I believe Mike McCarthy was alluding to Ted Thompson not trading for Vernon Davis. I believe that is the veiled reference he made.

You doubt that a legit TE would've helped? Why? I don't see the logic in that statement. We had weakness there so adding strength would make no difference? I saw what a difference a battered Bakhtiari made in Arizona vs. a healthy Don Barclay. We lost Cobb and still competed far better ...why? One guy was different. That one guy helped change the game immensely. To say a big fast TE would've mean nothing... I don't see that at all.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

GB sets their offensive game plan BEFORE the season and stubbornly sticks with it. If you watch the game by formation ..match up for match up they had very little in for a TE. They pre planned to use their TE as H-backs and with some motion to create mismatch's on the backside.

Your so stuck on having the last word here that your looking at everything from that one perspective(not saying your perspective is wrong) go back and watch the games from a formation and X and O match up. Everything on offense is out of sync and this leads to a tired defense later.. which is why things turn out like they do. Mike McCarthy and company don't quickly adjust personally and or game plans not how they do business like it or not. Hell Uffda our QB missed tons of wide open throws... A TE or more Janis wouldn't have mattered much. It is what it is...

Time to move on to 2016

Originally Posted by: 68md 

I believe Mike McCarthy was alluding to Ted Thompson not trading for Vernon Davis. I believe that is the veiled reference he made.

You doubt that a legit TE would've helped? Why? I don't see the logic in that statement. We had weakness there so adding strength would make no difference? I saw what a difference a battered Bakhtiari made in Arizona vs. a healthy Don Barclay. We lost Cobb and still competed far better ...why? One guy was different. That one guy helped change the game immensely. To say a big fast TE would've mean nothing... I don't see that at all.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Doubt Vernon Davis is actually a legit TE. Denver doesn't exactly have a star studded TE position and could only find like 8 snaps for him in the Superbowl and not much more than that over the entire playoffs. He's either fallen off physically or gotten extremely lazy for Denver to trade for him and not use him.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

Here's a Mike McCarthy quote on why the passing game sucked this past season:

“To have a successful passing game, you have to have big targets that can run through the middle of the field. When you don’t have that, you see what we saw this year. They’re going to add an extra player to the box. That’s the biggest commitment you can make to the run, and that’s what we saw all season.”

---Not a shot at TT? I think it is. GET ME A TE FOR THE LOVE OF...!!!!!!

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

There has been some debate over what the above "quote" means by trying to assess a value to the words not inherent in their meaning...but the "quote" is WRONG.

One should never print a Ketchman quote w/o checking it first.

Mike McCarthy mentions production of specifically big receivers and TEs over the middle. This could have been a veiled shot at Janis as opposed to anyone else. It could have been a self-deprecating shot at himself, as an admission that he failed to have enough installs for routes across the middle. The mention of “production,” which is the product of the receivers and QB completing passes, could be a statement about A. Rodgers for not productively throwing to anyone other than Cobb in the middle of the field. And if you doubt this listen at 22:02 to MM's response when asked about AR's play this year; now compare this to the effusive praise he gave Aaron Rodgers when he struggled early in 2014.

It doesn’t make sense that the comment is directed at Rich Rod. I’m working on filling in the wholes of my route charts and R.Rodgers only had about 1 in 30 routes “running through the middle.” The few times he did, he was often open and the even fewer times he was targeted, he was productive; but for bad throws. Even Periillo had a couple of nice catches “running through the middle.” So, how can a coach blame a guy for not blame a guy for not doing something he was told not to do?

The other possibility is Mike McCarthy is just out to humiliate a room full of idiots. Mike McCarthy speaks of the first play v. AZ, GB went 3WR and AZ had 8 men in the box. 😂 😂 That would mean 0 coverage, the fact is there were 7 in the box; Peterson man on Jones right and left AZ had had 2 CBs on Adams and Cobb w/ a safety over the top. So maybe he's just trying to say nothing for 23 minutes except to send a message to Lacy that he wont make it out of TC if he comes in out of shape.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

You work harder on trying to invalidate things that don't fit your agenda than do the Ted Thompson fanatics. He also said more than just this but you chose to focus on this one quote to invalidate. I think this quote coupled with the weight of the others that you're not taking issue with is more evidence that it means what I think it means and not what you'd like it to mean to fit into your agenda.

My agenda is to see this team win SB's and not sugarcoat or excuse anyone or anything that's in the way of that agenda. So, when some say I'm anti-TT or whatever... No. I am anti ANYTHING that I see as an impediment to seeing this franchise win another Lombardi. Yes...that includes Ted Thompson for sure but I'm not anti Ted Thompson for the sake of being anti TT. Those who support this org have an agenda but it isn't to see it win SB's so what is it?

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

The only agenda I have is to have Packer Opinions processed through reality. The reality begins by what happens on he field, not in shorts at a combine and not by pulling out a Captain Crunch secret decoder ring to decipher the true meaning of MM's veiled communications. Successful football coaches keep the dirty laundry in house and are honest and straight forward to their players and colleagues, those that are not, watch their teams/organizations implode around them [See one Jimmy Harbaugh].

Mike McCarthy will speak point blank to his players and if he's unhappy with TT's acquisition of talent he will walk into his office man to man and tell him directly. Now, who after having a man to man, then antagonizes that player or GM by making a veiled reference to it to the press? This is how children or emotionally unstable turnips like Harbaugh might act.

Actions always trump words. In the season ending press conference Mike McCarthy stated that he’d sit down with Ted Thompson in 2 weeks to discuss the roster. I just can’t imagine that if Mike McCarthy said we NEED this or that and Ted Thompson routinely failed to deliver because of a difference in philosophy that Mike McCarthy would be there for 10 years.

In taking the comment about Adams and Rodgers taking a leap from year 2 to 3 as some sort of indictment of their performance, one should ask: What is Mike McCarthy supposed to say? That they’re fully accomplished; or that they suck? There is nothing else Mike McCarthy could say. No Packer receiver in the Mike McCarthy era has been accomplished in his 2nd year. They ALL got better years 2 to 3. If you want to know what Mike McCarthy really thinks of Davante then analyze REALITY. Learn about route running and then watch the game to see how Davante compares. Mike McCarthy says "stats are for losers." He is saying we make football decisions based on grades of performance NOT STATS.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

I think that’s one of our big advantages. They have a great working relationship. Now, there’s natural tension between a GM and a head coach, and they manage that well.

Mark Murphy  wrote: