The final call is Murphy's, with the change he made last offseason the GM, cap guy (Ball) and coach all report to him. From talking to people in the know, it sounds like Murphy will give Gutekunst's opinion a lot of weight when it comes to whether to retain McCarthy.
They talk about it but the call is McCarthy's. I do wonder if going not just no-huddle, which still can be slow and use up most of the play clock, but going hurry up in the middle of the game might be a way to jump start the offense or be an effective changeup at times. It's worked against the Packers' defense in recent weeks, put it that way.
I don't. We've all seen it. Even last week, I think it was 10 touches for Jone sthe first half, six the second. Rodgers I'm sure changes some calls at the line of scrimmage, etc., and maybe the defense changed the way it played at times. But this had been an issue all season.
A draft pick, yeah. A high one, no. Too many other needs: OLB, S, TE, T, CB are higher priorities.
Yeah, that's a good reminder that play calling and running an offense require a level of expertise and immersion in data that we just don't have. So a little humility there is warranted. It's no coincidence that those innovative offenses also have really good personnel. I don't doubt that coaches like Reid and Payton and McVay are taking advantage of their talent, but still the talent is the most important thing. There aren't sure bets on the coaching market because with guys who haven't been head coaches in the league, you don't know how they're going to do until they sit in that chair. A lot of hot, sought-after young coordinators have bombed as head coaches. That's why Murphy and Gutekunst have to make their decision based not just on the final record but what they see and hear observing the team close up -- closer up than any of us can get.
I've talked this over with a lot of people and colleagues, etc., and get many different answers. Could it be that guys extend themselves more in training in more recent times so that they're good enough to play in the league, but thus are more susceptible to injury? Do they not do enough actual sprint training and concentrate too much on weight lifting? Is it because the seasons are longer than they were in the '60s?
Just giving Stan his say.
I definitely agree with your take on the game today. Look at the Super Bowl last year, it was just like that Rams-Chiefs game the other night. And your point is the one reason I won't say the Packers' season is over, because Rodgers has shown he can get incredibly hot and carry a team. In fact, I'd argue that if he went on a run like '16, this team would be better, at least if King can finally stay healthy, because with King and Alexander at CB this defense can get a stop every once in a while. It took a minor miracle for that '16 defense to get a stop. I'm not saying I think the Packers are going to go on that run, then again I didn't think they would in '16 either. I'm just saying it's possible, and by possible I mean, I don't know, a 20 or 25 percent chance, something like that.
He did play in the league, so yeah, you'd think he'd have a feel for these things, more than an owner who never played, for instance. But it doesn't guarantee anything, either.
I disagree. Clinton-Dix looked like an ascending player his first three years, but his last two he simply didn't play well. He had his moments but also had a lot of bad plays. And he, like Sitton a few years before, was unhappy about not getting a contract extension, and that was potentially bad for the locker room. I don't blame them at all for trading him and thought they did well to get a fourth-rounder for him. Maybe he'll prove it was a big mistake and go on to play great for Washington, but I'd bet against it.
OK, this will have to be the final question, other duties to get to. First want to thank everybody for coming by and sharing your thoughts/opinions/questions. Got to as many as I could. As for the question, a few have asked while noting that Rodgers turns 35 in early December. I just don't see this as the beginning of the end, not with the way quarterbacks' longevity is going up, mostly because of the rules protecting them but also because of improvements in training and diet, etc. I just don't see why he'd be going downhill at this point when guys like Brady and Brees have played some of their best football at 39 and older. Favre, for that matter ,had one of his better seasons at 40. So no, I think Rodgers is just not having a good year, through some combination of the knee injury and unhappiness with the offense/scheme. I don't see any reason why can't play MVP-caliber football over the next five years or more. These other guys are doing it, why can't he? With that, we'll call it a chat. Thanks again everyone, always fun to find out what's on your minds. Have a Happy Thanksgiving, and until next week, take care.