The case for, and against, McCarthy

Mike McCarthy will never win on style points. His heavy “Pittsburghese” dialect, the butt of humorous takes in Aaron Rodgers press conferences, as well as his overall lack of what most folks would call charisma, means McCarthy isn’t a personality many folks are drawn to. 
 
But style points be damned. In the NFL, you either produce results or you pack your bags. To that end McCarthy has been, to quote the 53-year-old’s own words from last season, “a highly successful NFL coach.” 
 
There are fans and pundits who not only take umbrage with that characterization, but also think that the literal opposite is true. McCarthy boasts the second-highest win percentage among active coaches. One thing he’s for sure not, as far as the numbers read, is a bad coach.   
 
Like the other presumed pariahs to the team’s success, namely Ted Thompson and Dom Capers, McCarthy is thought of by some as a reason for the team’s success and to others a reason why the Pack have just one Super Bowl in the Aaron Rodgers era. 
 
So which is it? Is McCarthy a great coach, a good coach or a bad coach? 
 
We’re living in a time, not to go down a different rabbit hole, where the very idea of facts and reality are subject to opinions of people with strikingly different ideological foundations. 
 
Let’s lay out the good and the bad, starting with the bad. 
 
McCarthy’s offenses in recent years have been accused of being over-reliant on isolation routes, to the detriment of the team’s production. 
 
Everyone go out and win your one-on-one, so the tactic assumes, and the gifted wunderkind under center will read the defense and deliver the right throw. This very scheme thrived at the level of epic proportions in 2011, when Rodgers had at his disposal a group of receivers who evidently had little trouble winning one-on-one assignments. 
 
But that offense was also known for formation diversity, during some of its best drives basically formationing the defense to hell and making any player who lined up a feared weapon. 
 
In recent years McCarthy’s scheme has taken a hit from writers and analysts who, because of new tools and access to the “all 22” view, have an easier time breaking down the film. These folks argue that Green Bay’s skill position players aren’t winning one-on-ones and that the passing route tree is banal. Other teams with skill-position weakness opt for scheming players open by using lots compression sets and bunch formations and motion. 
 
The Packers under McCarthy have tended to stubbornly trot out their one back, one tight end, and three tight end personnel grouping, also known as “11 personnel,” regardless of whether its effective. 
 
This stubbornness can be seen from McCarthy in other ways, like when he’s quick to abandon the run game or when he swings wildly from conservatism to over-aggression (fourth down rushing attempts and onside kicks come to mind).  
 
Rodgers has too often been tasked with creating on the fly, using an airtight pocket (the Packers are truly lucky to have the quality pass-blocking unit they do) and then his legs to extend plays and fit throws into tiny windows as though he’s Legolas splitting the eyes of an Orc from 100 feet away. 
 
This isn’t an observation; it’s a pretty well-documented fact. And the crazy thing is, Rodgers' game-breaking playmaking is almost good enough to overcome all obstacles. 
 
But is Rodgers also partly to blame? When he has admitted to the need to get rid of the ball faster, and commits himself to doing so, he’s often at his best (because the backyard football doesn’t completely go away, but he’s able to cash in on the easy plays). 
 
And for all the insistence that McCarthy’s scheme has become stale and ineffective, how does one explain the team’s eight-game winning streak last season? When the team was at its low point, McCarthy stood behind his players and asserted confidence in himself. The risk is real of losing your team when things start heading south, and McCarthy's candidness in front of the camera and his confidence in the men behind the scenes likely jolted the team psychologically. Rodgers certainly bought in, famously declaring after the team's fourth straight loss that his belief that the Packers could "run the table." 
 
McCarthy’s ascent in NFL coaching has oft been attributed to his quarterback-friendliness, wherein the likes of Aaron Brooks and Matt Flynn have experienced occasionally high success. And yet the same coach is charged for dulling or holding back the abilities of arguably the most skilled quarterback to ever play, Mr. Discount Double Check himself. 
 
Which is it? Is he quarterback friendly or quarterback averse? Was he one way once and is another way now? 
 
One thing is fairly certain: McCarthy is rarely given credit for Rodgers’ ascendency from first-rounder to the-only-guy-possibly-better-is-named-Brady status he now presumes. 
 
Brett Favre is given more credit, and he went out of his way to avoid helping Rodgers when the two were teammates for three years. Rodgers got to sit back and see Shakespeare the way it was meant to be played, so goes the thinking. 
 
But when Rodgers came into the league he wasn’t a finished product. The questions surrounding his fundamental soundness were a big part of his slide to pick No. 24. Shouldn’t we rightfully give McCarthy more credit for Rodgers’ development? 
 
McCarthy’s offseason quarterback camp surely helped mold Rodgers into the savant he is today. 
 
Player and coach have had their share of disagreements, but that’s to be expected considering Rodgers is so competitive that he refuses to lose at anything, anywhere, at any time. This isn’t an indictment – it’s a testament one of the reasons Rodgers is as good as he is. 
 
But Rodgers also steadfastly defends McCarthy when rumblings from outside call into question the coach’s competency. Shouldn’t we take him at his word? 
 
McCarthy also unquestionably has the respect of his peers, best personified by the praise he received from Bill Belichick. McCarthy orchestrated a brilliant game plan against the Patriots the last time they played, in 2014 – in a game that, fourth-quarter collapse in Seattle notwithstanding, would have set up for a rematch in the Super Bowl. 
 
Belichick went out of his way to congratulate McCarthy after the Packers’ thrilling win at Lambeau Field. For a cantankerous mastermind like Belichick to single out an opposing coach isn’t a throwaway anecdote. 
 
McCarthy is clearly capable of masterminding a top-flight offense. With just a few exceptions, namely in 2015, his offenses have ranked near the top of the league in points. And yet, slumps and struggles have followed the team for the past two years. 
 
If the team picks up where it left off last season – hopefully with a healthy one-two punch at running back, an offensive line with as much the same cast as last season, and with maybe even another receiving weapon or two in the mix – then it shouldn’t be shocking to see lots of points go up. 
 
But this won’t, just as it never has, translate into McCarthy being regarded as one of the league’s best. 
 
Minds on that topic mostly seem to be made up. 
 
NFL Categories: 
0 points
 

Comments (21)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Bearmeat's picture

March 06, 2017 at 05:03 pm

MMs iso routes were problematic until Davante FINALLY picked it up and Jordy got his legs back. Cook being healthy helped obviously too. I think at this point it's safe to say that the real debacle in 2015 was the mistake of no WR coach teaching fundies, and injuries at the position. Assuming we have comparable WR talent in 2017 and beyond that we had this past year (good but not individually ascendant), and good OT play, the offense will be very good with 12 at the helm.

No, the issue with MM is the defense. Is this is TT problem? Capers problem? MM problem? All of the above?

The defense has kept this team from winning multiple Lombardis. It's the defense that must be fixed. And MM is at the helm and therefore is the one ultimately responsible.

0 points
0
0
KenEllis's picture

March 06, 2017 at 06:59 pm

Well stated Bearmeat. Nary a word in the article about McCarthy's defenses the past 6 seasons. Also not a word about the perennially poor special teams.

Like McCarthy's team's defensive & special teams performances of late, that oversight is INDEFENSIBLE.

This article reads like praise for a longtime offensive coordinator not a head coach.

0 points
0
0
dnicholson's picture

March 07, 2017 at 02:10 pm

In the past six seasons, Green Bay's defenses (from 2011 through 2016, respectively) have ranked in pts allowed: 19, 11, 24, 13, 12 and 21.

Over that same span, Packers defense has ranked: 32, 11, 25, 15, 15 and 22.

The defenses really weren't bad in 2012, '14 and '15. Defense in 2011 was bad. When Aaron Rodgers went down in '13 and Tolzien and Flynn were flinging INTs left and right, the defense was also bad. Last year, mostly beset by injuries at corner, the defense was bad.

Using Football Outsiders' special teams rankings (using DVOA), the Packers over that stretch ranked: 8, 18, 19, 22, 17 and 20.

The stats would indicate you're exaggerating things a bit.

0 points
0
0
badaxed's picture

March 08, 2017 at 08:46 am

Curious, how many big plays (20 yards+) did this defense give up at critical times compared to other teams?

0 points
0
0
lou's picture

March 06, 2017 at 05:34 pm

Agreed, defense has been the problem since 2010, the offense with Rodgers at the helm can score enough even when McCarthy plays conservatively too soon or does abandon the run too soon (if that is the worst one can say about the head coach we have a pretty good one). In reference to the known problem area, not only should Dom Capers be more accountable (injuries are not always the problem although a couple times they have been almost insurmountable) but McCarthy's hand picked day one Assistant/Associate Head Coach Winston Moss has to be held accountable too at the level he represents. The Assistant/Associate Head Coach on offense, Tom Clements either resigned or was let go and it appears he won't be replaced, what does that say about that job title ? Yes, Ted needs to hit big more than he has on that side of the ball but it is time for the top defensive coaches to be held accountable for the first time since the Bob Sanders era.

0 points
0
0
Slim11's picture

March 06, 2017 at 07:35 pm

Clements won’t return for 2017 because his contract expired. The “mutual agreement” was Clements is seeking out other opportunities. In other words, IMO…a sound decision, he was told he would not return. Edgar Bennett is the OC…ON PAPER. MM will still call plays.

Winston Moss is the LB coach/assistant HC. But, who does he report to…MM or Capers? Logically, he’d report to the DC. But as assistant HC, wouldn’t he report to MM? If there is a defense in 2017 which is similar to 2016, it’s Capers’ turn to “seek out other opportunities.” Where will that leave Moss?

0 points
0
0
al bundy's picture

March 06, 2017 at 09:53 pm

Hey as long and Ted and Mike think making the playoffs is the goal standard and that Super bowls are nice but that isnt the goal then they should be happy.

I mean why would you bring back guys who didnt get you to the super bowl. Lacy, Perry, etc. You trade em or let them go free agent and move on to re load for a super bowl run.

This talk of those two at the combine loving the way they run the ream and keep ALL their free agents is BS. WIthoiut Rogers this team is the chicago bears.

0 points
0
0
CAG123's picture

March 06, 2017 at 10:58 pm

Before we praise or curse MM can we please please acknowledge that Mark Lovat the S&C coach needs to go? The Packers have suffered so many soft tissue injuries the past few years which is a direct reflection of bad conditioning regime! Either Lovat needs to change something or they need someone else because the groin and calf injuries are getting ridiculous.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

March 06, 2017 at 11:34 pm

2017 will be MMs 12 season as HC of the Packers. That statement alone tells you that he is one of the best coaches in the NFL. How many other coaches have come and gone around the league since MM became the Packers HC? He has had one losing season during his tenure which was A. Rodgers first season as a starting QB in 2008. Even in MMs first season (2006) as HC his team went 8 - 8. In his 11 seasons as HC his team has had double digits wins 8 times. He would have 9 out of 11 if AR wasn't injured during the 2013 campaign. 9 playoff appearances and one SB win. He has overcome ridiculous numbers of injuries, rule changes, roster attrition, changes to his staff and still his team is a consistent contender. He is 2 plays away from 2 more SBs, both OT losses. In one game his HOF QB makes a bad decision and a bad throw, in the other his defense commits suicide on the field and gives up a 12 point lead with less than 4 minutes to play. Unlike BB the coaches MM opposed in those games didn't hand the game to him like BB was handed his last 2 SBs gift wrapped. MM has integrity, he's resilient, he stands by his team and his program, he is proud of the Packers history and tradition, and the one time he has faced BB with his starting QB healthy he won handily. MM works for me. Case closed. Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 07, 2017 at 01:06 am

"...the same coach is charged for dulling or holding back the abilities of arguably the most skilled quarterback to ever play, Mr. Discount Double Check himself."

I don't think the above is true. MM was criticized for his inability to rein in AR and persuade AR to play within the structure of the offense, with sandlot or extending the play a last resort.

"Brett Favre is given more credit...." I am sure this isn't true. I've never heard anyone give more credit to Favre for developing AR than to MM. TBH, never really heard anyone give any credit to Favre.

