Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Is Mike McCarthy’s Future With the Packers Dependent on a Successful 2018 Season?

By Category

Is Mike McCarthy’s Future With the Packers Dependent on a Successful 2018 Season?

As Packers head coach Mike McCarthy enters his 13th year leading the team, he brings with him a 121-70-1 career record.  This .633 winning percentage ranks McCarthy among some of the all-time greats at the NFL level of coaching.  But even with the stellar numbers and the impressive consecutive year’s playoff streak that was broken last season, the coach’s critics have become more and more vocal each and every year during his tenure with the Packers.

In all honesty, Coach McCarthy has definitely outlived the normal shelf life of most coaches in the league.  Currently sitting as the third longest running head coach with their team behind Bill Belichick and Marvin Lewis (and tied with Sean Payton), a 13 year run with a single team is a rarity in today’s game. 

The basis of most of McCarthy’s critics stems around the fact that the team has only secured one Super Bowl victory in his time with the team with both Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers leading the team at quarterback.  McCarthy’s units have definitely had multiple chances to play for more Super Bowls, but the teams ultimately fell short in their 2007, 2014 and 2016 seasons with losses in the NFC Championship games.  Having had the opportunity to coach over two transcendent hall of fame quarterbacks makes McCarthy’s career thus far certainly unique among his peers, but I think that holding only one Super Bowl title against him is a bit unfair.

In both 2007 and 2014, the head coach had his teams ready to compete for a win and a chance to get back to the Super Bowl.  We all know the results of each game and that mental mistakes by the players on the field ultimately led to the Packers demise in each contest.  In 2016, the team was simply outmatched in the conference title game in a hostile environment on the road.

Other critics will point to years like 2011, where the team went 15-1 and had one of the most prolific offenses the league had ever witnessed.  After a first-round bye, the team laid an absolute egg at home against the New York Giants to bow out early in the playoffs.  The 2012 Divisional round game against the 49ers where the team was embarrassed by the coming out party for Colin Kaepernick is another game that critics of the coach point to.  But in both of these cases, the defensive units of the teams just couldn’t hold up their end of the bargain.

At the end of the day, the success of an NFL team does fall on the shoulders of a head coach and, in his own words, Mike McCarthy is a “highly successful NFL coach.”  While the Packers eight-year playoff run that ended this past season falls in part on Coach McCarthy’s shoulders, obvious questions were raised regarding how much load should fall on the head coach’s shoulders.  But once again with last year’s team in question, should more of that blame fall on the General Manager for the lack of talent that the coaching staff had to work with?

Much of McCarthy’s success as a coach stems from his ability to work with quarterbacks and some of the success of Aaron Rodgers can be attributed to his work with McCarthy.  This value alone makes McCarthy a highly sought after coach in the National Football League.  On top of that, McCarthy certainly has garnered the respect of his players through his years of leading the Packers.  While McCarthy and Rodgers have had their fair share of sideline disagreements through the years, the quarterback has a respect for his coach that hasn’t seemed to waiver in their time together.  The coach’s quiet swagger and the ability to lead his team make him well respected in the locker room.

With McCarthy now under contract through the 2019 season after receiving a one-year extension last season, one can’t help but wonder what the coach’s fate will be should the Packers miss the playoffs this season.  The new structure of the Packers front office with McCarthy reporting directly to Mark Murphy is a very unique dynamic in today’s NFL.  Having a lengthy relationship with Murphy can’t hurt the coach’s chances should the team falter once again. 

But with a healthy Aaron Rodgers back under center and a hopefully revamped defense, the Packers will enter the 2018 season with high hopes.  Hopefully, McCarthy’s future fate as the Packers coach is sealed with a strong regular season and a push towards Super Bowl LIII in Atlanta come next February.


Ryan Brunner is an avid Packers fan hailing from Chippewa Falls, WI.  He is a firm believer that punters are NFL players too!  Follow him on Twitter @brunwardo

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (167) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Packer Fan's picture

I am looking for MM to rebound. His offense has been stale for about three years. The defense has been lousy for two years. Without Rodgers, the team is a sub ,500 team. TT got canned for not having enough talent and being slow to react to changing conditions MM should have fired Capers a long time ago. All these things have wasted the career of Rodgers for winning more Super Bowls. If MM doesn't correct these things then yeah, BG and Murphy need to consider canning MM.

Nick Perry's picture

I will go to my grave believing this one fact...Had McCarthy had the support of a GM who did EVERYTHING in his power to put the very best product on the field every season, the Packers would have at least 1 or 2 more SB titles. McCarthy has been hamstrung by to many teams in his career at GB with OBVIOUS weaknesses going into a season, weaknesses Thompson EXPECTED Rodgers to continue to overcome because of his greatness.

What might have happened had Thompson traded for Marshawn Lynch when he had the chance for what amounted to peanuts?
What might have happened if Thompson didn't let Jenkins walk in 2011 or at least brought in someone who could pressure the QB up the middle?
What might have happened had Thompson not let the Safety, TE, RB, or back-up QB position become absolute glaring weaknesses for multiple years at a time?
What might have happened had we had a GM like Gutekunst all along who has already used FA and made a trade to make his team better. In other words a GM who uses every avenue to better his team.

McCarthy isn't without fault. Playing not to lose instead of playing to win like in 2014 was all on him. But even then the Packers should have NEVER let that go. McCarthy should have fired Slocum years before 2014 yet he didn't. It took two colossal F-Ups and a chance at another Lombardi for Slocum to be shown the door. It took even longer and MORE colossal F-Ups to get Capers out the door. Yet IMO if Thompson was doing his job and not listening to McCarthy tell everyone how successful he is, Thompson would have made sure Capers was replaced long before the Poop Show which was last seasons defensive effort.

For McCarthy to see 2019 the Packers need to not only make the playoffs but win a playoff game or two.
2018 might be a year early to win a SB but I'm also not ruling it out by any means. This season depends on the rookies and 2nd year players. If the rookies are as good as we think and the 2nd year guys like King, Jones, Biegel, and Adams all make jumps, then 2018 isn't to soon. McCarthy made the right moves way back in January which will decide if he's back in 2019. He hired Petting and Philbin. New defense, a revamped offense and McCarthy will have this team right where it should be...In the SB.

Bearmeat's picture

Agreed 100% NP. Well said.

Bearmeat's picture

LOL. NP is upvoted for saying his peace. I am downvoted for agreeing. Makes sense.

Oppy's picture

Never assume anything that we partake in here makes any sense, whatsoever.

It's a jungle out there!

dobber's picture

I downvoted you because nobody else had, yet. ;)

Bearmeat's picture

"yet" being the key word there, Dobber. haha.

dobber's picture

You just needed an ice-breaker...

Savage57's picture

Agree 95%. The head coach selects his coaching staff, thus Capers and everything associated with him accrues back to MM. He was too loyal to Capers.

Nick Perry's picture

I agree with you about that Savage57...But shouldn't have Thompson stepped in and made sure Capers was fired when McCarthy obviously couldn't/wouldn't do it? McCarthy is loyal, to loyal to a fault really and it's gotten in the way. I understand it's the HC's job to hire and fire his staff, but the Capers situation was one where I think Thompson should have stepped in. Maybe it was suggested and McCarthy's stubbornness showed up.

Perhaps with this new "Power Structure" in GB now this would never happen again.

dobber's picture

"For McCarthy to see 2019 the Packers need to not only make the playoffs but win a playoff game or two.
2018 might be a year early to win a SB but I'm also not ruling it out by any means."

I don't think those two statements go together, NP. In essence you're saying that in order for MM to be back in 2019, the Packers need to overachieve in 2018 based on what we're seeing in terms of roster and talent now. Certainly that would reflect well on a coach, but I don't think that will be the case here.

"McCarthy isn't without fault. Playing not to lose instead of playing to win like in 2014 was all on him. "

I agree: they should've won that game but, oh, geez, can we let this just die already? That game had so many on-field player errors just in the last few minutes that were crucial to the outcome--whether it's Burnett hitting the turf or HHCD not making a play on that 2-pt pass or the botched on-side kick--that it's in Webster's under the definition of improbable. "Oh, but Dobber, it's about coaching when players make those mistakes"--fine, but hang it on the position coaches who actually work with those players, and the coordinators who should be getting them situational instructions. We want to go after that one drive late where they tried to burn clock and get Seattle to kill it's TOs. It's sound football just didn't work that time, and only because of the improbable circumstances surrounding it.

porupack's picture

Very fair assessment NPerry. I agree, TT did not do nearly enough, thus limiting the ceiling of potential. You didn't give MM a pass either about retaining ineffective staff. Good post.

Since '61's picture

Nick - excellent post. The only thing I can add is that if MM is fired by the Packers for whatever reason, he will have another job before he leaves the building, assuming that he would want another job rather than take some time off or retire completely.

With expectations to win the SB every season, I'm not sure that MM is measured fairly against the actual results achieved. I can very well remember what we would have done to have the current Packers' success during the 70s and 80s.

When compared with his peers, MM clearly has been one of the league's top 3 Head Coaches since 2006. Thanks, Since '61

Archie's picture

Look at the Packers under MM. Look at the Pats during the same period. No comparison. Nuff said. Either GB wins at least one playoff game this year or sayanora to the rotund one.

dobber's picture

Look at (insert any NFL team here) since 2006. Look at the Patriots. No comparison. Nuff said.

We need to stop comparing teams to the Patriots. They're a unique situation that may never be replicated in the NFL in the modern era.

kevgk's picture

Belichick has complete control over the roster and much less cap space dedicated to QB. You can only compare how the two as coaches handle the roster they have.

porupack's picture

The Patriots don't have any competition in their division since, what, turn of the century? Their whole season is live practice for the playoffs.

Tarynfor12's picture

These yearly SB expectations are not because of MM but having Rodgers and therefore MM is being measured on his HC performance. Take Rodgers away and MM is unlikely to be as revered by some as much or often.

Jonathan Spader's picture

Can't the same thing be said Belichik and Brady? What's wrong with a coach's success being tied into their QB? Would Rodgers be the player he is without MM?

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

If MM has a job before he leaves the building, I guess we will find out if he remains the highly successful coach he's been in GB or if he morphs into the roughly .500 coach I think he is.

croatpackfan's picture

Hmmm, I think many of you forgot 2013 season, when Packers win the division playing with Seneka Wallace, Scott Tolzien and Matt Flynn for 8 games - first, with Bears Packers lost (Seneka instead of Aaron who was injured in 1 Q), than vs Eagles, start of Seneca for 5 snaps, than Scott till the rest of the game, than Giants with Scott Tolzien (3rd QB) and half of the game vs Vikings. Matt was leading second half comeback just to tie, than lost vs Lions in the worst game played by Packers whole season... After that Packers got 2 wins vs Falcons and Cowboys (remember that epic comeback?) and loss vs Steelers - last game was epic comeback from Aaron Rodgers vs Bears!

So, lets be honest, can you name me HC you think would had better result than MM in mentioned condition, and how MM "mediocrity" was guilty for the complete mess on the roster?

Also, for your info, reason why Mark Murphy made changes in Personnel department ans decide to have the last word regarding HC is huge fight MM and TT had at the beginning of the season regarding Taysom Hill and not keeping him on 53. MM knew that Brett Hundley is not ready...

You may not believe in what I wrote, but one day, when some memoirs will be published, you'll all knows I gave you truthful information!

And I'm certain that MM will have the job at the moment when rumors would start of his end with Packers... (Look for Browns, Bills, Jets, Buccaneers, Cardinals, Bengals...)...

Barnacle's picture

MM has more “versatile” players playing up to four different positions. In crunch time, we seem to have more “player” errors. We have a relatively young roster and a coach who thinks you can have your rookies play several positions.

I think MM does not connect the dots between versatility,, player errors and injuries.

Any coach(except Jeff Fisher) would have some success with Rodgers running the offense .

egbertsouse's picture

Mashed Potato Mike will be the head coach in GB until he decides to quit or is carried out of 1265 Lombardi Ave t-u. It took a major health issue for them to finally ease out TT and I don’t see the culture changing anytime soon.

dobber's picture

I wouldn't put it that way, but I suspect your sentiment is mostly right and that part of the restructuring of the front office was done to protect MM from a potentially overzealous GM. I think he's much more secure than the "deep playoff run or SB in 2018 to save his job" that we've been hearing from some quarters for the last several months would imply.

As stated in the article, his current contract runs out in 2019 and he's here until at least then. They might even extend him by at least a year prior to that to avoid the 'lame duck' syndrome, but that doesn't really afford any HC added security. I think he's a favorite with the board and with Murphy, and that's going to go a long way for him calling his own departure.

Tarynfor12's picture

If this season is mere average or less or even a one and done playoff appearance, than a lame duck season should be erased by MM being fired. I would also contend that Rodgers would not be in strong support of keeping MM if having the voice he supposes to be warranted.

porupack's picture

thumbs down for derogatory adjectives. Poor taste from a fan on a fansite.

I do like mashed potatoes, with some 'kraut and sausage. That's substantive. You can have your chicken fingers and greasy fries.

Guam's picture

I think NP summed it up perfectly. MM has made mistakes based on too much loyalty to his coaching staff, but players win championships and TT did not do enough outside the draft to provide championship level talent.

Archie's picture

".....but players win championships...."

Tell that to Vince Lombardi. He molded men. His teams didn't make mental mistakes for a reason - great coaching.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

There's good and bad with McCarthy.

On the one hand, he's a terrific organizer, he's liked by his players, he maintains a usually-high-character team, and he is a fine human being.

On the other hand, his use of personnel--both coaches and players--is nightmarish. I absolutely know we'll keep some of the wrong players and coaches every season or use them in the wrong ways, all because "McCapers" values comfort and loyalty over peak potential.

On balance, I see McCarthy as a guy who instilled professionalism into the organization, but whose coaching decisions have seriously damaged roster development and scheme design. He has been hampered by Ted and carried by Aaron.

Yes, McCarthy's job should be very much on the line.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Case in point: Geronimo Allison.

There was a healthy discussion on this site as to whether Allison should be kept--good points on both sides.

But the key question is, how much better must Allison be than the newer players to be the best choice for roster development? On questions like this, McCarthy will always choose short-term comfort over anything else.

Facts: Allison is a low-upside receiver with only 1 year left on his rookie deal. On a team whose QB has been exposed to more hits while buying time for low-athleticism receivers to separate, Allison is a low-athleticism receiver who struggles to separate. However, he is technically sound--a safer bet for 2018.

Any coach who values potential and roster development over immediate comfort, would require Allison to DRAMATICALLY OUTPERFORM ALL THE YOUNGER RECEIVERS to keep his roster spot. If Allison succeeds to this degree, he stays; anything less, he should be gone. That way, we could use the roster spot to develop higher upside with more cheap contract years for healthy cap management.

McCarthy, however, will let a more talented player walk so he can have a little more security for one quick year.

I guarantee it.

kevgk's picture

McCarthy isn't GM, he doesn't have the power to sign or release any player. Even still, Geronimo has several years of experience, shown chemistry with Rodgers, and has come up big in important moments before. There are real arguments to keep him over untest mid-round rookies. I would trust McCarthy to know where the development of these players lie much more than some random poster on a casual fan forum.

Barnacle's picture

I also would trust MM more than a “random” poster. However, I would NOT trust MM over our best posters. A random selection could end up a disaster. We could end up with a racist?

Take out Peth and Spader, then a random selection might be worth the chance instead of MM?

Oppy's picture

I'm not disagreeing with your general gist, but your idea of what constitutes "facts" is based entirely on personal opinion.

1) Allison is a low-upside receiver
This is opinion, not fact. You may base it on combine results, or draft status, or whatever- but the actual "fact" is, there's no way to know what a players' ceiling truly is. While I agree he may be limited physically, I would also add that this opinion we may share is an amateur fan opinion, not necessarily even the opinion of Allison's position coach or the Packer's personnel department.. or Aaron Rodgers.

2) (Rodgers) has been exposed to more hits while buying time for low-athleticism receivers to separate
Rodgers has taken a lot of hits over his career, most of them while scrambling. That is "fact". It is opinion that it has been while buying time for low-athleticism receivers to separate. The other end of that opinion is Aaron Rodgers doesn't get rid of the ball on time, often overlooking open, inexperienced receivers he doesn't "trust", or eschewing some of his (shorter yardage option) reads in his progression, instead choosing to hold the ball and buy time scrambling waiting for a specific WR to find a soft spot in a zone and make a big yardage play.

"Facts": Allison is a WR with only 1 year left on his rookie deal, on a team whose QB has taken many hits while scrambling.

Everything else in that paragraph is opinion.
Let me re-iterate I am not attacking your messaging. It's just a pet-peeve of mine when people declare "Facts" that are overwhelmingly "opinion".

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Green Bay has 2 years of control over Allison. He'll be an RFA in 2019.

I agree with ALP's gist. My opinion is that Allison has a low ceiling. I do think our WRs need time to separate except for Adams.

Gute does have final say over the roster. What is unclear is how much juice MM has. Clearly, MM will have input and the ear of Murphy, who will know exactly which players MM wanted to keep. I actually doubt that becomes very important. Most of the decisions probably will be fairly obvious, and only fans will argue about the marginal players like the Jumalle Rolles and Taysom Hills of the world. I suppose WR and even CB could be hotly debated depending on how the players do in TC and pre-season games.

croatpackfan's picture

If someone has a great name, name that sounds terrific to fans ears, fans of team also become his fans...

But there is one truth! No one will play or, better to say, perform better because he has great name, great speed (Trevor, Jeff), great body etc.

I think many fans over estimate Geronimo, because his name is Geronimo. I really believe Geronimo is nice person, but I do not see him as NFL star and surely not football superstar many of you dreams of...

Geronimo will have hard uphill battle to stay on roster and I hope he will, not because of Packers, but because of many of you, fans. So you can continue dreaming how you jell "Geronimooooooooo" while he is scoring TDs for your pleasure...

Jonathan Spader's picture

I'm one of those fans that loves screaming Geronimooo!

porupack's picture

Ryan, good article with very fair treatment.
Yes, MM had a somewhat low ceiling based on TT inadequacies in draft and FA.
Yes, MM has the respect of team and peers, and that says a lot.
Yes, MM did not always have his team ready to play.
Yes, MM delayed in changing under-achieving staff.
Yes, 2018 might be a year early, but by 2019; no excuses.

Ironically, I believe MM does evolve and innovate, even though he simultaneously gets predictable. Not sure I can explain to myself these 2 incongruencies.

Now with a change of staff and GM, here is what I will judge MM body of work in 2018:

Four out of five 2017 rookies elevate and become impact players; [does the MM system teach/mentor and fulfill Draft-n-DEVELOP}. MAdams/VBiegel/KKing/AJones/JJones plus JWillliams

They get turnaround transformation on DKizer.

