dallas win was righteous. I just wish we would have skunked 'em.

MAC took away the 5-wideout set just as soon as Favre left town. It's barely been outta the toy box since then, as well. You give Rodgers 3-step drops and 5 choices to throw to and we can win just about every game we have left.

Not sure about where you see us having a viable Tiger Set with Donald Lee still dropping passes. Finley is a catch and we need to clone that guy in the offseason. Sherman spent too much time using TE's for blocking only. And, it's a weakness with Coaches who can't think outside the box during games.

I said since the first game of 2008 - when I saw Rodgers wasn't getting the same setups we saw all thru 2007 - tht if you can't let Aaron have what he gave Brett, then we would lose games .... and we did. Rodgers was used to 2007 play scheming and had to believe he would get his chance to do the same exact thing, and MAC pulled the leash back real hard. It was the wrong move at the wrong time.

Personally, I don't think Rodgers gets scared out there. It's more like he gets mad at being held back. Mad at not getting the adjustments he needs to have time out there.

The one who's showing fear is MAC.

Now, you've commented a bunch on the good things that MAC has done over the seasons. For me, I see him slipping right back where's been over the last 20 games. I could be wrong, and I hope I am. Yet, I just don't see it.

If MAC gets new life, then fine, I suppose. I won't shed any tears if Mark Murphy pushes TT to let the guy move on to some other pasture, tho'. He's had plenty of time to get it straight with what he had success with in previous seasons and has (what) written all that off ?

I'm already looking at who's available. Not saying all that many would want to come and work for Ted Thompson (at least with the Media nonsense being what it's been). But, I do read that there are a few who want to get back in the water with the rest of the sharks.

Have you read "Do You Love Football?"

Great article, as allways, C.D. And I totally agre...

2009-11-24T19:46:48.332-06:00
Great article, as allways, C.D. And I totally agree with your main point. It's not the wins, it's the way we're winning. But because of the way we were losing, he's still on the hot seat.
--------
Actually, your post was terrific, and pretty much everything I think about MM is written in there. Second post, I believe, that I fully agree with you. And I don't tend to fully agree with people.
--------
Anyway, my point is it's a great piece, I really enjoyed reading it.

actually, Anon, you misread. A quality win is gen...

2009-11-24T10:10:14.892-06:00
actually, Anon, you misread. A quality win is generally defined (per ColdHardFootballStats) as a win against a team with a winning record, updated as the season goes on. The quality win I referred to was the one against Dallas, who presently has a winning record.

no one has bemoaned the lack of quality wins more than me, but by definition, the Packers now have one on the year, assuming Dallas stays above .500.

wow When you spend so much time celebrating a win...

2009-11-24T08:40:40.830-06:00
wow

When you spend so much time celebrating a win over teams like the lions and browns then it is not surprise to see a win over the 49ers is a

"QUALITY WIN"

wow, they are 4-6 you know? on their way to another under 500 finish

they beat the rams, bears, cards and the seahawks

and just like GB last year they LOSE close games that prove they are better than their record

yet how many times to coaches in the NFL play to run up the score? are there now style points?
does it count more to win by a TD than a FG?

this is not much different than the smack talk after beating the lions and browns

it means nothing other than that if games were 65 minutes long the 49ers would probably have beaten us too

Agree or disagree, this is excellent writing! Good...

2009-11-24T07:58:27.059-06:00
Agree or disagree, this is excellent writing! Good job!