You quoted me and I didn't see the distinction of saying others. I seen 'zero' in there on two posts in which I was quoted.

I am saying if Mike McCarthy doesn't get this team back on track, he needs his position evaluated at the end of the year. I even said, not right now, firing him now is not the right thing.

I'm not saying CAN THE SEASON SCREW IT! I think we still have a chance, but the coach needs to coach better or for two years in a row we're going to see the same problems again. That's one issue I have with him. Another is the OL scheme. I've harped on this for a long time. When we lost Jeff Jagsawhatever, I feel we should have ditched the ZBS too. We don't have anyone who's an expert teaching the scheme. Hell, Campen didn't even play in the scheme he's trying to teach.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Didn't want to post another Mike McCarthy thread, so I will post it here:

Bedard talks about Mike McCarthy 

[mp3 width=400 height=20]http://wssp.radiotown.com/audio/doug/110209dmgregbedard.mp3[/mp3]

"IronMan" wrote:

OMFG!

OMFG!

OMFG!

JEsus F'in CHRIST!

Zero -- if you have the power, please find a film tape of last night's game with a camera angle that shows the entire fiield.

Then we can have a little Cover 2 defense lesson.

Listen here boys, and listen closely: this game is too complex for simple statements like he needs to get rid of the ball quicker or that we need to emphasize the short passing game. In the first half, the Vikes almost exclusively rushed four guys, and behind that ran a Tampa 2 like zone shell. That means there were 4 rushers, and 7 in coverage. A few of the sacks against Rodgers in the first half were instances where there were at least 2 or 3 of those passing options in intermediate-short passing routes (hitches, curls, flats, comeback routes, etc.). Rodgers would go through his progression. Nothing would be there. Result -- sack, or incompletion.

The idea that we were just looking "downfield" and that McCarthy coached a piss poor first half is I PROMISE ON MY FUCKING MOTHER'S LIFE a simple, easy, quick way out of the situation that isn't indicative of the truth: it's a fucking cop out, guys.

What changed, is that in the second half, it started to work. We were able to hit up the cover 2 in the seems. We were able to spread the ball around. McCarthy talks about "rhythm" in the offense. Don't be so quick to brush that aside. In the first half we had no rhythm. Simply, we couldn't string together many successful plays in a row. It was a combination of the play being called, Minnesota reacting damn near perfect (getting pressure with four, locking up the receiving targets with EXCELLENT underneath coverage), and Green Bay failing to execute. If ANYTHING we should have tried to get the ball downfield in the seams of Cover 2 MORE in the first half. This idea that McCarthy was stubborn and trying to force it downfield in the first half (and thus why our offense was anemic) is completely fallacious. Barring one stupid Rodgers bomb off play action (the one into double coverage) we actually seemed to try pretty hard to develop the quick passing game. It wasn't there in the first half. Not everything is an issue of playcalling! Sometimes defenses simply "click" and good things happen for them. Are we forgetting this is the game of football we are watching?

In the second half things worked, but it isn't as simple as saying "why weren't we doing that in the first half! wahhh... fire McCarthy." That is such an eerily simplistic analysis of a game that, let's be honest, to play or coach at this level requires a substantial knowledge that we the superfans don't know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand it -- hell, I think we should. But I can promise you, things like "we need the quick passing game" fail on all accounts -- like the account of reality. The short stuff is hard to find against a Cover 2 defense -- particularly when it is a good defense. But that didn't stop us from trying to get the quick passing game going. I promise you, go back and watch the game.

/rant

I need a fucking drink. And it's 11 am.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Yeah, I have about exhausted myself on this issue as well. We are a potent offense because of the vertical threat component and I have said repeatedly that the defensive scheme dictates what the offense runs.

The bottom line is Cover 2 is the way to play us right now especially for a team that has a stout run defense.

This was a tough spot for us Sunday. You have a first year player at LT, a first year starter at RT, a first year starter at one of the G spots, and Wells in there instead of Spitz. Now you look across the LOS and see who they have over there.

Sure, I would like the 0line to play a little better but that's not even what cost us this game.

1) Special Teams. Specifically kickoff coverage although they got a punt return back to the 49 too.
2) The head butt. Four points
3) Missed FG
4) failed two point conversion- that was a walk in.

In big games little things make a huge difference. Both teams were making plays out there so when you have a chance to score or make a stop and give up three vs. seven you got to do it.

Jolly doesn't make that bone head play and Crosby hits instead of missing the FG and we're winning at that point. Whole different ball game and yet what we need to do is change the offensive philosophy and probably fire all the coaches.

"warhawk" wrote:

I think they attempted the blitzing but it failed.

We tried to put pressure on them with blitzes, Packers cornerback Charles Woodson said. And [Favre] either pointed them out and set the protection the right way, or threw the ball quick and we werent able to get to him. We felt like we had enough things called -- and still we cant get to him for whatever reason. Right now we cant win the big game.

"RedSoxExcel" wrote: