These kind of responses are tired and ridiculous. I appreciate you telling me Mike McCarthy didn't suit up yesterday, or any day for that matter.
If you think HC's don't impact games you are free to believe that. He does impact games... those who know football know he coached a terrible game yesterday. Typical fare from MM.
Glad you are comfortable LOSING games. There is NOBODY who would ever tell you that Seattle won that game more than Green Bay lost it. MM's mindset is to psychological fold when things go wrong. If you don't see that you are blind. A great HC doesn't fall apart emotionally when some misfortune comes his way, but that is MM.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
This is such a predictable response. First, you make some ridiculous statement to try to minimize someone's argument. When did I ever write I'm happy with losing? Sophomoric on your part.
Second, you frequently avoid key points that don't fit your narrative. My argument has been and continues to be about the player's responsibility in the loss. Lacy dropped screen, Rodgers missing Jordy in the endzone, 2 FG range ints, Starks drop on the 5, Quarless drop on 3rd down conv. in 4th Q, Burnett kneel, onside, and HaHa 2 point. Those are just 9 examples of play on the field that would have significantly altered field position or even
directly conceded points on the scoreboard.
I never said HC's don't impact the game. However, you, me, Vegas, and a lot of other people saw the Packers as underdogs. Despite that, with a gimpy QB the Packers dominated the vast majority of the game, they were fired up, gang tackling. All of that and leading the defending champs 19-7 late in the game, is that the HC impacting the game, or can his impact only be tied to the negative aspects of the game?
Instead of this "everyone knows Mike sucks" and "it's all his fault" weak cop out argument, could you explain how any of the 9 plays I listed are his fault?