McCarthy speaks· Page 2

Wade
Veteran Member

14 years ago

Nice to know HC and assistants may not be on same page with respect to one of the three OL people are most optimistic about.

:(

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

DanJustDan29
Registered

14 years ago

#12

Tim Tebow = Packers next Running Back.*

*hahaha jk

Teamwork is what the Green Bay Packers were all about. They didn't do it for individual glory. They did it because they loved one another. -Vince Lombardi

TheEngineer
Registered

14 years ago

#13

Nice to know HC and assistants may not be on same page with respect to one of the three OL people are most optimistic about.

:(

"Wade" wrote:

Exactly what I was thinking Wade. They still seem to be indecisive in regards to how to fix our OL.

blank

RaiderPride
Senior Member

14 years ago

#14

Nice to know HC and assistants may not be on same page with respect to one of the three OL people are most optimistic about.

:(

"TheEngineer" wrote:

Exactly what I was thinking Wade. They still seem to be indecisive in regards to how to fix our OL.

"Wade" wrote:

I love it.

There better well be more than one person who has a voice, and can voice that opinion during the off season. That tells me there is no dictatorship in the coaching staff of my Green Bay Packers.

By the time Camp is closing.. They will all be united on the task, and will have known that their voice was heard. That is called positive management.

""People Will Probably Never Remember What You Said, And May Never Remember What You Did. However, People Will Always Remember How You Made Them Feel."

Wade
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#15

Nice to know HC and assistants may not be on same page with respect to one of the three OL people are most optimistic about.

:(

"RaiderPride" wrote:

Exactly what I was thinking Wade. They still seem to be indecisive in regards to how to fix our OL.

"TheEngineer" wrote:

"Wade" wrote:

I must respectfully disagree.

This is not year one of the McCarthy era. This is coming up on year five. This is not year two of the Thompson era. This is coming up on year six.

This is not a disagreement about the backup of an offensive line without substantial questions.

This is a disagreement about the best place to put the person who is arguably, right now, the third best offensive lineman on the roster. And even if one believes not just Sitton and Wells are better but that Clifton and Tauscher are as well, the way people are talking about Lang and his "technique and attitude and potential", five years into McCarthy's tenure, he and his coaches should not be having this kind of disagreement.

What is good management in year one or year two is evidence of managerial failure in year five.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Stevetarded
Registered

14 years ago

#16

Nice to know HC and assistants may not be on same page with respect to one of the three OL people are most optimistic about.

:(

"Wade" wrote:

Exactly what I was thinking Wade. They still seem to be indecisive in regards to how to fix our OL.

"RaiderPride" wrote:

"TheEngineer" wrote:

"Wade" wrote:

I don't think the issue is "where is he best at", I think it's "where is he best at for the team?" I think they believe Lang has the most potential at the G position but could still be a good RT. The problem is we have 2 LGs and 1 old RT with no real back up. So you either put him at his best position (LG) and have no back up for either tackle or you keep him at RT where he will be ready to back up and eventually overtake Tauscher while also serving as emergency LT.

I think the draft will sort out a lot of this but I don't really see it as a big issue at the moment.

blank

Wade
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#17

But my point is that we ought not to have to ask "what's the best for the team" in this particular way this far into McCarthy's tenure and Thompson's tenure. Four+ years in we should not be in the position where you have "2 LGS and 1 old RT with no real back up".

That we are says something, and IMO not something positive, about the quality of MM's and TT's decisionmaking over those 4 or 5 years.

Given that we are in this position, sure, it makes sense to be going back and forth within the staff.

But we shouldn't be in this position.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

doddpower
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#18

But my point is that we ought not to have to ask "what's the best for the team" in this particular way this far into McCarthy's tenure and Thompson's tenure. Four+ years in we should not be in the position where you have "2 LGS and 1 old RT with no real back up".

That we are says something, and IMO not something positive, about the quality of Mike McCarthy's and Ted Thompson's decisionmaking over those 4 or 5 years.

Given that we are in this position, sure, it makes sense to be going back and forth within the staff.

But we shouldn't be in this position.

"Wade" wrote:

I don't think it's nearly as big of a deal as you do. It's EARLY offseason and there's going to be debate and differing opinions about players especially young ones. Every team has some position they need to address, ours just happens to be the Oline. Is there a team that is just perfect top to bottom? Perhaps occasionally, but there is only one champion each year. That doesn't mean that the other 31 teams are no good.

I agree that the situation could be better, no doubt. But none of us have ANY clue what's going to happen between here and week 1. A stud player could fall to us somewhere along with other picks / free agents / trades and the situation could be largely resolved.

There will ALWAYS be some position that could be much better. Ours just happens to be offensive line and perhaps secondary, both of which should be much better this year. It's not about how things look right now it's how things look during the season and I'm not as concerned about the Oline as many are. We just need a solid draft.

Stevetarded
Registered

14 years ago

#19

But my point is that we ought not to have to ask "what's the best for the team" in this particular way this far into McCarthy's tenure and Thompson's tenure. Four+ years in we should not be in the position where you have "2 LGS and 1 old RT with no real back up".

That we are says something, and IMO not something positive, about the quality of Mike McCarthy's and Ted Thompson's decisionmaking over those 4 or 5 years.

Given that we are in this position, sure, it makes sense to be going back and forth within the staff.

But we shouldn't be in this position.

"Wade" wrote:

We aren't in that position, with Lang we either have a very young starter at LG and no back up RT or we have a back up and future starter at RT while there is a competition at LG between 2 starters. Not both.

blank

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#20

Let's not forget that in the last 7 games, Aaron got sacked 10 times. So most of the sacks were from the Cows game and earlier.

The OL stats are deceptive. The big IF is which OL will we see? Will we see the OL in the last 7 regular season games, or the first 9?

My concerns are with depth. I don't think both of our OTs will last 19 games this year.

As fans, all we can do is hope Ted Thompson & company will address our 2 major issues. Dodd says it's OL and the secondary. I respectfully disagree. I think it's OL and pass rush. Our secondary took a hit when Harris went down. Williams is on the way up. Woody proved he hasn't lost a step. Collins is a Pro Bowler. Bigby is not as bad as people make him out to be.

Depth in the secondary will be addressed. You can bet on it.

I'd like to see someone who can generate more pressure besides CM3. This is a combination of personnel and us sometimes lacking the aggression it takes to take the opposing QB down.

And to the reporters, is it possible to give an injury without mentioning Tebow? We're not going to get him so why waste a question on him.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

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

Mucky Tundra (7h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago

beast (8h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years

Zero2Cool (14h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (14h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (15h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (22h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

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

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS