It's not like they're going to run out of streets! Besides, we should be so lucky to have SOOOO many different winning Super Bowl coaches to have a few streets named after them! See all your points about long drought etc and lower career numbers. All good points. I'm willing to start the precedent in Green Bay....errr...Ashwaubenon...errr...you know what I mean!

---

I agree. Not trying to complain or anything. I think all the Super Bowl wins are awesome!

---

Ehh, McCarthy inherited a 4-12 team in major need of a roster rehaul. Thompson was the vehicle for the transformation; McCarthy played a huge role in developing key players (most obviously/notably Aaron Rodgers).

While it is true that generally speaking the teams leading up to McCarthy's reign were solid, Sherman as GM had some detrimental effects. McCarthy didn't inherit a winner.

---

JMO....should be.....McCarthy Park way.

Think about it.

This made you laugh.....you're either over 50 or really into 70's music.

---

I'll give you a + for that one.

I qualify on both accounts.

---

Uh-huh.

Please tell me how many injured starters we suffered this year again?

---

Thompson inherited a winning team. MM inherited a team coming off a 4-12 season that was getting younger. It was his job to develop that talent and he did it admirably.

It was also 14 years between Super Bowl wins. Sure, we were in the playoffs a lot, but only advanced past the divisional round twice between SB XXI and SB XLV. MM deserves a street named after him without question IMO, just make sure it's Mike McCarthy Way, not McCarthy Way (so there's no confusion with that other McCarthy from Wisconsin).

---

Mike McCarthy did not inherit a winning football team. And if you think he did, you're a fail, period. I tried understanding that view before posting, really tried, but its just stupid in my opinion. So many say Super Bowls are what counts, yet we're gonna say Mike Sherman handed Mike McCarthy a winning team?

Let's not forget that only six of the players on the roster today were there prior to Mike McCarthy's arrival.

Facts being said, the Packers were a team in decline, many of their key starters nearing the end of the road and we had absolutely no depth. This season could very easily have been another '05 season, but Ted and Mike did a great job with depth and adapting, something Sherman could not do. Not to mention a quarterback change.

It's a complete stir the pot comment and proves how boring the offseason is when something like that is said.









Regarding the street sign, and the thought Green Bay should wait before changing a street sign. Specifically that McCarthy should have a better record than Sherman.

Numbers when they won the Super Bowl

McCarthy (5 seasons)
regular season 60.0%, 48W - 32L
post season 71.4% 5W - 2L (Super Bowl win)

Holmgren (6 seasons)
regular season 64.6%, 62W - 34L
post season 70.0% 7W - 3L (Super Bowl win)


Sherman and Holmgren's career numbers

Sherman and Holg
Sherman (6 seasons)
regular season 59.4%, 57W - 39L
post season 33% 2W - 4L


Holmgren (8 seasons)
regular season 67.2%, 86W - 42L
post season 64.3% 9W - 5L (1 Super Bowl win)


I think it's safe to say McCarthy has exceeded Sherman, lets drop that thinking. Feel free to correct my numbers if need be. I'm still sleepy.

---

Fifteen players on IR (or if you listen to Sam Elliott, sixteen), and you don't think that was overcoming a monumental hurdle?



And his first season as HC was 2006, where he took on a team that was 4-12 the previous year. Rosters change, players get older. It is much more valid to talk about what a team did the year before than what they did the last ten years if we are talking about what the coaches have done. He then took the team to 8-8 the next year, and 13-3 the year after that. Unfortunately, we were 6-10 the following year, but that doesn't really help my side of this 😉

---

Nope. It is my opinion and I will keep it thank you very much. In 1 year Mike M will surpass Mike S in wins. (Along with Bart Starr.) He will be # 4 all time. It makes more sense to honor him then. But even that is too soon for me.

I never said McCarthy did not have a better winning %. My opinion is based on him being coach for ONLY 5 years. I felt they gave Holmgren the street too soon as well. It is MY opinion it should be given at the end of a long and successful career not towards the beginning or in the middle of a career.

---