Defensive Coordinator

[Joemailman]

If McCarthy decides to make a change, there could be some interesting options available as head coaches get fired. Of course, McCarthy could stay with Sanders, or promote from within. What do you think?

[packers11]

I hope the Bob Slowik one was a joke... I'd have to come to your house and put some sense into you if your serious :lol:

[packers11]

My vote is for...

Rex Ryan (balti dc)

or

Steven Spagnola (giants dc)

But with your choices, I guess i'll go with Romeo Crennell... I want someone with new ideas that isn't inside our system already...

[Gunakor]

Mike Singletary, unless San Fransisco retains his services as HC.

[Joemailman]

I only listed people who I would expect to be available. Ryan would be at the top of the list otherwise. You don't like Slowik? :D

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'd take Haslet, Marinelli, or Lewis. I like Winston Moss, but I'd take a wait and see on him. I have a feeling that's the direction we'll be going. Slowik was a good joke. I say no to Crennel.

[Gunakor]

I'd take Haslet, Marinelli, or Lewis. I like Winston Moss, but I'd take a wait and see on him. I have a feeling that's the direction we'll be going. Slowik was a good joke. I say no to Crennel.

I don't want anyone coaching this team that has been associated with the Detroit Lions recently. Big no to Marinelli. Lewis would probably be at the top of my list if that list is restricted to the names mentioned.

I still think San Fransisco is going to look in another direction for HC, which would leave Mike Singletary looking for employment. There is nobody we could hire as DC that has more fire and attitude than Singletary. That's the man I'd want for the job, if available.

[RashanGary]

Mike McCarthy adn Mike Nolan might have some ties being McCArthy was OC under Nolan at SF. Maybe he hires Nolan. I don't know much aobut the DC's. I'm a big believer in players making plays but coaching is obviously a part of it and I get the feeling we could get better in the coaching department although I don't cast most of the blame their way.

[Pugger]

If MM fires Sanders (and I hope he does, we need a change there BIG TIME) I hope he looks for someone outside the current staff with a new scheme and/or attitude. :pack:

[Bretsky]

If we hire from within this staff I'll be SICK

I'm fine with a number of guys on the list

[denverYooper]

Wade Phillips might be looking for a job next year if Dallas doesn't make the playoffs.

[Rastak]

Wade Phillips might be looking for a job next year if Dallas doesn't make the playoffs.



Since I am getting caught up with Bang cartoons tonight......



http://www.bangcartoon.com/2008/ifsandbutts.htm

[ND72]

I'd say anyone who runs a 3-4...I really think we're set to become a 3-4 team. Kampy, Pickett, Jenkins on the DL. Hawk, Bishop, Barnett, Poop @ LB. When you don't have a strong DL, you have to make an adjustment, and we haven't.

eitehr way, Bobby has got to go.

[Joemailman]

ND,

You think Kampman can play DE in a 3-4? If so, I would love the 3-4.

Who voted for Slowik? I'm guessing Ras.

[Pacopete4]

im not sure we have the personnel for the 3-4 defense.. that being said, its not like we cant change that with the draft and FA. There has to be a few guys on this squad that fit...

all I know is whether its the 3-4, or 4-3.. id like to see us be a little more exotic or adapt the Tampa 2

[Partial]

We don't have the personnel for a 3-4, though I'd be willing to take the bruises for a year or two as we transition towards it.

Kampman could bulk up like he was in the past when he played inside and be a 3-4 end. He's be less of a pass rusher and probably wouldn't like it too much, though.

Hawk is not athletic enough to play outside in a 3-4 I don't think. Jason Hunter would probably be an edge rusher in that position.

Barnett could play outside because he is too small to play inside. Bishop would probably be the other inside starter with Hawk.

Bigby is the PERFECT 3-4 in the box versatile safety. Good enough in coverage to not be a liability, but a menace in the box.

Collins has the range to play center field.

Jenkins could be a very, very, very good 3-4 end with his size/strength/quickness combo. Harrell, Cole, and another DT could be the ends to start out with.

I'm all for keeping the safeties in cover 2, but I don't want to see the corners playing soft zones like they do in Detroit and Tampa. No way. Marinelli is probably gonna be the DC in Tampa anyway.

If Rob Ryan gets fired, bring him in!!!!!!!

[Pacopete4]

I would love to snarf up one of the guys from Tampa's squad or Pittsburgh squad and bring him in as a Dcoordinator.. those two teams have done it, and done it well for a long time now

[Bretsky]

Mike Nolan

He ran the 3-4 in Baltimore
He hired MM in San Fran

This would be a great hire

A year or two of growing pains

Some replacing of players

But bring some toughness and aggression to Green Bay :!:

[bobblehead]

Ya all gonna hate me for this, but since continuity is very important and MM believes we are a contender he isn't going to change schemes. He might fire Sanders and hire Moss, but the scheme is going to stay....is Bates available?

Oh yea, almost forgot, what about Tim Lewis. Is he available?? Ex packer, had great success in pittsburg. No clue if he is still in pitt or what, and I'm too tired to google it.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

If we hire from within this staff I'll be SICK

I'm fine with a number of guys on the list

Exactly. Don't fire the guy if you’re going to replace him with someone less experienced and potentially less competent. Bob Sanders is not a good D. coordinator, but I'd rather have him back for another year and not have to learn a new scheme if his replacement is not exceptionally better. If someone better is out there fine, otherwise don't be brash and fire the guy as soon as the season ends. Don't forget our d-line is horrible and its hard to do much when you have no pass rushers.

[texaspackerbacker]

Obviously, I voted for Bob Sanders. Me and Thompson and McCarthy makes a majority, no matter how many dumbasses vote for somebody else.

Two other names that should be in the poll, though, are Jim Bates and Wade Phillips. I might actually vote for Bates over Sanders.

As I have said repeatedly, changing the coordinator would almost certainly mean changing the scheme--which would be just plain stupid. Do you guys not realize that? Or do you realize it and are dumb enough to vote that way anyway?

The 3-4 scheme actually would not be bad. It is a non-blitz scheme most of the time (unless you consider sending one LB as the fourth pass rusher to be blitzing. You could easily use man coverage, as has been so successful for the Packer in a 3-4. It is also reputed to be effective against the run. And contrary to what somebody said, we do now have suitable personnel to play it. With Barnett coming back and Hawk seeming to be more suitable on the inside, we have our two ILBs. Chillar has been a pleasant surprise on the outside; Popinga hasn't improved from last year like I thought he would, but he has been OK; And Bishop IMO looked very good on the outside last Sunday.

Kampman might not be suited for DE in a 3-4, though. He got run on consistently last Sunday. Jenkins and Montgomery, however, would be very good 3-4 DEs. Playing Kampman at OLB part of the time, and moving him back to DE on passing downs might work.

[Zool]

Name caller.

[Partial]

Mike Nolan

He ran the 3-4 in Baltimore
He hired MM in San Fran

This would be a great hire

A year or two of growing pains

Some replacing of players

But bring some toughness and aggression to Green Bay :!:

Wasn't that Starvin' Marvin Lewis who was the DCoord there? I thought it went Lewis as the coordinator, then the Ryan boys were both there somewhere, and Nolan was the LB coach.

[SkinBasket]

You fuckers are forgetting the most obvious hire. McCarthy's friend, so they'll work seamlessly. Tons of experience overcoming self-inflicted adversity. An internal hire to maintain continuity. Even has a football "pedigree:"


http://images.packers.com/images/headshots/schottenheimer_kurt.jpg
Kurt Schottenheimer

[sheepshead]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/curly.johnson/music/scream2.wav

[cpk1994]

Obviously, I voted for Bob Sanders. Me and Thompson and McCarthy makes a majority, no matter how many dumbasses vote for somebody else.

Two other names that should be in the poll, though, are Jim Bates and Wade Phillips. I might actually vote for Bates over Sanders.

As I have said repeatedly, changing the coordinator would almost certainly mean changing the scheme--which would be just plain stupid. Do you guys not realize that? Or do you realize it and are dumb enough to vote that way anyway?

The 3-4 scheme actually would not be bad. It is a non-blitz scheme most of the time (unless you consider sending one LB as the fourth pass rusher to be blitzing. You could easily use man coverage, as has been so successful for the Packer in a 3-4. It is also reputed to be effective against the run. And contrary to what somebody said, we do now have suitable personnel to play it. With Barnett coming back and Hawk seeming to be more suitable on the inside, we have our two ILBs. Chillar has been a pleasant surprise on the outside; Popinga hasn't improved from last year like I thought he would, but he has been OK; And Bishop IMO looked very good on the outside last Sunday.

Kampman might not be suited for DE in a 3-4, though. He got run on consistently last Sunday. Jenkins and Montgomery, however, would be very good 3-4 DEs. Playing Kampman at OLB part of the time, and moving him back to DE on passing downs might work.
Bates isn't going to come back. Lest you forget the way he left.

That said, Id be happy with anyone other than Bob Sanders. He is comepletely incompetent and doesn't know wht the word "adjustment" means or the word "aggressive".

[Bretsky]

Mike Nolan

He ran the 3-4 in Baltimore
He hired MM in San Fran

This would be a great hire

A year or two of growing pains

Some replacing of players

But bring some toughness and aggression to Green Bay :!:

Wasn't that Starvin' Marvin Lewis who was the DCoord there? I thought it went Lewis as the coordinator, then the Ryan boys were both there somewhere, and Nolan was the LB coach.



Coaching career
He coached at the collegiate level at Stanford University, Rice University, and LSU before moving on to the National Football League.

The son of former San Francisco 49ers and New Orleans Saints head coach, Dick Nolan, he signed with the 49ers in 2005 to be head coach, following in his father's footsteps. Nolan joined San Francisco after establishing himself as the defensive coordinator of the Baltimore Ravens, a position he held with three other teams: New York Jets (2000), Washington Redskins (1997-99), and New York Giants (1993-96). Nolan finished the 2005 season with a 4-12 record. Nolan led a late season run and the 49ers improved in 2006 to 7-9. That led to expectations for the 2007 season, which included 9 wins and a playoff appearance. The season started well at 2-0, but an 8 game losing streak ended all hope of a playoff run. Nolan has been under intense scrutiny in the Bay Area. After the season, Nolan lost his general manager position and now as of October 20, 2008 Nolan was fired and replaced by his assistant head coach Mike Singletary.

Suit Issue
Following his hiring by the 49ers, Nolan asked the NFL for permission to wear a suit and tie on the sidelines as a tribute to his father. The league initially denied Nolan's request because of the contract it has with Reebok for its coaches to wear team-logo attire, a ruling that was changed during Nolan's second season as coach. In the new NFL policy, coaches were allowed to wear a full suit for only two home games per season. The suits were designed, marketed and labeled under the Reebok corporation. Nolan debuted the suit in a game at home against the Seattle Seahawks on November 19, 2006. A day later, Jacksonville Jaguars head coach Jack Del Rio sported another Reebok suit on Monday Night Football. Both coaches won their weekend games.

After further lobbying on the part of Nolan, the NFL and Reebok reached an agreement to allow suits to be worn at all home games in the 2007 season.[1]


Coaching Tree
Mike Nolan has been linked to more than one coaching tree. He was a defensive coordinator for Brian Billick (who is part of the Bill Walsh coaching tree), Al Groh (who is part of the Bill Parcells coaching tree), and also Norv Turner (part of the Jimmy Johnson tree). However, Nolan truly "cut his teeth" under the tutelage of Dan Reeves. Reeves brought Nolan with him from Denver (where he was Linebackers Coach) to New York to be the Giants Defensive Coordinator in 1993. Nolan excelled at the position and his success served as a springboard for later success with other teams. Nolan's strongest roots are in the Dan Reeves Coaching tree.

[Bretsky]

This is from an article in the Press Gazette.

If McCarthy opts for the change in January, there are at least three obvious candidates he’d surely consider as replacements: Winston Moss, the linebackers coach whom McCarthy promoted to an assistant head coach in 2007 so no team could hire him as a coordinator; Mike Nolan, the recently fired San Francisco 49ers head coach who hired McCarthy as his offensive coordinator in 2005; and Jim Haslett, the St. Louis Rams’ interim head coach who is likely to be available this offseason, and for whom McCarthy was offensive coordinator with the New Orleans Saints from 2000-04.

[Partial]

You fuckers are forgetting the most obvious hire. McCarthy's friend, so they'll work seamlessly. Tons of experience overcoming self-inflicted adversity. An internal hire to maintain continuity. Even has a football "pedigree:"


http://images.packers.com/images/headshots/schottenheimer_kurt.jpg
Kurt Schottenheimer

Speaking of Shotty. I would be ecstatic for some Marty Ball.

[DonHutson]

Ya all gonna hate me for this, but since continuity is very important and MM believes we are a contender he isn't going to change schemes. He might fire Sanders and hire Moss, but the scheme is going to stay....

That's the most likely answer. :(

Marvin Lewis is the most intriguing to me. He's a talented coach in a hopeless situation, created largely by his team's insistence on acquiring drunks and headcases. But lots of those names sound promising.

[Joemailman]

Moss coached at New Orleans before he came to the Packers. Didn't they run the 3-4 there? I wouldn't assume that Moss would run the Bates system if he got the DC job. I don't think he'd take the job unless he could run the system he wants to run.

By the way, I inadvertently left out the "other" option in the poll. Sorry about that.

[Partial]

I don't think NO ran a 3-4 anytime recently.

[texaspackerbacker]

Obviously, I voted for Bob Sanders. Me and Thompson and McCarthy makes a majority, no matter how many dumbasses vote for somebody else.

Two other names that should be in the poll, though, are Jim Bates and Wade Phillips. I might actually vote for Bates over Sanders.

As I have said repeatedly, changing the coordinator would almost certainly mean changing the scheme--which would be just plain stupid. Do you guys not realize that? Or do you realize it and are dumb enough to vote that way anyway?

The 3-4 scheme actually would not be bad. It is a non-blitz scheme most of the time (unless you consider sending one LB as the fourth pass rusher to be blitzing. You could easily use man coverage, as has been so successful for the Packer in a 3-4. It is also reputed to be effective against the run. And contrary to what somebody said, we do now have suitable personnel to play it. With Barnett coming back and Hawk seeming to be more suitable on the inside, we have our two ILBs. Chillar has been a pleasant surprise on the outside; Popinga hasn't improved from last year like I thought he would, but he has been OK; And Bishop IMO looked very good on the outside last Sunday.

Kampman might not be suited for DE in a 3-4, though. He got run on consistently last Sunday. Jenkins and Montgomery, however, would be very good 3-4 DEs. Playing Kampman at OLB part of the time, and moving him back to DE on passing downs might work.
Bates isn't going to come back. Lest you forget the way he left.

That said, Id be happy with anyone other than Bob Sanders. He is comepletely incompetent and doesn't know wht the word "adjustment" means or the word "aggressive".

"Adjustment" means change (that ugly word) from what works to what doesn't. It's bad in football just like in ....... (the forbidden p word).

"Aggressive" means taking stupid chances that usually end up biting you in the ass.

[BallHawk]

Realistically, the Packers aren't going to be able to get big-time guys from other teams, unless they get fired. Guys like Rex Ryan and Romeo Crennel are pipe dreams.

If the Packers are smart enough to fire Bob Sanders they will replace him with Winston Moss. I'd bet good money on that.

[Partial]

Realistically, the Packers aren't going to be able to get big-time guys from other teams, unless they get fired. Guys like Rex Ryan and Romeo Crennel are pipe dreams.

If the Packers are smart enough to fire Bob Sanders they will replace him with Winston Moss. I'd bet good money on that.

Agreed, which is depressing. But Rex Ryan isn't going anywhere. Rob Ryan could get fired when they clean house in LA, and Romeo is probably on his way out as well.

[Bretsky]

Realistically, the Packers aren't going to be able to get big-time guys from other teams, unless they get fired. Guys like Rex Ryan and Romeo Crennel are pipe dreams.

If the Packers are smart enough to fire Bob Sanders they will replace him with Winston Moss. I'd bet good money on that.


Nolan would be a solid choice and available. Ditto for Haslett

If we are hiring from within you might as well watch the Vanilla man

[rbaloha1]

Mike Nolan

He ran the 3-4 in Baltimore
He hired MM in San Fran

This would be a great hire

A year or two of growing pains

Some replacing of players

But bring some toughness and aggression to Green Bay :!:

Agree. My # 1 choice.

[cpk1994]

Obviously, I voted for Bob Sanders. Me and Thompson and McCarthy makes a majority, no matter how many dumbasses vote for somebody else.

Two other names that should be in the poll, though, are Jim Bates and Wade Phillips. I might actually vote for Bates over Sanders.

As I have said repeatedly, changing the coordinator would almost certainly mean changing the scheme--which would be just plain stupid. Do you guys not realize that? Or do you realize it and are dumb enough to vote that way anyway?

The 3-4 scheme actually would not be bad. It is a non-blitz scheme most of the time (unless you consider sending one LB as the fourth pass rusher to be blitzing. You could easily use man coverage, as has been so successful for the Packer in a 3-4. It is also reputed to be effective against the run. And contrary to what somebody said, we do now have suitable personnel to play it. With Barnett coming back and Hawk seeming to be more suitable on the inside, we have our two ILBs. Chillar has been a pleasant surprise on the outside; Popinga hasn't improved from last year like I thought he would, but he has been OK; And Bishop IMO looked very good on the outside last Sunday.

Kampman might not be suited for DE in a 3-4, though. He got run on consistently last Sunday. Jenkins and Montgomery, however, would be very good 3-4 DEs. Playing Kampman at OLB part of the time, and moving him back to DE on passing downs might work.
Bates isn't going to come back. Lest you forget the way he left.

That said, Id be happy with anyone other than Bob Sanders. He is comepletely incompetent and doesn't know wht the word "adjustment" means or the word "aggressive".

"Adjustment" means change (that ugly word) from what works to what doesn't. It's bad in football just like in ....... (the forbidden p word).

"Aggressive" means taking stupid chances that usually end up biting you in the ass."Adjustment also means that change from wasn't working(everything Sanders has tried) to something that does(Everything Sanders refuses to try) Also, The Packers can't change from something that works becuase Sanders isn't working at all.

[texaspackerbacker]

Obviously, I voted for Bob Sanders. Me and Thompson and McCarthy makes a majority, no matter how many dumbasses vote for somebody else.

Two other names that should be in the poll, though, are Jim Bates and Wade Phillips. I might actually vote for Bates over Sanders.

As I have said repeatedly, changing the coordinator would almost certainly mean changing the scheme--which would be just plain stupid. Do you guys not realize that? Or do you realize it and are dumb enough to vote that way anyway?

The 3-4 scheme actually would not be bad. It is a non-blitz scheme most of the time (unless you consider sending one LB as the fourth pass rusher to be blitzing. You could easily use man coverage, as has been so successful for the Packer in a 3-4. It is also reputed to be effective against the run. And contrary to what somebody said, we do now have suitable personnel to play it. With Barnett coming back and Hawk seeming to be more suitable on the inside, we have our two ILBs. Chillar has been a pleasant surprise on the outside; Popinga hasn't improved from last year like I thought he would, but he has been OK; And Bishop IMO looked very good on the outside last Sunday.

Kampman might not be suited for DE in a 3-4, though. He got run on consistently last Sunday. Jenkins and Montgomery, however, would be very good 3-4 DEs. Playing Kampman at OLB part of the time, and moving him back to DE on passing downs might work.
Bates isn't going to come back. Lest you forget the way he left.

That said, Id be happy with anyone other than Bob Sanders. He is comepletely incompetent and doesn't know wht the word "adjustment" means or the word "aggressive".

"Adjustment" means change (that ugly word) from what works to what doesn't. It's bad in football just like in ....... (the forbidden p word).

"Aggressive" means taking stupid chances that usually end up biting you in the ass."Adjustment also means that change from wasn't working(everything Sanders has tried) to something that does(Everything Sanders refuses to try) Also, The Packers can't change from something that works becuase Sanders isn't working at all.

How can you say that?

Before all the injuries/last season, the Packers arguably had one of the best defenses in the NFL. The sheer bad LUCK of the injuries sure isn't Sanders fault. What other team in the NFL gets the game-changing turnovers like the Packers do? I'll take a pick six over a sack any day.

It is absolute idiocy to want to change this highly successful Defensive scheme. If you have some problem with Sanders personality or whatever the hell other irrelevancy, fine, that's YOUR problem--NOT the Packers.

[Gunakor]

Obviously, I voted for Bob Sanders. Me and Thompson and McCarthy makes a majority, no matter how many dumbasses vote for somebody else.

Two other names that should be in the poll, though, are Jim Bates and Wade Phillips. I might actually vote for Bates over Sanders.

As I have said repeatedly, changing the coordinator would almost certainly mean changing the scheme--which would be just plain stupid. Do you guys not realize that? Or do you realize it and are dumb enough to vote that way anyway?

The 3-4 scheme actually would not be bad. It is a non-blitz scheme most of the time (unless you consider sending one LB as the fourth pass rusher to be blitzing. You could easily use man coverage, as has been so successful for the Packer in a 3-4. It is also reputed to be effective against the run. And contrary to what somebody said, we do now have suitable personnel to play it. With Barnett coming back and Hawk seeming to be more suitable on the inside, we have our two ILBs. Chillar has been a pleasant surprise on the outside; Popinga hasn't improved from last year like I thought he would, but he has been OK; And Bishop IMO looked very good on the outside last Sunday.

Kampman might not be suited for DE in a 3-4, though. He got run on consistently last Sunday. Jenkins and Montgomery, however, would be very good 3-4 DEs. Playing Kampman at OLB part of the time, and moving him back to DE on passing downs might work.
Bates isn't going to come back. Lest you forget the way he left.

That said, Id be happy with anyone other than Bob Sanders. He is comepletely incompetent and doesn't know wht the word "adjustment" means or the word "aggressive".

"Adjustment" means change (that ugly word) from what works to what doesn't. It's bad in football just like in ....... (the forbidden p word).

"Aggressive" means taking stupid chances that usually end up biting you in the ass."Adjustment also means that change from wasn't working(everything Sanders has tried) to something that does(Everything Sanders refuses to try) Also, The Packers can't change from something that works becuase Sanders isn't working at all.

How can you say that?

Before all the injuries/last season, the Packers arguably had one of the best defenses in the NFL. The sheer bad LUCK of the injuries sure isn't Sanders fault. What other team in the NFL gets the game-changing turnovers like the Packers do? I'll take a pick six over a sack any day.

It is absolute idiocy to want to change this highly successful Defensive scheme. If you have some problem with Sanders personality or whatever the hell other irrelevancy, fine, that's YOUR problem--NOT the Packers.

A highly successful defensive scheme that gives up 550 yards to a mediocre Texans team. A highly successful defensive scheme that gives up the winning points in the final 2 minutes of the game, week after week. A highly successful defensive scheme that has this team ranked 23rd in total team defense - 27th against the run. That's not very successful at all Tex. Turnovers are great, to be sure, but turnovers are just a bonus. The defense is supposed to first stop the opponent from moving down the field and scoring, and they haven't done that very well. That means it's time for a change, because what we're doing isn't working.

P.S. Last year, this was a serviceable defense, but not one of the league's elite. They were 14th against the run, and 12th against the pass. Just another run of the mill defense that isn't awful but isn't great either.

[pbmax]

I'd say anyone who runs a 3-4...I really think we're set to become a 3-4 team. Kampy, Pickett, Jenkins on the DL. Hawk, Bishop, Barnett, Poop @ LB. When you don't have a strong DL, you have to make an adjustment, and we haven't.

eitehr way, Bobby has got to go.
I dislike getting into an X and O dispute with ND, but I don't think we have the personnel for a 3-4. Jenkins at end (a DT-DE tweener) is a good fit. Pickett can be shoved around, he is not a nose tackle like Grady Jackson. I don't think Kampman has the size, even from earlier in his career to be a DE in the 3-4. You don't see many sub 300 DEs in a 3-4.

As for LBs, Pop might be the best fit, he can play the McGinest role. But Barnett is too small to take on guards and I am not sure Hawk can either. He might fit outside, but that gives us two LBs. Not sure where Bishop or Chillar would fit. Bishop might go inside for his best fit.

I understand that our DL isn't helping Bates scheme, but a 3-4 needs a strong line as well, it just doesn't depend on pass rush from it.

As for new coach, I am not excited about Haslett. I have heard he has worn out his welcome with his players in two cities now. Nolan followed Marvin Lewis at Baltimore with Super Bowl personnel and went backward. His time at Washington was also unproductive. Rod Marinelli has never been a D coordinator before.

Moss did not learn defense from Sanders or Bates, so his scheme may very well look different. Of all the people listed, I want Lewis first, then Moss. But I am less than enthused about linebacker play this year from Moss. Might be the DTs, but its not reassuring. I would be pleased as punch if the Jones' canned Phillips and he became the D coordinator as well.

[BallHawk]

I'll only be supportive of Mike Nolan if he wears the suit every Sunday. Thought that was pretty cool when he did it.

[cpk1994]

Obviously, I voted for Bob Sanders. Me and Thompson and McCarthy makes a majority, no matter how many dumbasses vote for somebody else.

Two other names that should be in the poll, though, are Jim Bates and Wade Phillips. I might actually vote for Bates over Sanders.

As I have said repeatedly, changing the coordinator would almost certainly mean changing the scheme--which would be just plain stupid. Do you guys not realize that? Or do you realize it and are dumb enough to vote that way anyway?

The 3-4 scheme actually would not be bad. It is a non-blitz scheme most of the time (unless you consider sending one LB as the fourth pass rusher to be blitzing. You could easily use man coverage, as has been so successful for the Packer in a 3-4. It is also reputed to be effective against the run. And contrary to what somebody said, we do now have suitable personnel to play it. With Barnett coming back and Hawk seeming to be more suitable on the inside, we have our two ILBs. Chillar has been a pleasant surprise on the outside; Popinga hasn't improved from last year like I thought he would, but he has been OK; And Bishop IMO looked very good on the outside last Sunday.

Kampman might not be suited for DE in a 3-4, though. He got run on consistently last Sunday. Jenkins and Montgomery, however, would be very good 3-4 DEs. Playing Kampman at OLB part of the time, and moving him back to DE on passing downs might work.
Bates isn't going to come back. Lest you forget the way he left.

That said, Id be happy with anyone other than Bob Sanders. He is comepletely incompetent and doesn't know wht the word "adjustment" means or the word "aggressive".

"Adjustment" means change (that ugly word) from what works to what doesn't. It's bad in football just like in ....... (the forbidden p word).

"Aggressive" means taking stupid chances that usually end up biting you in the ass."Adjustment also means that change from wasn't working(everything Sanders has tried) to something that does(Everything Sanders refuses to try) Also, The Packers can't change from something that works becuase Sanders isn't working at all.

How can you say that?

Before all the injuries/last season, the Packers arguably had one of the best defenses in the NFL. The sheer bad LUCK of the injuries sure isn't Sanders fault. What other team in the NFL gets the game-changing turnovers like the Packers do? I'll take a pick six over a sack any day.

It is absolute idiocy to want to change this highly successful Defensive scheme. If you have some problem with Sanders personality or whatever the hell other irrelevancy, fine, that's YOUR problem--NOT the Packers.Higly successful? Put down the crack pipe and slowly back away. Check the last games box score and get back to me. Also, check the box socre from the Carolina game.
Pick sixes usally happens becuase a player makes a great read, not becuase Sanders had anything to do with it. Also, injuries is a cop out. Good D coordinators, ones that are competent, can at least overcome that to field at least an average "D". Sanders "D" continues to get run over. This has nothing to do with his personality. This has to do with his failure to adjust when things aren't working. A "D' that continually fades when the game is on the line at the end. Sanders is incompetent. IF you were based in reality you could see that.

[texaspackerbacker]

Do any of you guys have the mental capability to remember longer than the last 2 or 3 rotten weeks?

The lesson of these bad games should be that the fools who bad mouthed Nick Barnett had it all wrong. I wonder how many of them are the same ones whining about Sanders now.

Are you guys totally oblivious to the fact that we're playing without Barnett and Jenkins, and with Hawk, Bigby, Rouse, Collins, etc. diminished in quality by injuries? That on top of missing Harris for a bunch of games, etc.

And 5 of the losses were by four points or less--a lot of bad calls, a missed kick by a usually excellent kicker, a whole lot of close plays and near misses, of various kinds.

It's been a rotten year all the way around, but completely throwing out last season, completely throwing out the games won by this defense with game-changing turnovers, etc., that's just beyond stupid.

Whiners about change better be careful what they wish for lest the Packers end up with something a whole lot worse--like the other kind of CHANGE that a bunch of misguided fools brought to us.

[Gunakor]

Do any of you guys have the mental capability to remember longer than the last 2 or 3 rotten weeks?

The lesson of these bad games should be that the fools who bad mouthed Nick Barnett had it all wrong. I wonder how many of them are the same ones whining about Sanders now.

Are you guys totally oblivious to the fact that we're playing without Barnett and Jenkins, and with Hawk, Bigby, Rouse, Collins, etc. diminished in quality by injuries? That on top of missing Harris for a bunch of games, etc.

And 5 of the losses were by four points or less--a lot of bad calls, a missed kick by a usually excellent kicker, a whole lot of close plays and near misses, of various kinds.

It's been a rotten year all the way around, but completely throwing out last season, completely throwing out the games won by this defense with game-changing turnovers, etc., that's just beyond stupid.

Whiners about change better be careful what they wish for lest the Packers end up with something a whole lot worse--like the other kind of CHANGE that a bunch of misguided fools brought to us.

Even if we took last year's defense and used that to illustrate Bob Sanders' ability as DC, it still failed miserably in the game that mattered most. It will not make us a Super Bowl caliber team, even if everybody was healthy. It doesn't work. Time for a change.

[Joemailman]

I'd say anyone who runs a 3-4...I really think we're set to become a 3-4 team. Kampy, Pickett, Jenkins on the DL. Hawk, Bishop, Barnett, Poop @ LB. When you don't have a strong DL, you have to make an adjustment, and we haven't.

eitehr way, Bobby has got to go.
I dislike getting into an X and O dispute with ND, but I don't think we have the personnel for a 3-4. Jenkins at end (a DT-DE tweener) is a good fit. Pickett can be shoved around, he is not a nose tackle like Grady Jackson. I don't think Kampman has the size, even from earlier in his career to be a DE in the 3-4. You don't see many sub 300 DEs in a 3-4.

As for LBs, Pop might be the best fit, he can play the McGinest role. But Barnett is too small to take on guards and I am not sure Hawk can either. He might fit outside, but that gives us two LBs. Not sure where Bishop or Chillar would fit. Bishop might go inside for his best fit.

I understand that our DL isn't helping Bates scheme, but a 3-4 needs a strong line as well, it just doesn't depend on pass rush from it.

As for new coach, I am not excited about Haslett. I have heard he has worn out his welcome with his players in two cities now. Nolan followed Marvin Lewis at Baltimore with Super Bowl personnel and went backward. His time at Washington was also unproductive. Rod Marinelli has never been a D coordinator before.

Moss did not learn defense from Sanders or Bates, so his scheme may very well look different. Of all the people listed, I want Lewis first, then Moss. But I am less than enthused about linebacker play this year from Moss. Might be the DTs, but its not reassuring. I would be pleased as punch if the Jones' canned Phillips and he became the D coordinator as well.

Debating whether the Packers currently have the personnel for the 3-4 misses the point IMHO. If you're going to switch to the 3-4, or any other defense for that matter, it should be because you believe it's the best defensive scheme, not because you believe it matches your current defensive personnel. NFL careers are short, and personnel situations can change very quickly.

[texaspackerbacker]

Do any of you guys have the mental capability to remember longer than the last 2 or 3 rotten weeks?

The lesson of these bad games should be that the fools who bad mouthed Nick Barnett had it all wrong. I wonder how many of them are the same ones whining about Sanders now.

Are you guys totally oblivious to the fact that we're playing without Barnett and Jenkins, and with Hawk, Bigby, Rouse, Collins, etc. diminished in quality by injuries? That on top of missing Harris for a bunch of games, etc.

And 5 of the losses were by four points or less--a lot of bad calls, a missed kick by a usually excellent kicker, a whole lot of close plays and near misses, of various kinds.

It's been a rotten year all the way around, but completely throwing out last season, completely throwing out the games won by this defense with game-changing turnovers, etc., that's just beyond stupid.

Whiners about change better be careful what they wish for lest the Packers end up with something a whole lot worse--like the other kind of CHANGE that a bunch of misguided fools brought to us.

Even if we took last year's defense and used that to illustrate Bob Sanders' ability as DC, it still failed miserably in the game that mattered most. It will not make us a Super Bowl caliber team, even if everybody was healthy. It doesn't work. Time for a change.

You're talking about the overtime game that we lost to the team that SEEMED like they were playing way over their heads at the time, but which went on to knock off the mighty Patriots and win the Super Bowl? The team which is 12-1 this year, and generally considered the best team in the NFL?

Uh, yeah, let's go ahead and crucify Sanders for that one too.

[Gunakor]

Do any of you guys have the mental capability to remember longer than the last 2 or 3 rotten weeks?

The lesson of these bad games should be that the fools who bad mouthed Nick Barnett had it all wrong. I wonder how many of them are the same ones whining about Sanders now.

Are you guys totally oblivious to the fact that we're playing without Barnett and Jenkins, and with Hawk, Bigby, Rouse, Collins, etc. diminished in quality by injuries? That on top of missing Harris for a bunch of games, etc.

And 5 of the losses were by four points or less--a lot of bad calls, a missed kick by a usually excellent kicker, a whole lot of close plays and near misses, of various kinds.

It's been a rotten year all the way around, but completely throwing out last season, completely throwing out the games won by this defense with game-changing turnovers, etc., that's just beyond stupid.

Whiners about change better be careful what they wish for lest the Packers end up with something a whole lot worse--like the other kind of CHANGE that a bunch of misguided fools brought to us.

Even if we took last year's defense and used that to illustrate Bob Sanders' ability as DC, it still failed miserably in the game that mattered most. It will not make us a Super Bowl caliber team, even if everybody was healthy. It doesn't work. Time for a change.

You're talking about the overtime game that we lost to the team that SEEMED like they were playing way over their heads at the time, but which went on to knock off the mighty Patriots and win the Super Bowl? The team which is 12-1 this year, and generally considered the best team in the NFL?

Uh, yeah, let's go ahead and crucify Sanders for that one too.

I don't know if you realize this Tex, but the Giants play in our conference. We'd have to beat them to get where we want to go. Sanders didn't get it done. I don't want another NFC Championship Game loss, I want a Super Bowl victory. Sanders scheme didn't get it done and won't get it done. I want something better. Something that could stop even the Giants, the best team in football. Time for a change.

By the way, the Giants are 11-2 this year. They got beat by Philadelphia last weekend.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'll give you your last line; The rest of the post, not so much.

My point is that after a great season--6th in the NFL in least points scored against, we lost that one game--in overtime, to a team that was a whole lot better than it seemed at the time, with our offense not exactly tearing things up, and with Al Harris unexpectedly playing a lot worse than he had all season. Now, which of those reasons--or any others you can think of--do you blame Sanders for?

Sanders and the D scheme had a helluva lot more to do with getting the Packers that far than with losing that game.

And as for this year, can anybody in their right mind argue that INJURIES are not the primary reason for the porous defense? And with all that, our D has still contributed a huge number of turnovers, many with scores. Somebody whined that Sanders shouldn't get any credit for that. Maybe not, but the D scheme sure as hell DOES make the bunch of interception a lot more likely, and he's the architect of the scheme.

[Partial]

Tex, our pass rush was awful toward the end of last year, and the year before as well. This scheme asks too much of the DL imo. The offensive line is never tricked. They can line up and start blocking right away knowing full well the guy is coming at 'em straight ahead and that their won't be a blitzer hitting the gap either.

It's far too plain jane.

I'm not crazy about Mike Nolan myself. Give me Marv Lewis, but Nolan seems like one of those guys who was in a great system and smart, but not a great coach. The defenses in SF weren't anything to write home about nor were they creative as far as I know. Give me Rob Ryan, I am sure Oak is gonna clean house this off-season!!

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, our pass rush was awful toward the end of last year, and the year before as well. This scheme asks too much of the DL imo. The offensive line is never tricked. They can line up and start blocking right away knowing full well the guy is coming at 'em straight ahead and that their won't be a blitzer hitting the gap either.

It's far too plain jane.

I'm not crazy about Mike Nolan myself. Give me Marv Lewis, but Nolan seems like one of those guys who was in a great system and smart, but not a great coach. The defenses in SF weren't anything to write home about nor were they creative as far as I know. Give me Rob Ryan, I am sure Oak is gonna clean house this off-season!!

Why are people so hung up on a great pass rush? Sure, you gotta put a little bit of pressure on the QB, maybe even pull a surprise blitz rarely, but for the most part, dropping into coverage and getting picks is a lot more likely to win game. The greater problem with the Packer defense this year is not pass rush, but run stopping--and that didn't get a lot worse until Barnett went down.

I'm not completely hung up on Sanders. It's the scheme that does great things. I'm not even completely committed to the scheme, for that matter. You could do essentially the same stuff with a 3-4. The absolute urgency, however, is not going to a blitz-happy scheme and not getting away from man coverage. Blitzing and zone coverage are recipes for disaster.

[Fritz]

I don't know who I agree with.

[Pugger]

If you can't rush the passer even the most pedestrian QB can pick you apart. Your LBs and DBs can't cover their men forever.

I have a question for you guys: how many winning teams are using a scheme like the one we're using? I'm not being flippant, I'm just curious cuz I don't know. :?:

[pack4to84]

If you can't rush the passer even the most pedestrian QB can pick you apart. Your LBs and DBs can't cover their men forever.

I have a question for you guys: how many winning teams are using a scheme like the one we're using? I'm not being flippant, I'm just curious cuz I don't know. :?:I believe the Packers are the only one. Denver tried it then let Jim Bates go at the end of last season.

[pack4to84]

My self I would like to switch to 3-4 4-3 hybrid. Steelers, Ravens and Pats use. Use mostly 3-4 but switch to 4-3 base in certain situations. It is easier to find LB in the draft vs DE for a 4-3 defense. 3-4 uses DT for all 3 positions. OLB our normally small fast DE. I think Kampton could drop a few pounds and fit into the OLB spot. Hunter and Thompson are already a perfect fit.
I always loved they way we used Tim Harris and Bryce Paup back in the day. They ran a 4-3 hybrid where 3 dt and 1 DE who lined up where ever he thought he could get the most pressure. Forcing teams to have to audible almost every play. When Lambeau field got loud it would cause mayhem on the OL.

[Rastak]

Home sick as a dog reading through some articles on the NFL and this one seems to agree with Tex.


http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081209/PKR07/81209184/1058/PKR01



Count me among the handful of people not calling for the firing of Green Bay Packers defensive coordinator Bob Sanders. es, the defense has been atrocious this season, particularly in the last month.

Yes, Sanders’ unit is ranked in the bottom third of the NFL in yards and points.

Yes, the Packers were shredded for 549 yards against Houston, the highest total by a Green Bay defense in 25 years.

Yes, the Packers were lit up for a combined 84 points in losses to New Orleans and Carolina, the highest point total allowed in back-to-back games by a Packers team in 50 years.

The knee-jerk demand for a change in defensive leadership is understandable. The Packers’ repeated failures to make key stops has spawned intense frustration, and blame naturally points toward Sanders.

Sacking him will provide disgruntled Packers followers their pound of flesh, but it won’t solve the problem.

Sanders oversaw a top-10 defense a year ago and was in charge when the Packers produced one of the best performances in franchise history by allowing the Minnesota Vikings 104 total yards and three first downs in a December 2006 game.

Did Sanders suddenly become incompetent this season? Or are there circumstances beyond his control that have left the defense in shambles?

Sanders isn’t to blame for injuries that ended the seasons of Cullen Jenkins and Nick Barnett and rendered Atari Bigby all but ineffective. Sanders isn’t to blame for the sudden decline of Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila that led to his midseason release. Sanders isn’t to blame for the trade of Corey Williams.

Granted, no one wants to hear excuses. It’s all about results, and the defense isn’t producing. But with the exception of Pro Bowl defensive end Aaron Kampman, the Packers’ front seven is a collection of below-average players.

The blame falls at the doorstep of General Manager Ted Thompson for not providing adequate manpower and largely ignoring the defense the past two years. Just five of 20 draft picks in 2007 and 2008 were defensive players, and the only starter from that group is Desmond Bishop, an injury fill-in.

First-round draft pick Justin Harrell has been a big disappointment. Is Harrell’s slow development Sanders’ fault, given the defensive tackle’s injury history?

The only defensive free agent signed by Thompson in the past two years still on the roster is linebacker Brandon Chillar.

Considering Thompson’s conservative approach, is it any wonder the Packers’ pass rush and run defense have been invisible? They rank a deplorable 28th in both sacks and yards allowed per rush.

Making Sanders the scapegoat would be short-sighted. He isn’t a miracle worker, and that’s what is needed to turn this collection of players into a respectable defense.

Mike Vandermause is sports editor of the Press-Gazette

[pbmax]

Debating whether the Packers currently have the personnel for the 3-4 misses the point IMHO. If you're going to switch to the 3-4, or any other defense for that matter, it should be because you believe it's the best defensive scheme, not because you believe it matches your current defensive personnel. NFL careers are short, and personnel situations can change very quickly.
There is no magic scheme in the NFL. You can't do the defensive equivalent of hiring a spread offense guru and expect to compete with the big boys by virtue of surprise alone.

That said, the current 3-4 (which looks a lot different that the old AFC 3-4 that used to be popular) is here for a reason. One, is market inefficiencies. 4-3 teams kill themselves looking for big pass rushing DEs and strong but fast linebackers in the draft. That leaves a lot of tweeners available. Guys like Jenkins who are somewhere between DT and DE. Guys who are too big to play OLB in a 4-3 in space but are not big enough to put a hand down on the LOS every down.

If the LBs are smart and tough enough, it also means you can present one front and coverage and then switch and bring pressure from an unexpected angle. This concept is not unique to the 3-4, but without pulling someone out of coverage, you can attack with a choice of LBs and not just stunt lineman. And if you send five or more, you can play more coverages with the extra LB than with a D lineman dropping into a zone.

But the NFL is the extreme case; without the players for the scheme, its not stopping anyone for long.

[Gunakor]

I'll give you your last line; The rest of the post, not so much.

My point is that after a great season--6th in the NFL in least points scored against, we lost that one game--in overtime, to a team that was a whole lot better than it seemed at the time, with our offense not exactly tearing things up, and with Al Harris unexpectedly playing a lot worse than he had all season. Now, which of those reasons--or any others you can think of--do you blame Sanders for?

Sanders and the D scheme had a helluva lot more to do with getting the Packers that far than with losing that game.

And as for this year, can anybody in their right mind argue that INJURIES are not the primary reason for the porous defense? And with all that, our D has still contributed a huge number of turnovers, many with scores. Somebody whined that Sanders shouldn't get any credit for that. Maybe not, but the D scheme sure as hell DOES make the bunch of interception a lot more likely, and he's the architect of the scheme.

The game only went to overtime because of 2 missed FG's that would have put the game away in regulation. Don't let the fact the game went to overtime fool you into believing something that isn't true. The Packers were thoroughly dominated on defense that day. And your point about Harris getting abused, fine, I'll give you that as it wasn't something that happened very often. But a good DC would have made an adjustment to his defense to give Harris help, and that didn't happen. Sanders just kept letting Plax dominate Harris all game without giving him any safety help. That is not good strategy. That no help was given to Harris was Sanders mistake.

Have you ever thought for a second, Tex, that maybe some of the success the defense had last year was due to great players overcoming poor coaching by executing a shitty scheme to perfection? That maybe, just maybe, if we had a better DC coaching these great players that we'd have beat the Giants and gone on to potentially beat the Patriots a couple weeks later? We have phenomenal players on defense. A few are injured, granted, but others have stepped up their game from last year - namely Tramon Williams and Nick Collins, specifically. Yet this defense is FAR worse than it was last year. At some point you have to blame the system. It's become that time IMO.

A healthy medium between the always blitzing Slowik and the passive, vanilla, no pressure getting, bend but don't break (sometimes) Sanders would be a wonderful thing. Remember, the top priority of a defense is NOT to get turnovers. It is to stop the opponent from moving down the field and scoring points - a 3 and out accomplishes that just as well as an INT. I want to see more 3 and outs, even if it comes at the cost of a few INT's. Whatever it takes to keep the opponent from putting 21 points or more on the board against us every single week.

[Guiness]

I'm with PBMax in thinking that I'd like to see Jones decide Phillips can't get it done, and can him. He'd be one hot commodity, and I think he might get another HC gig. But if not, do what it takes to get him here!

Another interesting name from the 'currently employed, but probably not much longer' is Rob Ryan. I wonder if we could get Buddy over here to punch MM in the face every time his QB threw a pick six? :shock:

From the list...I think Marv Lewis. But he's another guy that would probably have HC aspirations if he got tossed this year.

[Freak Out]

Lets go out and spend some money and steal a 3-4 coordinator if possible and make the switch...what the hell....if the offense works out and really plays to it's potential it can carry the team until the D kinks get worked out and we become DOMINANT. ha ha....Why not?

[Guiness]

Tex, our pass rush was awful toward the end of last year, and the year before as well. This scheme asks too much of the DL imo. The offensive line is never tricked. They can line up and start blocking right away knowing full well the guy is coming at 'em straight ahead and that their won't be a blitzer hitting the gap either.

It's far too plain jane.


Interesting against Houston though, Bishop shot a couple of gaps and got to the QB.

[Merlin]

Marvin Lewis seems to be a good fit. Not to sure why every time our defense sucks ass someone starts the 3-4 talk. If we suck in the 4-3 then what makes anyone think it will be any better in a 3-4? There would have to be a certain amount of adjustments made by all players and that would take at least a season, you would need to find the players to fit the scheme thus extending the "rebuilding" for years. Fire the DC, bring in someone who can coach. Bates made a mediocre defense look good. Vanilla defense can work, if you execute, obviously there lies the difference between Bates and Sanders.