Oline gels, elevates running game for average/slightly above- average RB corps AND protects QB; low sack rate. Schemes and play calling are big factors; get ball out quicker, use screens, etc.

MM, works well with Pettine to ensure well functioning D; fewer blown assignments, improved communication and set more aggressive tone. D absolutely MUST improve considering all of the investment in personnel. CB position group will be coached up, and rank top 5.

DLine will be dominant in collapsing pocket as we expect from MWilkerson, MDaniels and Clark. Combined with the high potential CB/Safeties group, Sack rate absolutely must go up by 40-50% over 2017. Get more impact out of pass rushing specialists, either KFackrell, VBiegel or RGilbert.

At least 1 rookie from each group below defies the odds, and make impact;
CB either JAlexander or JJackson makes big impact.
LB either OBurks or KDonnerson are modestly substantial impact on short-middle field coverage.
Any rookie WR establishes himself as a weapon.
[MM must teach/mentor and initiate rookie talent more than in past]. Get the rooks in simple schemes in early season, and build on their potential.

If MM accomplishes much of the above, he'll establish his legacy and we'll settle the debate: attribute the last 5 seasons of underperformance on TT, not MM.

At least one playoff

porupack's picture

Oh....forgot to add perhaps the biggest expectation for MM's 2018 job performance;

TE group will emerge and be center of excellence, and innovative use, rotation and schemes will impose their terms on ALL 16 opponents. JGraham will be all-pro candidate. [with no excuse regarding all 3 TE with proven talent and experience, they will essentially guarantee 65% third down conversions.

Oppy's picture

After reading the last two posts, I can confidently say I'm glad you're not the guy I have to sit down and have my annual performance review with ;) :)

porupack's picture

Oppy, I'd let you set your own benchmarks for success for the first 12 years :)

Oppy's picture

You've sold me. Where do I sign?

Spock's picture

To answer the question in the article's header: No, MM is not in danger of losing his job (future) with GB based on how the Packer's season goes in 2018. He's a top head coach (IMHO) in the NFL who has some faults, mostly being overly loyal to players and coaches who should have exited sooner. With his record one season would not be enough to put him on the 'hot seat' and as '61 pointed out he'd have a new head coach job before he left the building. I have optimism that the 2018 Packers will be very, very good and the 2019 Packers even better. MM and Rodgers have a very good working relationship and that alone is a reason to not change anything there. This article's speculation is one that I think would be highly, highly, unlikely. MM will be the coach next year. Period.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Due to the unusual leadership structure in Green Bay, McCarthy is virtually untouchable. Murphy likes him, and the GM has zero say on the matter.

Let's be honest here: McCarthy chose and kept his 2 Coordinators, then scapegoated them (somewhat fairly, as they were inept), and then was somehow rewarded with more organizational power. He doesn't even report to his GM.

In all my years watching football, I've never seen anything like that. Has anyone?

stockholder's picture

192 Games, 121 wins, 70 loses, 1 Tie. Two very Good Qbs. The clock is ticking.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Agreed, though I think his QB's have been better than very good.

If you have 2 QB's in the all-time Top 10, you have to live with significant scrutiny, and very high expectations.

croatpackfan's picture

Ah, Brett Favre... Nice guy made of steel. Very hard player. Lot of good happened when he come to Packers...

But, as always, there is but, he was player you were not able to count on him. Why? Because, in the most important moments of his team he made mistakes - how many heart breaking loses finished because his INTs at the crucial moments... Aaaaaah, Brett, Brett

WKUPackFan's picture

It is interesting that the people who continually mischaracterize the current front office structure are the same people who believe that TT should have done an end run around MM and fired Capers. Apparently slavish adherence to organizational structure only applies when particular people (MM and Murphy) are being excoriated.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

WKU, I've requested that you not comment on my posts. Please honor the request. I will do the same for you.


WKUPackFan's picture

I'll pass on doing anything that you demand. Now you can respond to subject of my reply, or continue claiming victim status to avoid criticism. Your choice.


Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Really, WKU? Is it so impossible for you to resist stalking me? Let me remind you, you flat-out lied about one of my posts, pulling one snippet completely out of context, in order to accuse me of (my goodness) racism.

You were caught and exposed, WKU, but the big point is this: NO ONE, whatever their views, should ever endure flat-out lies and completely baseless accusations, especially regarding something so horrible as racism. NO ONE. It just isn't acceptable.

You crossed a line, WKU--a big one. Now, I've never complained about you to Cheesehead TV or asked for you to be banned, nor have I responded in kind with indefensible accusations of racism. I've no problem with you continuing to post your hateful messages.

I only request you no longer do it with me. Is that REALLY so much to ask? There are literally hundreds of posters here with whom you can interact--I should think that would be enough.

Now again, I make this REQUEST: Please do not comment on my posts. Please satisfy yourself by interacting with the hundreds of other options available. Surely you don't think these others are all incapable of providing the "criticism" I deserve.

I will provide you the same courtesy. And honestly, don't you think everyone here would prefer it if you and I would not interact? If you can't bring yourself to do it for me, please do it for them.

Thank you.

kevgk's picture

you take this site way too seriously

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

He accused me of racism, kev, and lied brazenly while doing it.

Sorry, but that's too far. Just too far.

4EVER's picture

I feel for ya ALP! It seems all forms of grace, humility and intelligence cannot stop STUPID. The dude should be ashamed! And as a fellow blogger, wishes that he would graciously except your fair and reasonable request. I'm still scratching my head; how on earth does one turn a request into a demand?

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Thanks, 4EVER.

We all have our disagreements and salty comments, but it's good to hear from someone who values compassion, restraint, and common respect for the Packer family.

Let's hope your wise words resonate.

WKUPackFan's picture

Briefly, the "lie" Peth continually refers to was me actually stating his own words that the African-American race is prone to raging. Then, in the same post where he admitted making that statement, but said it was a "snippet" of his overall post, he again stated that the African-American race has been "trained to rage".

Please notice that my reply to Peth in this immediate discussion contains no reference to that previous give and take, no reference to social issues or politics of any kind.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Now post the total context of my comment, WKU--which shows me to be 100% opposite of your depiction. Copy and paste my entire comment, word for word.

I would love for everyone to see how you pull a 3-word snippet wildly out of context in order to flat-out lie about someone. This will serve as an example to all, showing why you can never be trusted.

My goodness, you have no capacity for shame. Please go away. Please.

dobber's picture

I have no dog in this fight, but it's a public forum and by posting we invite likes/dislikes and responses from any of our colleagues which may have a myriad of tones and inflections. Responses aren't "by invitation only" and we can't reasonably restrict others from responding to what we post. We need to be prepared for responses we don't invite or expect. If the responses are that hard to take, an appeal needs to be made to the administrator...otherwise, we're all here. Let's all get along.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Dobber, you know I've never shied from healthy debate, but reckless accusations of racism aren't debate. That's too far, and gently requesting that one person no longer interact with me because he's abusive is eminently fair.

He crossed a line, and I am a fellow Packer fan. I think we can all somehow survive without WKU and I interacting.

If I actually have to run begging to administrators to have such a reasonable request honored, then there is no hope of common decency here.

Tell me this, Dobber: If you've offended someone--deeply--and they gently ask you to leave them alone, do you need an administrator to make you do it?

Fordham Ram's picture

Alpi, I suggest you use a technique called planned ignoring, just don't respond and it may go away. From the wiseguy neighborhood I grew up in, now they your so hot and bothered, I'll break your chops all the more just to hear you squawk and grumble, somehow to a wiseguy it's entertaining. Remember when you post your a target. People have a right to respond to your thoughts. This isn't the Soviet Cheesehead TV website. Just let it slide and keep your astute observations on the Packers. Sometimes you have cogent things to say and I like reading them. For this back and forth stuff the more you respond the more power you give it. Ignore it, it'll go away, we got your point, as we say in The Bronx just fagedabodit.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Nope, already tried it. This guy is nuts. Silence meant nothing to him.

He also crossed a serious line when trying to accuse me of racism. Look, I have no problem fighting it out on various topics--the more the better--but if you're going to make a vicious accusation like that, THEN BACK IT UP.

He then tried lying outright to do so, pulling one snippet wildly out of context--context which showed I was the exact opposite of a racist. I called him out, challenging him to provide the entire post. He ran like a child.

Sorry, Fordham, but while "people have a right to respond" to my thoughts, they don't have a right to do the things he did. NO ONE has that right. It's too much. It's too far. And gently requesting he no longer speak to me is about as nice a thing as I could possibly do.

Jeez, man, I'm the good guy here. I'm the one who has been wronged, so why not call him out instead? Did that ever even occur to you? Of course not. I've tried to just "let it slide" and he kept stalking and hounding me, because he's a political zealot. He doesn't go away. He never will. You're talking like WKU is a normal, semi-rational bully, but he's well beyond that.

You know, I should think a few more people would step up and call the bum out, rather than pile on the guy who hasn't done anything. But hey, that's asking too much here.

If I were you, I'd go after the aggressor, but you cowards instead say nothing to him and tell me to shut up and take it. What a group this is. What a bunch of losers. Winners would go after the liar and tell him to provide full context to back up his slander, but you guys pile on the guy who's just trying to get a crazy person to back off.

Thankfully, a couple guys actually showed some stones and backed me up, so that's something. The rest of you are worthless. But what should I expect, given how seeing someone intelligently defend himself actually causes your wiseguy bloodlust to want to "break my chops all the more just to hear me squawk and grumble."

Me? I'd gear up and go after the wacko who can't let go of his childish vendetta. I'd tell this infant to find someone else to play with, as the adult he's stalking wants to talk with adults, not lying accusers. I'd call out the bum, but you actually empower him.

Oh, but if this offends you, you should understand that when you post, people might respond with comments you don't like. I recommend you just drop it so they'll go away. Lucky for you, I'm not a lunatic like WKU who will actually follow you. I actually WILL leave you alone, rather than stalking you, pestering you, and lying about you with horrible slander.

I, unfortunately, am not so lucky as you--not that you care.

Barnacle's picture


Is that “Let,s all get along” comment from Rodney King or Bernie Sanders?

dobber's picture
4EVER's picture

I have no dog in this fight, but am anxiously awaiting for the complete and unredacted context...

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Nothing's stopping him, 4EVER. I'm on a phone, so I can't. But WKU is fully invited to honor your request, and mine.

For me, it would be delicious.

WKUPackFan's picture

4EVER - Please refer to Peth's 7/7/18, 5:20pm lengthy comment to the Recent Suspensions Show The NFL's True Colors article, where he attempts to explain the context of his initial rage comment. There is no need to repeat the entire comment here.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Ah, so you don't want everyone to see the context?

C'mon, WKU, cut and paste ALL OF IT for everyone to see!

Try "Highlight-Control-C"...

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Oh, and I love your "he attempts to explain" spin...funny stuff.

You just never stop spinning, do you, WKU? It's either pull out a 3-word snippet or slant the characterization with "he attempts to explain."

Here I want total transparency, but you refuse to simply copy and paste my whole comment from which you cut a snippet--my whole comment for everyone to see, right here and now.

No, you just want one person to go look for a post somewhere else. This is delightful.

Naturally, your buddies applaud because they hate truth as much as you. But anyone with half a conscience is watching all your stalling and dodging, thinking, "no one squirms this much unless they're trying to hide."

WKUPackFan's picture

There is no need to clutter this thread with a copy of a comment, the precise location of which is clearly identified and easily accessible with one click. 4EVER asked for the context, I provided the exact location where it can be seen.

Feel free to cut and paste whatever you wish. It is, after all, your comment that we are addressing.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Clutter? Mr. "Posts and attacks on everything" is worried about clutter?


As for me, I already said I'm on my phone today, so I can't.

Look, it doesn't matter anymore. You did the classic lefty stall--put off releasing the whole story until hardly anyone is reading anymore. Even if you cut and paste my whole comment now, only you and your goon squad would see it.

So congrats, you plucked 3 words out of a full comment, and then stalled for hours without simply providing the whole context...because of "clutter."

Gee, I wonder why you didn't jump at the chance to use total transparency and show everyone what a big, bad, racist I am? Oh well, too late now. No one but me and your goon squad is left. Nice job.

I know, why don't you delete 33,000 emails and bleach your hard drive, then have hardline supporters head up the FBI investigation to clear you and write your exoneration months before the interviews?

You thugs are all the same. It's been fun, but now WILL YOU PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE?

I think everyone would be happier if we didn't interact anymore, 'kay? Can you manage to settle for all the hundreds of other posters instead of me?


4EVER's picture

Delicious below....needed the room.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Thanks, 4EVER. Obviously, only a complete lunatic could read my comments in context and still believe I have even a hint of racism in me.

And we both know WKU doesn't think for a second that I'm a racist. It's all just part of his "Attack the Righties" crusade. But calling someone a racist and then refusing to post the full context of his comments which clear him...that's just inexcusable.

You don't call someone a racist UNLESS THEY ARE A RACIST. You sure as heck don't pull some snippet wildly out of context to lie about them when calling them a racist. People with any conscience at all would never do that.

Thanks for printing some of what WKU refused to share, 4EVER. It's nice to be exonerated, and it's good to see WKU exposed as a liar. He deserves every ounce of it.

Barnacle's picture

Does thou protest too much?

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

No, I'd say I protest being called a racist when all evidence shows the opposite...

..just the right amount.

You loons are hilarious. A guy is accused with zero evidence, then defends himself with enormous evidence, AND WACKOS LIKE YOU SAY DEFENDING HIMSELF IS "PROTESTING TOO MUCH."

So, by your reasoning, I should let baseless and disgusting charges against me by a lunatic...stand unopposed, because defending myself with clear evidence somehow shows hidden guilt.

Do I protest too much? No, I protest just enough.

The bigger question should be, "Why don't people like you demand that lunatics making empty and disgusting accusations back up their claims--rather than running from evidence to the contrary?"

But if people like you won't demand and respect evidence, then it's left to people like me--people you claim "protest too much."

Got anything else, Barnacle?

Barnacle's picture

Yes, Andrew Lloyd Peth, someone that hollers “wacko” “ lunatic” and other nasty names probably has narsistic personality disorder and probably needs professional help.

And “yes” you do protest too much?

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

And hey, here's the post to WKU I was referencing--please tell me where the racism is in this:

By all means, and show it in full context. Then apologize. Apologize profusely. I sure would if I were you.

I plainly showed full statistical evidence, citing a 5-year period of FBI stats from 2010-2014, showing that during that time the average black person killed 10.73 times as many white people as the other way around. The numbers were beyond dispute.

I also said this had nothing to do with black people being more violent by nature, but rather that this would happen with any group which was taught its rage was justified. I plainly stated the numbers from 60-70 years ago would likely be reversed. If you preach and preach to ANY GROUP that its rage is justified--white, black, German, Muslim, Japanese, ANY GROUP--the worst elements of that group will act out in more violent ways--precisely as the numbers show today.

I also stated in no uncertain terms that this was NOT natural, but was TRAINED, and that ALL PEOPLE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME BY NATURE. Plus, I plainly said "all people are beautiful and every child a miracle, no exceptions."

The fact that you would pull one snippet out of that context is despicable. I would never in a million years do that, especially painting a complete non-racist as a racist, like you just did. Horrible. Just horrible.
Pulling snippets completely out of context is L-Y-I-N-G. And the fact you would lie like that in order to accuse me of racism? HOW CAN YOU DO THAT AND STILL LIVE WITH YOURSELF?

Unbelievable. Please do not comment on anything I ever write again. Anyone who would resort to such slander is beneath my contempt.

WKUPackFan's picture

Same resonse as before: 60-70 years ago coincides with the beginning of the Civil Rights movement. Things would certainly be different for you and 4EVER if those black folks had just stayed in their place.

You question whether I actually believe that you are a racist. Read this in no uncertain terms: You are a racist. 4EVER is a racist. Your previous post above proves it, your post that 4EVER reprinted below proves it.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha! NONE of that proves anything of the sort! Jeez, what a loon! 4EVER and I have never said WORD ONE about black people staying in their place, you asylum escapee! You always have to insert that racist garbage because...follow me here, okay?...BECAUSE WE DON'T SAY ANY OF IT!

YOU. HAVE. ZERO. REASON. TO. CALL. US. RACISTS. Got it? Racists do not believe all people are beautiful and every child is a miracle, okay? They believe...oh gee, let's think...THEY BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE, YOU LOON! Racists do not believe all people are exactly the same by nature, okay? They believe the opposite, you loon!

Oh, and about that Civil Rights movement: It was led by Republicans and largely opposed by Democrats, and I supported it 100%.

But hey, I must by lying, right? Somewhere, somehow, I'm actually sitting at a computer wearing a white robe, because...because...because WKU says so! He's just sure of it! He's calling Mulder and Scully right now with the scoop!

Dude, you need to leave me alone, okay? This is sick. You are sick. Get help--lots of it. Half the state of Wisconsin is not actually racist for disagreeing with WKU's politics, okay? Disagreeing with NFL players when they follow a guy wearing socks depicting cops as pigs and donating $25,000 to the charity of a cop-killer...doesn't make people racist! It makes them...wait for it...wait for it...SANE! Presenting real statistics--at your request, no less--doesn't make someone racist! It makes them...wait for it...wait for it...HONEST!

Get help, WKU. Get lots of it. It's really sick that you have a Resist brigade here ready to back you up, as no one should ever back up a lunatic like you. If some right-winger ever started spewing racist, lunatic stuff like you, I'd call them out for it, but your wacko buddies actually have your back. What a bunch of nutjobs!

Seek help, WKU. Seek long, expensive, professional help.

Oppy's picture

"Due to the unusual leadership structure in Green Bay, McCarthy is virtually untouchable. Murphy likes him, and the GM has zero say on the matter."

Let me change this scenario:

"Due to the standard leadership structure in Green Bay, McCarthy is virtually untouchable. Gutekunst, the GM likes him, and Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy leaves all football matters to the GM."

Has anything really changed here? McCarthy is in no way "untouchable". He still has performance expectations. He still has superiors. He still can be terminated by someone. The only difference for the time being, is who will fire or not fire him. That doesn't equate to untouchable. In one scenario, Mark Murphy does the firing. In the other, the GM does. In a standard structure, the NFL owner or the President or the CEO could tell the GM "You will not fire the HC if you want to keep your job." What's the functional difference? Doesn't change McCarthy's security at all, only Gutekunst's power. You seem to be making an assumption that Gutekunst holds McCarthy in less esteem than Murphy, something we can not have any insight into.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Actually, Murphy directly changed the structure so Ball and McCarthy report directly to him, not the GM.

The GM no longer has authority over Ball and McCarthy. This change was clear, purposeful, and fully explained by Murphy.

Besides, if this change had no impact, then why do it? Clearly, it had a major impact.

WKUPackFan's picture

Many organizations have a reporting hierarchies that differ from the chain of command in other areas. Murphy clearly stated that the purpose of having MM, Gute, and Ball meet with him was to facilitate and insure proper communication within the organization. To my knowledge, Murphy never stated that Gute has no authority over MM and/or Ball.

Oppy's picture

WKU, Murphy stated that he (Murhpy, himself) would be the person who makes the decision to fire the current Head Coach.

It is the only item of "power" which he has said he's taking, albeit a big one, from the GM.

He did say that MM, Gutekunst, and Ball would all report to him in order to facilitate communication. This falls in line with Murphy's statements of "silos" having developed and needing knocked down. I don't know why people think this means the GM is now an equal with the HC or the Contracts guy, or that the GM doesn't have final say in all football matters (outside of the coach being fired). It seems to me pretty straight forward- Murphy wants to ensure that all three positions are clearly communicating with each other.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

In other words...exactly what I said.

Oppy's picture

Well, no, that's not exactly what you said.

You said, "The GM no longer has authority over Ball and McCarthy. This change was clear, purposeful, and fully explained by Murphy."

There's nothing that has been "explained by Murphy" to suggest that Gutekunst has no authority over Ball (at all), or even over Mike McCarthy, outside of being able to fire him. On the point of McM, I really wouldn't expect a Green Bay Packers GM to interfere much with a HC anyways- the GM typically facilitates for the HC, not give him orders or commands. But, should the GM feel strongly enough, he has the authority to do so. It wouldn't be good for business, though.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Oh really? Well, they all report to the same guy, whereas two of them used to report to one of them.

Please explain to me what actual authority Gute has over Ball or McCarthy. Please show me where Murphy has spelled out, "Gute has this and this authority over these two men." Please, I'm all ears.

Oppy's picture

Uh, no. You're the one who is making claims about changes in power dynamics, not me. The onus is on you, you are making claims without basis.

The ONLY thing that Murphy has stated that equates to a shift in power is that he will be the one who fires the HC.

You are making wild assumptions that because everyone will report to Murphy, that Gutekunst has lost the power of executive decision in all things, and that Ball and MM have become equals with Gutekunst.

My argument is that those changes have not been announced, so why would anyone have any reason to believe they've changed. Why would I have to prove that changes that haven't been announced... haven't changed?

You're playing both ends of the field. I haven't made claims of changes, my argument is that you are claiming changes that were not specified.. I should be the one asking you to show me where Murphy has spelled out "Russ Ball and Mike McCarthy are now peers with Brian Gutekunst, and Gutekunst has no authority over those two men."

Your parlor tricks are weak.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Nice dodge, but I've already honored my end. I said all 3 report to the same guy, and Gute can't even pull the trigger if he wants the others gone.

That's all confirmed, and that's all I've alleged. You're the one alleging Gute somehow has all kinds of secret authority or whatever, and that this change by Murphy is no big deal.

So back it up, pal. Don't whine by calling a challenge "parlor tricks." Show some stones and show just how Murphy has empowered Gute to be over Ball and McCarthy. Where's his authority over them? If you got something, show it. Otherwise, buzz off.

Oppy's picture

"The GM no longer has authority over Ball and McCarthy. "

"Let's be honest here: McCarthy... was somehow rewarded with more organizational power. "

"He (Gutekunst) can't fire Ball"

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

All these statements are absolutely true, Oppy. Gute can't fire them, they don't report to him, McCarthy has gone from reporting to both Ted and Murphy to just reporting to Murphy--that's more power...

...every one of those statements is categorically true.

Barnacle's picture

Andrew Lloyd Peth you are NOT “all ears”. You are something else that you vociferously deny. Please stop posting your hurtful comments.and childish name calling.

Oppy's picture

It does not impact McCarthy's employment status to that of being "untouchable". It only changes the owner of the hand that signs the walking papers.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

It changes a lot, or Murphy wouldn't make the change.

Look, it's not as if Thompson, Ball, and McCarthy weren't free to communicate with Murphy before--either one-on-one or as a group. They were.

This is a specific structural change with a specific structural result--the GM no longer has authority over Ball and McCarthy.

Why is this so hard for people to accept?

Oppy's picture

"the GM no longer has authority over Ball and McCarthy.

Why is this so hard for people to accept?"

Because what you're stating isn't a fact. Outside of Gutekunsts' ability to be the final word on McCarthy's employment, the only thing that has been stated to have changed is that Murphy is going to make sure he, and everyone else, is in the loop.

That doesn't mean he's making all the decisions. It doesn't mean Ball is a peer to Gutekunst or MM.

It was clearly stated over the months that Murphy believed a serious lack of communication had developed between Ball, Thompson, McCarthy, and I'm going to go out on a limb here, and include Murphy (although he didn't expressly include himself). Facilitation of communication between different departments, or worker-management, etc and so forth, does not necessarily constitute a change in decision making or power structure. In and of itself, it does one thing: ensures everyone knows what the eff is going on. That is all. Anything else is speculation.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Please. If you can't remove someone, and if they officially report to the same guy as you, THEN YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER THEM.

Don't make this harder than it is. It's exactly what it looks like--3 positions on the same level, whereas 2 of them used to report to 1 of them.

There's no need to contort yourself out of joint here. Murphy made a clear power move, de-fanged his now Toothless GM, and spun it as "for better communication."

There is not a mammal or biped alive stupid enough to really believe that. There are just a bunch of combative bloggers wanting their beloved Team president to be Mr. Clean, so they talk themselves into buying the absurd.

Oppy's picture

If you say it enough, idiots will believe you.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Says the idiot who can't back up anything he writes. You just keep insisting Gute actually has some magic power we aren't seeing and you can't describe.

Me, I call a spade a spade. He can't fire Ball or McCarthy, he reports to the same guy they do, Murphy hasn't said word one about any authority he has over them--yeah, I'd say that says it all.

Oh, but hey, it's all for "better communication"--as if none of them could talk well with Gute in authority. What a joke. Only "idiots" would buy that. I wonder how you'd feel if your boss suddenly put your subordinates on your same level in every way, and told you it was for "better communication." Would you buy that? Please.

But hey, I'll just sit over here with the "idiots," right Oppy?

Oppy's picture

You're quickly becoming one of the group, "pal".

WKUPackFan's picture

The problems with the "Gute has no power" theory continue to include, but are not limited to: 1) A mischaracterization of the existing structure; 2) An erroneous equating of "reporting responsibilities" with equality of responsibilities/authority in all other areas; 3) A complete lack of any facts indicating that Gute has no authority to direct Ball's activities; and 4) Murphy's own statements that the "change", to the extent that there was a substantive change, was implemented solely insure proper communication within the organization.

dobber's picture

I would argue that, especially where Ball and BG are concerned, the power structure is so intertwined that both exert some power over the other. BG controls the roster and exerts power over Ball in player negotiations. Ball runs much of the day-to-day off-field operations of the organization (as TT ceded those powers to him years ago).

If we define power so narrowly as to call it only the ability to fire the other, then, yes, you're right. But each in their day to day work has power over the other and the organization. If anything, MM is the outlier of the three and has the narrowest--but most visible--influence over the organization. None of the three are equal, would be my argument.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Interesting. As a note, TT ceded authority to Ball, yes, but I suspect that TT could have yanked that authority back had he wished, at least in 2014, '15, probably '16. I don't think Gute could do that at present. Gute's position and juice will grow given success, particularly if his drafts and FA signings work out. That's just what I think; I certainly can't produce evidence.

Organizational structure is not unimportant, but I've found in my own experience that sometimes the real juice in an organization isn't reflected in the technical structure. I don't like the structure, but grown-up people who are reasonably mature should be able to make it work.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Oh, and I've said nothing of the "esteem" in which Gute holds McCarthy. I'm only saying he has no authority to remove him...which is true.

Oppy's picture

While you may not realize it, by stating that McCarthy is somehow "untouchable" because Murphy is the one who can fire him, you are both heavily insinuating that:

1) Mark Murphy holds Mike McCarthy in such great esteem that he will not fire him (now or ever, apparently, as evidenced by your support for Lare's comment declaring that McCarthy will always be the coach as long as Murphy is the President),

2) If Brian Gutekunst had the authority to fire McCarthy, McCarthy would NOT be untouchable. This directly implies that you believe Gutekunst is does not value Mike McCarthy as much as Mark Murphy does.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Nope, I'm just saying Murphy likes him and Gute has no authority. Don't read more into it.

Lare was using hyperbole. No one really thinks Murphy could never, ever bring himself to fire McCarthy.

Oppy's picture

Logic, it's not for everybody.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

My comments are perfectly reasonable. Look, there's no reason to get nasty--it's just a harmless disagreement over Gute's authority.

Not the end of the world.

Oppy's picture

I did not question whether Gutekunst has authority to fire McCarthy or not. I have pointed out that Gutekunst's inability to fire Mike McCarthy does not make McM "untouchable", and illustrated why your assertion that the current organizational structure doesn't change McM's ability to be fired.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Of course it changes his ability to get fired, since only the guy who's committed to him and just increased his power can fire him. The new GM, rather than having virtually every GM's authority to remove the coach, must now sit helplessly with zero power in the matter.

If you think that doesn't help McCarthy's job security, then, well....forget it. I don't really think you believe that. It's not possible.

Oppy's picture

There's only one guy committed to him?

Again, you make assumptions.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Didn't say that. Learn to read.

