Didn't A-Rod come in and direct the offense with relative success in that Cowboys game? So ... when Favre failed (looked like a nutcase in that came) it's McCarthy's poor gameplan. Then Rodgers comes in and ...

Just wondering. Who gets the credit? I say follow the trend on these boards. When Rodgers came in against the Cowboys two years ago, it wasn't McCarthy's playcalling at ALL -- it was Rodgers playing well.

Now, Rodgers leads the NFL in QB rating (not the be-all-end-all statistic, and yes, he's been sacked 31 times and that's the big problem) but none of the credit goes to the head coach.

I've been accused now formally by buckeye as being a McCarthy apologist/defender (see the shot box). I really don't think that's what I'm doing. I do however think that threads that call for his firing are premature and unwarranted. I just think we need to see the positives along with the negatives.

If Rodgers is -- sans the ridiculous volume of sacks -- having a very good year, are we to assume it's happening in a vacuum? Sure, Rodgers is the absolute shit (which I'd agree with) but the playcalling is crap and our head coach sucks. This is such a logical disconnect it makes me sick to my stomach. Rodgers is the quarterback he is in at least moderate respect to the coach with whom he's built a strong relationship with: McCarthy.

Rodgers can't be playing great without McCarthy's impact, but NO ONE is making that argument. One of the reasons why is the seemingly horny obsession with blaming just about everything on our head coach.

---

Only in Chicago can you trade for a somewhat proven QB and screw him up totally. That town has some sort of anti-QB-force-field over it.

evad04, if you were a little more open minded and less quick to judge, you might understand what I'm trying to say. I have been giving Mike McCarthy credit for a great deal of Aaron Rodgers' exceptional performance. I have stated explicitly and repeatedly that he does have the intelligence and ability to create good gameplans, and when he does, our team excels. In the third quarter, we came out with the kind of strategy we should have been employing from the first play of the first quarter -- and it worked brilliantly. In the 2007 Cowboys game, when Rodgers took over in relief, he played a short-pass, quick-strike game that also worked very well -- and was precisely what everyone expected the Packers to play coming into the game. It was the early attempts at subterfuge that put us two scores down. The moment Favre reared back to uncork those bombs, I was on my feet screaming -- well before they fell into the hands of the waiting defenders. It was a strategy that made no sense.

I readily acknowledge McCarthy is able to draft an excellent gameplan when he doesn't overthink himself. That doesn't mean I won't call him to task when he screws up. In fact, it's because I know he can do it that I judge him so harshly. It's not his talent I question -- it's his stubborness I despise.

---

I didn't drink a drop yesterday, but had laid in a case of Blue Moon.

The temperature in the garage is dropping rapidly.

That's all I got right now. It's a good one, though. :icon_smile:

Oh, and my quarterback is incredibly friggin' awesome when I consider the lack of help he gets from his line and/or running backs...

At least I know for sure he is trying to make a play. People seem to bitch about some sacks that are "on him"... He ought to wear those as badges of honor...He is a gamer.

Substitute some Franziskaner for the Blue Moon, old buddy. It'll do you good. 😉

---

It's not a lack of open-mindedness. Let's be real here: if Rodgers was playing any better (which would probably mean better gameplans, eh?) he'd be playing better than any QB, ever. Our problems are well documented, and they almost exclusively start and end with our offensive line troubles.

No need to be defensive. I'm still waiting for a sound explanation of all these downfield passes in the first half. That isn't what I saw. Help me understand it (which is hard to do, I understand -- it's not like I have any "film" on the game). I don't remember a half of football overloaded with trickery (something that, by the way is lauded when it works -- like when McCarthy calls a flea flicker from our inverted wishbone set). I didn't think it was overtly "finesse" either. I think the two halves of football aren't so completely different in production BECAUSE of playcalling. If that is how you feel -- and it's evident to anyone who reads you that you're an obviously intelligent person -- then let me understand it with concrete examples.

I want to know how McCarthy's playcalling was the neutralizing factor in the first half. I want someone to address the fact that pressure was constant and rarely at the hands of more than four defensive rushers (leaving, of coruse, seven men in coverage). I want someone to explain how the short quick passing game is a panacea against a defensive front that can apply pressure quickly while the other seven defenders have a numbers advantage over the receiving targets AND have the advantage of staring at the QBs eyes -- which have to be moving a mile a minute because he's being pressured incessantly. I would like MORE THAN ANYTHING for someone to ground their criticism of McCarthy's playcalling with concrete examples and I want someone to adequately assess how it was different from the first half.

To me it wasn't an entirely different approach in the second half. It was much the same.

This is certainly a big issue. It warrants an indepth and complicated-but-hopefully-worthwhile conclusion.

I'm just not sold on McCarthy's supposedly uninspired first half playcalling being the reason.

---

19 bucks more a case.

Full moon road-dog theory precluded the purchase.

I only go Franziskaner on festive occasions.

Blue Moon is for mourning.

and 19 bucks cheaper, lol

Are you going the Dunkel-Weisse route? I hope so. One of my favorites.

---

Totally agree!

I get a little peeved with articles saying Aaron needs to be more aggressive to become a better a play maker.

I saw a QB yesterday that did what the elite QBs do - bring his team back into a game they had no reason to be in. People forget that the Offense was 28 yards away from taking the lead. That's surreal considering how poorly we played in the first half.

It's also similar to what Aaron did against Carolina last year. He came out in the second half and brought his team back into a game they had no business being in. Heck against the Panthers, he got his team into the lead with a unreal completion % around 80% in the second half.

The dude has shown he is a franchise QB.

---

Ugh, I'm so sick of Rodgers doing amazing but we still lose. Why does that always happen??