Mike McCarthy: Who follows the Green Bay Packers coach?· Page 2

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

He wants to play until 40, because he is obsessed with Bert's records, but his body already seems to be breaking down. I hope he does play that long at a high level, but I'm just trying to keep it real.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

I want him to play until he's 40 also; All Packer fans should; The guy is simply the best that ever played the position for any team.

Yeah, Hundley will be ready in 3 years - ready to be trade bait.

Back to the topic, both Ted and Mike will be well into their sixties by the time Rodgers hits 40. If Edgar Bennett really is head coach material, some team will have snagged him long before that. Capers is a defense savant, and I think he is older than McCarthy. Joe Whitt maybe? In addition to be a great technician, he seems to have a good attitude for a head coach. In 9 or so years, he will probably be gone too.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

beast
Select Member

9 years ago

#12

Yeah, Hundley will be ready in 3 years - ready to be trade bait.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

Every time the Packers grab a QB, people start talking about future trade bait.... but that hasn't happened even once under MM. Who knows if Hundley will develop or bust like all the others (other than maybe Flynn)... but I'm thinking bust is more likely than develop at this point.

DoddPower
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#13

Originally Posted by: beast

They haven't really had much to work with except for Brian Brohm, who was obviously a bust. I think they did very well with Flynn, even if they didn't trade him. He still went on to get a big contract. Not bad for a marginally talented 7th round pick. I don't think Flynn would have had the same success with most franchises in the NFL. The Packers really fostered his development. There's only so much that can be done with 7th round draft picks and undrafted free agent quarterbacks.

Hundley doesn't have to net the Packers more draft picks to be a good selection. Most importantly, he just needs to be a good backup quarterback likely starting next season. Anything beyond that would just be a bonus. As Rodgers gets older, a good backup quarterback will become increasingly important. The backups will also start getting more-and-more reps in the coming years, too.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#14

Tolzien is the backup QB, and he is as good a backup QB as we could hope for. I doubt even he would be adequate it Aaron Rodgers went down - the team being so-o-o-o dependent on Rodgers. I don't see Hundley passing Tolzien this year or next year or the year after that. Hundley is a "slash" player, a possible help at TE or WR, and eventually as trade bait. One way or another, he will be a distant memory by the time Aaron Rodgers retires.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

nerdmann
Premier Member

9 years ago

#15

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

Hundley has a strong chance of becoming elite.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

dhazer
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#16

The part I don't understand , is how people think Rodgers will last until he's 40? How many qbs have played into their 40's? Rodgers has already had some bad injuries and they will only keep adding up. I am seeing another Favre fiasco coming when they let Rodgers walk or I should say trade him away. I see maybe 4 years top which would put him at 35 a very good age to retire. Rodgers depends on his wheels and when he no longer has that he will turn into a sitting suck and the injuries will add up. Once Rodgers is gone so will Mike McCarthy and TT. I see us going with an unknown coach.

Now to comment on beasts statement: Hey c'mon man you can't say that we have had no good qbs besides Rodgers, after all Mike McCarthy is the quarterback guru and he can make a great qb out of anyone. Look at his record of them as was once brought up.

Rodgers (drafted)
Favre (holmgren)
alex smith (drafted)
aaron brooks (former packer)
rich gannon (vikings)
bono ( to many teams to name)
Montana (oh ya he was great before MM)

Boy that sure looks like the holmgren days of producing qbs lol

Remember
Ty Detmer ( starting qb for other teams)
Mark Brunnell (started for other teams)
Doug Pederson (started for other teams)

matt hasselbeck (started for other teams)

Now thats what I call a qb guru

plus it was good having wolf drafting to :)

Wolf was good at drafting qbs, like Ted Thompson is with WRs

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)

PackerTraxx
Senior Member

9 years ago

#17

I've always felt we should have kept Wolf as a permanent consultant in charge of scouting/evaluation QBs. It's such a key position and he was so good at it. He could have done that without demanding much time and would have kept him involved, he may have liked that. Just a thought.

Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?

beast
Select Member

9 years ago

#18

I think they did very well with Flynn...He still went on to get a big contract. Not bad for a marginally talented 7th round pick.

Hundley doesn't have to net the Packers more draft picks to be a good selection. Most importantly, he just needs to be a good backup quarterback likely starting next season.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower

Hundley has a strong chance of becoming elite.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

But why is the question? ... and the answer seems to be simply because he's now a Packer and people expect all Packers QBs to be elite and has nothing to do with the player themselves. If we draft QB John Doe next year... he'll suppose to be elite too ... I just don't get that logic.

Hundley has a lot of physical potential... but so do most busted QB draft picks... they have the physical potential, it's other parts of their game they can't handle.

it's like NFL.com said about Hundley

Bottom Line: Hundley flashes athleticism and talent, but his basic quarterbacking issues will take time to improve. In 2014, more than 54 percent of his pass attempts were from six yards and in, including 29 percent from behind the line of scrimmage, which is nothing like an NFL offense. Hundley is a "flash" prospect who shows the physical tools to be a starter, but his internal clock and issues with reads and progressions must be improved to give him a shot at becoming a decent NFL starter.

NFL.com wrote:

I think the same goes for good back-up QB as well.

beast
Select Member

9 years ago

#19

Now to comment on beasts statement: Hey c'mon man you can't say that we have had no good qbs besides Rodgers, after all Mike McCarthy is the quarterback guru and he can make a great qb out of anyone. Look at his record of them as was once brought up.

Originally Posted by: dhazer

Mike McCarthy history with QBs doesn't have to do with the Packers current run... in the current run and under the current rules which limit practice times which has strongly directly effected the 3rd string QB learning/playing time (as teams aren't going to cut the starters practice time for a 3rd string guy)... if it wasn't for Flynn (who's been average) the Packers drafted QBs would have absolutely nothing other than Rodgers.

And really Mike McCarthy was with the 49ers during Rodgers year and was part of the group that got the 49ers to choose Alex Smith over Aaron Rodgers... and Mike McCarthy said the main reason was because he saw their QB skills about equal and thought Smith was the better athlete)

But since Mike McCarthy has become the Packers head coach, the Packers only drafted QB to do anything has been Flynn.

nerdmann
Premier Member

9 years ago

#20

I agree with that (other than starting next season part), they did do decent with Flynn... but Ingle Martin, Brian Brohm, B.J. Coleman were all bust.

I think Hundley will need two years to develop because he's so raw and is far from pro-ready. Two of his biggest weaknesses of passes down field and throwing in front of the WR are both very important in the NFL... but his college system had a lot of very short passes.

But why is the question? ... and the answer seems to be simply because he's now a Packer and people expect all Packers QBs to be elite and has nothing to do with the player themselves. If we draft QB John Doe next year... he'll suppose to be elite too ... I just don't get that logic.

Hundley has a lot of physical potential... but so do most busted QB draft picks... they have the physical potential, it's other parts of their game they can't handle.

it's like NFL.com said about Hundley I think the same goes for good back-up QB as well.

Originally Posted by: beast

Mike got the most out of many of these QBs. Brohm and Coleman were really the only ones with the physical tools to succeed at the position. Both washed out, Brohm because he was a momma's boy and Coleman, who knows, just wasn't getting it.

Mike got the most he could out of guys like Flynn and Graham Harrell.

I'm not saying Hundley is a lock, I'm saying he's got a high ceiling. He has the chance to sit and watch Aaron do it. Mike's system will work to strengthen Hundley's weaknesses as far as timing, footwork and all of that.

Mike also took Rich Gannon, a career journeyman and made him into a pro bowler, also made a player out of Aaron Brooks.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

packerfanoutwest (2h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (2h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (2h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (4h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (4h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (4h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (4h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (4h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (4h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (4h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (4h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (5h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (6h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (6h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (6h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (6h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (6h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (7h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (7h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (7h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (8h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (8h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (8h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (8h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (10h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (10h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (11h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (11h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (11h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (11h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (11h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (11h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (11h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (11h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (11h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (11h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (11h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (11h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (11h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (11h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (11h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (11h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (11h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (11h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (11h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (11h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (11h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (12h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS