Based on some of his low key playoff chokes, he sure is trending that way by Payton. But in all seriousness they are two different situations too. Payton went to a place where it was a terrible franchise and has turned them into good one. He took a player in Brees who was decent and made him great. McCarthy on the other hand walked into a franchise that was known for excellence and inherited Favre and Rodgers.
Tell me how this a good hire? I just don't see it.
I'll give you that GB had a better track record and organizational history but why is it that Payton gets credit for Brees and McCarthy doesn't for Rodgers? I don't follow that logic at all. Brees had some success in SD prior to going to NO. Rodgers, until last year only played for McCarthy. Was Rodgers better without McCarthy this year?
McCarthy is absolutely awful and cost the Packers multiple games in the playoffs with his horrendous play calling and game management.
Someone call me? (To be fair, I do think Reid is a better coach).
To be honest, I'm not sure if it's a good hire or not, time will tell. I'm just pushing back on the "he sucks" narrative because I think that's way to harsh. There's a lot of space in between he's a great coach and he's a terrible coach, which is what I'm pointing out. Only one coach going has multiple super bowl wins right now. So does every other coach suck if he's had a great QB? I don't think you can have the success that McCarthy (Carroll, Tomlin, Payton, Reid as well) had and be a bad coach. That doesn't mean there weren't bad moments or bad losses along the way as there clearly were. No one is arguing he's Belichick, but several people seem to be saying he sucks, because he's not Belichick (only 1 SB), which makes no sense to me.
This feels like a case were everyone seems to prefer the mystery box to a known commodity that is solid if not spectacular.