I don't believe in firing someone for not winning the Super Bowl. If Green Bay ends up with a losing record or misses the playoffs, then you can fire McCarthy. However, if they make the playoffs and lose in round one, I'd still hang onto McCarthy.

---

While I believe that the record is the only thing that counts. I believe it doesn't tell very much about how good the team is. A lucky 10-6 team and an unlucky 10-6 are not the same. One is mediocre and the other is a great team. It only take 2 bad/lucky breaks in a couple close games.

Winning takes luck and preparation. I won't complain until the luck gets them farther than the preparation. Right now it is the other way around. I don't have a problem with a bad luck year. I would have a problem if we had a team that is consistently around 8-8 unless they get lucky a few game and once in a while pull out a 10-6 or a 12-4. Like the Bears.

Now we have a decent team. As long as it doesn't fall apart, take the Steeler road and stick with them and give time for luck and preperation to meet. Change doesn't hurry up the process, it slows it down. So unless you want to take a couple of giants steps back, don't get rid of Mike McCarthy or TT.

---

I pretty much agree with most people here. McCarthy should be safe as long as the team doesn't lay an egg, like it did in '08, and if it happens because of injuries McCarthy might be safe anyway. I do think that McCarthy is expected to take this team farther than last year. One-and-done in the playoffs will not be satisfactory, but even if that happens, he will probably keep his job.

The Mike Sherman situation was different. After two 12-4 seasons, they had two 10-6 seasons, and were one-and-done in that last 10-6 year. That's when he was stripped of the GM job and should've been fired as coach, but they let him hang around an extra year. This is a younger team than Sherman's team, and they are in a position to be good for at least 2-3 years. To fire a coach in the middle of that would be a risky move.

As for Rhodes, Infanti, and Gregg, they just seemed like bad coaches. McCarthy at least seems to be a pretty good coach and possibly a really good one. There are no red flags with him.

---

I wonder how much, if any reason to keep Sherman on board was for Ted to more thoroughly evaluate other potential coaches?

---

I've always thought that even though Ted was given full power as GM, he was hired with the understanding that he would try to work with Sherman for at least a year. I thought it was a bad match right from the beginning, and Harlan should've fired Sherman outright.

But you make an interesting point. Keeping Sherman around for a year did give Ted time conduct a more deliberate coaching search after the season.

---

I always thought Sherman's demise was for two reasons: he had sub par drafts, which weren't necessarily his fault because of draft positioning. He had a tendency to draft as if we were one player away from a super bowl. And the second reason was that I didn't view him as having control of the team, particularly Brett Favre. Favre has always needed a strong willed head coach, and Sherman did not fit that bill.

---

I was pretty irritated when Mike McCarthy let Favre throw shit in our faces last year, TWICE. But he's made up for that with a strong finish and there's no way that happens again this year. Mike McCarthy is a good coach. Plain and simple.
Mike Sherman handed the team over to Favre. And when Sherman was stripped of his GM duties, he became a bitter psycho against TT. Not a good way to keep your job.

---

Sherman's best move might have been to insist on the Packers hiring a GM when he started, based on his lack of experience. His handling of Favre was atrocious and he had no QB coach the first 2 years. That's one thing I like about McCarthy, he seems to be a good QB coach and he also is becoming a better game coach.

---

Another thing, I hope McCarthy develops more of a "killer instinct" because it starts with him as far as the team is concerned.

---

Mike McCarthy is not going anywhere and it would be a mistake to even consider a move.

McCarthy is the mastermind behind one of the very best offenses in the NFL. McCarthy also knows Rodgers better than he knows himself with no dropoff after the loss of a HOF QB. A new HC means a new offense. That's how it works. Anybody want to see that? I know I don't.

If it would mean a change on D I wouldn't want to see that either. They just installed this one.

I can see no good coming out of a coaching change and to do so because we don't win two playoff games or whatever, well, a change would probably reduce the following years chances to do better.

As far as previous coaches and the time they were given, well, to be honest they were lousy coaches. Sherman had everything he needed to win at least two SB's in the early 2000's and couldn't do it and the others never showed they had the team going in the right direction.

Lastly, we have a team here now with the kind of talent on the final 45 that is at the least very close to the level our SB teams. That, in no small way, has to do with the relationship between McCarthy and Thompson who work together and listen to each other. You make HC and GM changes when the teams going the wrong way and unless I'm way off that's the opposite direction I see this team headed.

---