I described how only the guy who we know is committed to him by clear actions...can fire him. That doesn't mean no one else is committed to him. I couldn't care less if others are committed to him, since they are meaningless. All that matters is the guy to whom he reports.

Oppy's picture

Define commitment. Because as of today, Murphy's level of commitment to Mike McCarthy is only through the end of the 2018 season.

croatpackfan's picture

The complete discussion regarding your post looks like the discussion:
"My friend has bigger d*** than your friend!" Very childish...

For me it is very logical, if you are at the end responsible for the result, you have to have right to pick your co-workers (so, also OC and DC and others in coaching tree). And I'm sure that MM and MP discussed the defensive side of the coaching staff before people were announced to take the positions, as I'm sure MM and JP did the same...

Also, I do not see what is the problem and why HC needs to report to the person who did not establish him as HC. Do they need to talk and discuss roster and player issues? Hell, yes. So, what is what Murphy said? Oh, yes, structure is made like this to improve significantly communication between parts of football operations. How do you think any HC can do the job with GM who do not listen to HC needs and wishes, also, how do you think any GM can do the job if his negotiator (Russ Ball) do not hear his suggestions and signings he need to do. How do you think Ball can do his job if his GM (BG) just gave him players to sign them without listening his side of the equation... etc., etc.

Once again, that communication stopped in the past and that was the main reason for changes... Wait and you'll learn that before change there was huge fight between MM and TT...

Lare's picture

The one thing I think this offseason showed us is regardless the team's performance, McCarthy has his job as long as Mark Murphy has his.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

A-freaking-men, Lare.

Oppy's picture

My only take away from it is that Mark Murphy believed, for whatever reasons, that Mike McCarthy should be the coach in Green Bay for at least another season.

Logically, if Mark Murphy wanted to make Mike McCarthy "untouchable", why only resign McCarthy for a single year? Why not give him a 5 year extension? Especially if you're just going to tell the new GM that he won't have final say on firing of a HC anyways?

If Murphy's intention is to protect MM and be tied to the hip, it doesn't make sense the way he went about it. I'd be more inclined to believe, based on the 1 year extension, the Murphy believes McCarthy deserves a year with a healthy Aaron Rodgers and some new talent provided by the new GM to make his case for either being extended or being let go.

porupack's picture

After listening to all the opinions about the Murphy-Gutekunst-MM-Ball structure, I hereby accept Oppy's most reasonable assessment of the current structure.

Reporting to Murphy, also does not equate to Murphy exercising power/veto and override, nor usurping authority from Gutekunst. Many good managers delegate, and allow their subordinate to make the decisions. The 'reporting-to' part can be as simple as a superior, periodically asking the subordinate about rationale, strategy and which effectively continues to sharpen the subordinate to be objective and deliberate. It may have little to do with usurping power from GM.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Ridiculous. If that were the case, then why change the structure at all? Thompson already had "delegated power" to manage and fire the coach.

Face it. Gute can't fire the coach, and the coach reports to Gute's boss. That is a MASSIVE change in structure, and it directly robs the GM of power to effectively do his job. The funniest thing is Murphy's explanation that it's for "communication." Right. So robbing 1 (Gute) out of 3 positions (Gute, McCarthy, Ball) of power somehow helps them all talk better--what a laugh!

Name one other respectable GM who would come to Green Bay under this structure. They'd all fall over laughing...then they'd catch their breath for a moment as Murphy tries to tell them it's for better "communication"...then they'd buckle over laughing again...

Meanwhile, a stubborn sector of our fan base wants to convince itself that Murphy did this massive change in structure without it actually being a change in structure--as if Gute hasn't really lost any power at all. And then they try to convince themselves that Murphy is telling the truth when saying it's for better "communication." Hilarious!

You know, I love my fellow Packer fans, but some things are just too bizarre.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

The reason not to give MM a five-year extension is that it reduces the pool of desirable candidates for GM who would accept the job under those terms. Having a contract for 2018 and 2019 was possibly a bit of a problem already, and one that Murphy hid (or wasn't transparent about, or changed his mind), initially saying on Jan 2 that the new GM would be able to hire or fire the HC, and pulling the rug out just 6 days later. MM is reportedly making $6.5M to $7M per year. GB's profit ranges from $30M to $60M per year. Taking a $28 to $35M loss to fire MM would be a big deal. I've yet to read a report on how many years Gute's contract runs or how much he will make, but I bet it is only a few years and probably is less than what MM makes. [Edited while Oppy was replying so I only saw Oppy's after I submitted the edit.]

Oppy's picture

So it sounds as though you believe the contract extension for one year (as opposed to five, for example) is an indication that Mike McCarthy is in no way "Untouchable", but rather, makes him more easily disposed of if needed?

Oppy's picture

Dreaded double post.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Yes, but not necessarily to mean that his chair is burning hot. [I would have fired MM and think his seat ought to be fairly hot, but I am trying to fight my bias and I really don't know if it is even warm.] If nothing else, it strikes me as eminently sensible to have the GM's contract length coincide with the HC's, or at least not have more than a one year overlap. That has been GB's practice for some time now.

dobber's picture

Well-stated, TGR.

Lare's picture

Good points Oppy & TGR, but I still keep coming back to the question as to why Murphy didn't give Gutekunst authority over McCarthy? There had to be something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. As Gutekunst himself said, he was taken by surprise when he was offered the job under those circumstances.

I suspect one part of this may be that Murphy was trying to take more oversight of the team, possibly because he was taking a little bit of heat from the Board for letting the Thompson situation go on for (at least) 1-2 years too long.

dobber's picture

I think they were trying to avoid a housecleaning, and that they decided it would be the simplest way to do so.

Oppy's picture

Lare and Dobber, I think you are both onto something I have been thinking about for the past few week, which is admittedly nothing short of complete speculation on my part. It also ties into TGR's assertion about Murphy taking the heat (as opposed to Gutekunst) should MM's performance be a train wreck.

I wonder if the 2017 season had the Board of Directors so worked up that is was the BOARD who was trying to make the power grab, ready to revert to its pre-Bob Harlan/Ron Wolf ways, eager to start making football decisions for the team, Ala 1970's-80's. A bunch of small town business men ready to play Football gurus and "make things right again".

I wonder if they were ready to blow it all up, and thrown Mike McCarthy out with the bath water, and Murphy felt that a young, inexperienced GM would not be able to, nor should he be asked to, stand up to immense pressure from the board. I wonder if Mark Murphy felt that completely dismantling a team with an aging QB would likely push Rodgers outside of the window for a superbowl push in Green Bay.

I wonder if Murphy dug HIS heels in, telling the board "NO.", and keeping Gutekunst out of the pressure cooker, giving MM an opportunity to be judged on a season with a (hopefully) healthy QB, a different option as a Back up QB, and an injection of more athletic players provided by a new GM, culled by more open and accessible talks between all.

I fear that the Board of Directors may be trying to flex again, as all three of you have somewhat eluded to, and Murphy's "Power grab" is a defensive, time-buying response to it. But who knows? All I can be sure of is I agree that something unknown transpired, Lare.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Interesting. Lots of possible permutations. For example, there might be one person (or more, I suppose) on the 7-person executive committee whose opinion(s) is (are) particularly respected. That person may not have made up his or her mind about Gute/MM/Ball etc., or simply felt that one more year of evidence was necessary. That would tie in with Dobber's thought that the BOD wanted to avoid a complete housecleaning for continuity's sake, or just to garner more evidence. I don't think MM is a bad HC, and I have a good opinion of Ball, at least in his current role. Gute so far is making a good impression, IMO. I like the Pettine and Philbin hires, not so crazy about some position coaches. So, what am I complaining about? We will see how things play out.

I guess I don't think the BOD could make a transparent grab for the power they had pre-Ron Wolf, but how can I know? The BOD might opt to have more influence over front office personnel perhaps (but not sure about HC who is very visible), but not micromanaging football decisions.

Lare's picture

I don't know this for sure, but Im guessing there were a lot of discussions going on between the Board and Murphy after the home shutout loss to the Vikings with images of Thompson sitting in the booth with his mouth hanging open. That was the icing on the cake for a very embarrassing season by the Green Bay Packers organization.

McCarthy obviously has to take the majority of the blame for Hundley's terrible performance last season, it'll be interesting to see how he ends up after this season.

Archie's picture

If the Packers don't make the playoffs this year, somebody has to go. Hard to believe it will be Murphy or Gute. MM might get another HC job right away but I'd bet against him being successful as Aaron Rodgers don't grow on trees.

cpitt's picture

No one in the nfl has more monumental playoff chokes than MM. His offenses traditionally put up points but not much yards or TOP. MM is an above average offensive mind with at least a top 3 qb all time. He cant coach AR to check down to the backs or to consistently move the chains. He cant coach AR to get inexperienced WRs involved. MM refuses to play explosive playmakers in favor of his favorites. He's insanely stubborn and cost us at least 1 SB by keepimg Capers around. Hes an average coach with incredible offensive talent. He doesnt have the balls to make the hard decisions like firing Capers or Slocum and he is too stubborn to put the right players on the field. I hope he gets fired after this season. AR should have 3 rings and only has 1 because of MMs ineptitude.

Jonathan Spader's picture

Have you ever watched Marvin Lewis with the Bengals play in a playoff game? What about Reid with the Chiefs? Steelers also have a very successful head coach who recently has failed quite a few times in the playoffs.

Barnacle's picture

Wow, what insightful questions?

Jonathan Spader's picture

Kind of funny that the barnacle has attached itself to a former Alaskan.

4EVER's picture

Relieved to see the clearing of the antifa category - thumbs down - count.

edit: bummer they're back

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

The Occupy Coven always returns...

4EVER's picture

Well, found the article (with no help from WKU) and yes, ALP, it's Bobby Flay'vor' delicious. Delectable in fact.

Article: Why the NFL is Wrong to Ban the Athem
May 25, 2018

In a nutshell:
1. WKU asked for claimed statistics which were never claimed but only stated as predictable.
2. WKU wanted statistics so ALP gives statistics targeting the athem protest.
3. WKU converts the asked for statistics into the whole black race is prone to raging.
4. Thanks worztik!


Andrew Lloyd Peth says:
May 25, 2018 at 02:52 am
Chris is wrong. Completely wrong.

If I engage in political activism at work, I am fired, and that is a good thing. Why? Because it's wildly out of place, awkward for customers who pay solely for enjoying the product, and guaranteed to upset about half the clientele.

But NFL Anthem protests are even worse, as they choose to protest during a song meant to unite all Americans and honor veterans. So not only are they bringing political activism to the workplace--something we can't do--but they're singling out the one moment in their whole week when they can offend America and those who defend it--remember, they could choose any other time.

In addition, the protesters have made clear their political beliefs connected to their actions. They despise that half of the nation which doesn't vote like them. That means they are determined to offend half their paying clientele--a truly horrible thing for their employers.

The results were predictable, with a shocking downturn in viewership, ticket sales, and merchandising. This wasn't, as Chris spins, some smooth part of recent "trending." This was a drastic 2-year drop, going flatly against strong viewership for the other sports and a booming economy in 2017.

Chris is wrong, plain and simple. There is no defense for this article, and it is sad to see a writer inject such intense political partisanship into a sports column. Like the players, Chris's message is crystal clear: I DEEPLY RESENT HALF MY AUDIENCE FOR HOW THEY VOTE.

WKUPackFan says:
May 25, 2018 at 03:27 am
I hope that those statistics you claim to have regarding police abuse are more accurate than your description of the effect kneeling had on attendance, etc. There was no "shocking" downturn in viewership, ticket sales, and merchandising. You really need to get your information from sources other than just Hannity.

worztik says:
May 25, 2018 at 05:29 am
WKU, Once again here you are with your snake like comments! Never anything constructive; just negativism! Getting really old... I guess I’ll just skip yer posts from now on... you, are a fool!!!

John Galt says:
May 25, 2018 at 05:56 am
Playing to 1/2 empty stadiums is not shocking? Please.

Andrew Lloyd Peth says:
May 25, 2018 at 06:56 am
1. I haven't gotten one ounce of this from Hannity. Try debating me straight up, not linking me to others.

2. Police shootings of black people versus white people actually run at a lower rate than the comparative violent crime rates of black and white people.

3. The average black person kills 10 times as many white people as the other way around--and this includes cops. It's actually 10.73 times as many, if you use FBI data over the 5 year period ranging from 2010-2014. That means for every black person killed by the average white person, the average black person kills about 10 white people.

Do you hear ANY of these NFL players offering such data when claiming black people are unfairly targeted in our society? Do you?

Now, these numbers don't mean black people are more violent than white people. All people are the same. But if you tell ANY group it has a right to its rage, that group will escalate its violence. I'm sure if we could run these numbers from 100 years ago, they would be reversed.

The problem is both in telling any group they have a right to their rage, and also ignoring unfavorable statistics in convincing them. For instance, just pulling up the number of black people shot by cops (which is virtually nonexistent, by the way, compared to black people shot by black people) is incredibly misleading when done out of context. But it incites rage for political gain, so those doing it don't care--the consequences and deaths mean nothing to them.

4. Viewership for the NFL dropped, by various measures, between 12 and 16 percent over the past 2 seasons. This followed a steady rise over the previous decade. Empty seats at stadiums have jumped dramatically, and if you don't think merchandise sales are falling, then you have no idea why owners would desperately enact a new policy assured of angering their employees.

One last thing: Roger Goodell is a liberal who dislikes Trump. He's the last guy who would want to make this change. Do you really think he did this without enormous market pressure resulting from the players' actions? Why? Why on earth would Goodell, of all people, want an angry workforce if he wasn't facing desperate internal numbers?


WKUPackFan says:
May 26, 2018 at 05:43 pm
Talk about straw men - using African-American v. white, or African-American on African-American murder statistics is a standard Hannity move. The number of murders committed by African-Americans provides no justification for the police to deny them their basic right to life.

Describing the entire African-American race as being prone to "raging" evidences that you think less of that group as a whole.

You say above that you do not support the police assaulting Sterling Brown. That's highly debatable, but regardless, point to any place in the words you have spilled where you specifically state that unjustified police killings of African-Americans is wrong.

One last thing for you: You obviously support the current president. He is an unabashed racist. If you claim not to be, if you're so offended by me stating that you are, you might want to reconsider the company you are keeping.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Oh hey, there's more. I also had more posts--like a recent exchange with WKU--where I explain how "all people are beautiful and every child is a miracle," and "ANY group--white, black, German, Muslim, Japanese, ANY group--will become more violent if you tell them their rage is justified."

I plainly state there is no difference at all between racial groups by nature, and how ridiculous it is to value people by color instead of character.

Thanks, 4EVER, but you only captured one piece of my arguments--I've fought all racism at all levels from the start, and WKU knows it.

But hey, thanks for sharing some context. It is "delicious," isn't it, to see WKU grab a snippet and try to depict an innocent man as racist?

What a guy.

Oh, one last thing: Trump won Wisconsin, so by WKU's reasoning, OVER HALF THE STATE IS RACIST.

But hey, I'm the the divisive one, right????

4EVER's picture

There were many more relevant posts and I enjoyed deliciously reading them all for a second time but there are just too many to post.

WKU is targeting the low information voter.

Donny 2020!
ALP 2024/28 :)

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

You like Trump? R-R-R-RACIST!!!

WKUPackFan's picture

You enjoyed reading them for second time? Second time, meaning that you had originally read them. Meaning that you should not have had as much difficulty finding them as you claimed. Unless, of course, that evangelical school education is failing you.

You guys should take your act to PFT. You would feel right at home there, that comment section is filled with white supremacists.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

He read them twice because he enjoyed watching you get carved up, loon! Jeez, you're dense!

And white supremacists? Bwaaaaahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! We've never said a single word to justify that, you loon!

I swear you're typing this stuff with your toe, while the rest of you is strapped in a straight jacket...

Fordham Ram's picture

I stopped reading this post halfway in. Since when did this site turn into a gossip column, quite frankly and I think I'm speaking for most of us, who gives a shit. And as far as complaining about our new GM and his inability to fire his coach if he wants, the season hasn't even started yet. If we win he's staying. It's that simple. The power structure will not enter into it or even matter. We'll all be happy.

Oppy has a point, he's on a short leash, therefore in that regard he's being held accountable. If we tank Murphy will feel the heat and Coach Mike will be gone. But speaking as a fan with rose colored glasses, I highly doubt it.

4EVER's picture

You are not the one being slandered as a racist.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Funny thing is, 4EVER, if you or I saw someone else slandered as racists, we'd go after the slanderer and demand hard evidence.

Here, people actually mock and deride the one being slandered for daring to defend himself--no matter how much the evidence favors him.

Leftist loons in action. For them, their shared hate is all that matters.

4EVER's picture

What's more funny (aka depressing) are the number of silent and spineless on the sidelines alloying it to continue. Thank you, President Donald Trump!!!!!

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Evil triumphs when good does nothing.

4EVER's picture

Precisely...and a delicious booyah...and please, never ever, give up the good fight.

The nine most terrifying words in the english language; I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Ronald Reagan our 40th President.

4EVER's picture

Precisely...and a delicious booyah...and please, never ever, give up the good fight.

The nine most terrifying words in the english language; I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Ronald Reagan our 40th President.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Life is good, baby, and the kooks on this site can't stop it:

--Our economic growth has risen from 1.5% in 2016 to 2.3% in 2017 to topping 3% this year. Tax cuts and regulation cuts, baby!

--Lowest black and Hispanic unemployment ever (but hey, Trump's a real racist...).

--2 million people no longer need food stamps since Trump took office.

--ISIS is wiped off the map.

--North Korea's non-stop missile program buildup over the past decade has come to a screeching halt.

--NFL teams now realize they actually lose money when using the National Anthem as their time to protest.

--Stock market is booming WITHOUT 3 Quantitative Easings, near zero interest rates, $10 Trillion robbed from our kids, or super-cheap gas from OPEC trying to stop US fracking (all of which Obama enjoyed). We're actually booming because of a real recovery, not pumping trillions in from every conceivable source to prop up a joke.

--Practically everyone wants to buy your home.

--There are actually more jobs available than people seeking them--which is a first.

--Europe and the rest of the world finally has to re-evaluate their tariffs, or suffer the consequences. This will mean short-term pain and long-term gain.


WKUPackFan's picture

Your fellow anthem zealot, Papa John Schnatter, thinks that it is OK to use the "n" word, proving once again that you people expressing fake outrage over kneeling are actually expressing your bigotry.

Kudos to the University of Louisville for moving swiftly to remove Schnatter's name from the football stadium, and to the citizens of Louisville for overwhelming denouncing the use of the ugliest of slurs.

Of course, you support Schnatter's use of that word and believe that he is the victim of some liberal lynch mob.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Now you're trying to tie me to some guy from Papa John's???