"One thing is fairly certain: McCarthy is rarely given credit for Rodgers’ ascendency from first-rounder to the-only-guy-possibly-better-is-named-Brady status he now presumes. " Nah. Maybe not as often as MM should receive credit, but most do.

MM is an excellent QB coach.
MM is a very good Offensive Coordinator.
MM is a good HC.

0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

March 07, 2017 at 04:16 am

MM is good QB coach - It is known that Joe Philbin and Tom Clements had, also, huge impact on devloping Aaron Rodgers to where he is now.
MM is a very good Offensive Coordinator - This claim we agree.
MM is an excellent HC - I will use same arguments as David. He has 2nd best win/lose ration amongs active coaches, and he was the only coach to receive recognition from BB.

Also, maybe I'm wrong and I understood wrongly, but I think David was talking about how fans give more credit to Brett Favre than to Aaron Rodgers for what they do for franchize, not between BF & MM in developing Aaron Rodgers!

0 points
0
0
rajqvr's picture

March 07, 2017 at 04:48 am

Nice read

0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

March 07, 2017 at 07:34 am

He is a good "B" coach, sometimes gets to a "B+". His biggest weakness is his unwavering loyalty to his assistants, whom he rarely holds accountable for poor performance.

0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

March 07, 2017 at 10:03 am

I recently watched the NE vs. the Giants SB where the Patriots had not lost a game all year. OMG, I forgot so much from that game, but what came to me was how BB was so throughly outcoached by the Giants coaching staff. That Patriots team may have been one for the ages and BB blew it. So does that let MM off the hook? No, but it should put some preception to his record. There are no Vince Lombardis coaching out there. MM is one of the best and sometimes teams just lose no matter how well prepared they are because the other team gets paid to play as well.

0 points
0
0
Razor's picture

March 07, 2017 at 01:40 pm

I sometimes think that too many details cloud the picture.

He has had Favre and Rodgers his entire time as a head coach. Also, Woodson, Nick Collins and a younger CM.

He plays six games a season in the NFC north.

He has a losing record in the playoffs.

On the other side, he may not always get the best talent to work with.

Overall, I think he is a B+ coach during the season and a C+ coach in the playoffs.

BTW - I think Ted is a C-.

0 points
0
0
dnicholson's picture

March 07, 2017 at 01:54 pm

Just to clarify, McCarthy is 10-8 in the playoffs as a head coach.

0 points
0
0
Razor's picture

March 08, 2017 at 09:22 pm

Thank you - my mistake.

0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

March 07, 2017 at 03:52 pm

Successful? Yes, if winning games is considered a success. Highly successful? IMO, no. Highly successful is more than one SB appearance in 10 years.

0 points
0
0
badaxed's picture

March 08, 2017 at 08:59 am

Same coach, same GM, same Defensive coordinator, same results every year.
Poor defense, other teams have figured out how to stop our receivers, no run game (abandoned most games), no running backs (GM's fault) with breakaway speed (how many times have you seen Lacy get in the open and tackled from behind).
Stayed tuned for same story next year as this train has left the station with the same conductors and engineers.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 08, 2017 at 04:22 pm

He is a good coach, no doubt. Great, I don't know. but I am not sure whether one can really judge that. Would any coach have won more than 1 SB with the teams McC had? Once can only speculate. One wouldn't even know whether the hoodie from New England would've won more with those teams. I can only go with W-L records, and McC is a good coach when taking those.

But I really have to say one thing: I was watching training camp when #12 was a rookie, and he was brutally bad. He wasn't ready then, and McC did develop his skills to NFL readiness. So one has to at least give him credit for that. And have the most passing yards with Aaron Brooks as his QB when he was OC with playcalling duties for the Saints also says something.

0 points
0
0
TommyG's picture

March 09, 2017 at 05:52 pm

I think MM is a great offensive coach and QB developer who also had the benefit of who AR has become. I also feel that he has been hamstrung by bad defense. The caliber of players on defense as of late is not the same as those on the offensive side of things. We all thought CMIII was going to be our AR on defense and he just isn't. Our TT does not do well drafting on defense.

0 points
0
0