Man, I can't believe how far you've fallen, WKU! You've shown ZERO evidence for calling me, 4EVER, and half the state of Wisconsin racists, you ran like a child when called out for pulling snippets out of context--we actually had to provide it for you--you then insisted this context somehow backed you up (again, with ZERO EVIDENCE), you provided no counterpoint whatsoever to my statistical points, you offered no explanation against all my heavily ANTI-RACIST comments...

...and now you're talking about some pizza guy I've never met!


Omigosh, you're hilarious! What a complete loon! This is like debating against an infant! You never make any salient points whatsoever, and then when cornered and beaten you start crying "Racist!" and try tying people to some pizza guy!


And to think, I tried to do the classy thing and call a ceasefire where we no longer interact, but you and a couple of your lunatic pals couldn't even handle that. Stalking innocent people online is THAT important to you wackos. Anyone with even a hint of class or conscience would back off and let this blog-site progress on its merry way, but you pansies can't let go of online gangups and bullying--it's all you children have!

Hilarious! What a bunch of moronic thugs!

So WKU, do you do dress up and entertain at kids' parties, or is this just an "I'm WKU and I'm insane online" thing?

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Hey WKU, how about showing EVIDENCE I support people using the N-word?

What? None? Again? What a shock, lunatic.

Oh, but wait: You probably think every American who voted for Trump supports using the N-word!


WKUPackFan's picture

Exhibit 1: You have not, two rants in, denied supporting the use of the word;

Exhibit 2: You post "statistics" regarding higher murder rates by African-Americans than whites, meaning that you believe individuals in groups with higher crime rates should have less civil rights and that police brutality against those individuals is justified;

Exhibit 3: You post erroneous statistics regarding NFL television ratings, and blame any drop in those ratings solely on kneeling, ignoring all other legitimate factors;

Exhibit 4: You stand by the ugly theory that the entire African-American population is susceptible to being trained to rage; and

Exhibit 5: You pretend to have no idea who John Schnatter is, the "some pizza guy" who was the founder of the 3rd largest pizza chain and, until two days ago, was in every Papa John's commercial.

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 are standard fare rhetoric employed by racists attempting to paint the entire African-American population as malcontents, murderers, and less valuable human beings. Exhibits 1 and 5 are specific to you.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

1. I NEVER use the N-word. That's why there's no evidence of it, you lunatic. You've accused an innocent man with no evidence.

2. Dead wrong. I've never called for lowering civil rights for any group--do you EVER stop lying? Higher violent crime rates simply mean a group will have more dangerous interactions with those trying to stop them--the police. But versus their violent crime rate levels, black people are not shot more than white people--it's actually a little less.

3. You provide zero evidence of this--but of course, you provide zero evidence of everything you write. The viewership and revenue drops not only correspond to the past 2 years of Anthem protests, but run contrary to trends in other sports and are directly connected to the recent actions of NFL leadership--or does a lunatic like you think Goodell infuriated his talent base for no reason?

Jeez, what a loon! Bwaaahahahaha!!!!

4. Again, dead wrong. I've plainly said ALL GROUPS can be trained toward aggression if told their rage is justified. You distinguish between races, where I specifically demolish that idea. Current statistics--which are true, by the way--only reflect current messaging to a group, NOT a special predisposition of that group to be "susceptible" or "trained."

Man, do lunatics like you EVER stop spinning other people's comments???

5. I didn't say I've never heard of him, but rather that I don't know him. This guy has absolutely nothing to do with my life or beliefs. I know of many people who have nothing to do with me, you loon!

You tried desperately to make that insane connection, and failed, because as always, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

So all 5 of your "exhibits" are not only laughable, but HYSTERICALLY LAUGHABLE. Dude, you are trying to make a case WITH NO EVIDENCE because YOU'RE DRIVEN SOLELY BY LUNATIC HATE, NOT EVIDENCE.

You're a complete wacko, WKU, and you need serious psychiatric help. I'm not kidding here. As repulsive as you've been toward me, I actually care about your personal well-being.

Seek help. Now.

WKUPackFan's picture

"The...revenue drops...correspond to the past 2 years of anthem protests".

2017 NFL national revenue was 8.16 billion, a 4.9% increase from 2016. The first time that national revenue has topped $8 billion.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

Seriously, WKU, I'll keep defending myself if you keep attacking, but isn't it time we just go our separate ways? Would it REALLY be so painful for you to stop stalking me and leave me alone?

There's also a time aspect here, you know. I won't allow lunatic accusations to go unanswered, but my time is valuable--as I assume yours is to you. So is stalking me REALLY the most important usage of your time? Really?

Please, WKU, please stop commenting on my posts, so I no longer have to defend myself or let errant accusations stand. As you'll note, I'M NOT POSTING ON ANY OF YOUR POSTS, OTHER THAN TO DEFEND MYSELF.

Can you please just honor this request from a fellow Packer fan? Let's just go our separate ways, not posting on each others' comments, okay? I'm all for healthy debate, but this isn't healthy.

Please, sir. Please. Just leave me alone. I'll give you the same courtesy.

4EVER's picture

Geez, this wig-nut is still out stalking with his baseless attacks??? Guessing here, but is the administrator of the site in cahoots with this loon? Must enjoy the antifa thuggery and chaos he/she is alloying to continue. IT'S WRONG IN ALL FORMS!

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

I suspect the administrator(s) strongly share WKU's political views.

Look at it this way, 4EVER: I can call WKU "lunatic" and so forth for one reason--he called me a racist, multiple times, without provocation. "Lunatic" doesn't compare to "racist."

But imagine if you and I were to, without evidence or provocation, call people horrible names like "racist." Imagine if we then stalked them all over the site, inserting politics into unrelated threads, and pulling snippets wildly out of context to further brand these innocent people as racists.

Naturally, they would have to fight back and defend themselves, or leave horrible accusations standing unchallenged (this is what WKU's like-minded goons want us to do). And when they defend themselves, the like-minded goons could mock them for "not letting it go."

Point is, WKU INITIATED ALL THIS. But if you and I did it, rest assured we'd be warned and booted instantly by WKU's like-minded pals administrating the site. THERE IS NO WAY we'd be allowed to stalk, bully, and lie about people the way the administrators are allowing WKU to do. We would have been booted long ago, and rightly so.

So why is WKU allowed to stalk, vicious name-call, and lie with zero evidence about fellow Packer site-users who have done nothing to provoke it?

Probably because the administrators enjoy it.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

I actually got downvoted for saying how great things are going for all Americans.

Gotta love the Lunatic Left...

WKUPackFan's picture

Things are not going so great for everyone. Bishop Barry C. Knestout, Diocese of Richmond, VA, writes in the July 2 issue of The Catholic Virginian:

"When it comes to migrants, Pope Francis says for Christians "the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome Him (cf. Mt 25:35)?"...
Pope Francis provides the Catholic response to immigration. It is not a political response; it is the moral, pastoral response that all Catholics are to embrace".

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

So are you calling for open borders now? Look, if you want to place yourself in that lunatic fringe group, go ahead, but I prefer compassion to all involved--not just one chosen group.

What is wrong with a secure border with legal ports of entry? Isn't that exactly what you have around your home? Is it really so hateful to ask people to identify themselves before entering your home, where you can assess their intentions?

And don't you control how many people enter your home, and over what period? Are you being hateful and bigoted by doing so?

I personally LOVE immigration! I love having people come here from all over the world, adding the flavor of their cultures to this great melting pot. It's awesome!

But these wonderful people are traveling great distances at great cost to leave one place they consider worse for another they consider better--so shouldn't we guard against that "worse" following them? Shouldn't we guard against cartels, terrorists, lazy freeloaders, corruption, and just flat out unmanageable numbers too quickly? And don't we need ports of legal entry to manage these things--just like you do every day with the front door of your home?

There's no hate there, and America is not a hateful nation. We are a nation surrounded by many nations, many of them corrupt and horribly run. Should we just ignore the socialist mess of, say, Venezuela, and let them fix none of their problems while sending people through your front door--with no door at all? Can we take people in without limit or assessment? Would the bishop you quote advocate you doing that with your home? Would that be compassionate, or irresponsible?

America takes in more immigrants than any nation on Earth, and that's great! But until recently, we haven't been guarding against illegality--we haven't had functioning "walls and doors" on this home we call America, because lunatics like you care nothing about making this a home where bad things don't follow good people in. Loons like you actually resent this home, and seek only to replace and overrun its voters while minimizing any protection against threats.

I don't know your bishop, WKU, but I do know this: If he's anything like you, then compassion is the furthest thing from his mind.

4EVER's picture

"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life." — Ronald Reagan

The pope must tear down his WALL prior too I giving a hoot what he has to say on this matter.

Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

A-freaking-men, and a hearty thumbs up, sir.

4EVER's picture


Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

I think you'll enjoy the post above... :)

4thand1's picture


Duke Divine's picture

Mashed Potato Mike better start scheming again! He needs to coach the ENTIRE TEAM and let Philbin and Arodge call the offense.

OldTimer's picture

New season, lots of changes. It is a fresh start, and that is how I chose to approach it. I will judge McCarthy after the season, and not just by win/loss records, but by what improvements I see overall. It may take a couple of years to get back to the big game, but changing head coaches at the wrong time will almost always cost you another year or two. I still have high hopes for this year and next year! Go Pack!

DD's picture

Enough print. Too many years with falling short. MM is in charge. We'll see his changed offense this season? Coach them all up or out. No more [email protected]

Tundraboy's picture

I have to sit this one out til I see how the first 4 to 5 games play out.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook



"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"The Bears still suck!"