Packers promote Slocum to special teams coach

[packers11]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/37550999.html

[Fritz]

Does this mean that MM likes Slocum so much - he considered moving Slocum to the defensive staff before hiring a coordinator - that the guy was a slam dunk pick? So good that MM didn't need to do a big search? Or does it mean MM is so wrapped up in his DC search that someone had to remind him he needed a special teams coach, so he just said "Oh, yeah, that's right. Uhh, I guess we'll promote that guy that was the assistant last year." Or does it mean something else?

???

[Patler]

Does this mean that MM likes Slocum so much - he considered moving Slocum to the defensive staff before hiring a coordinator - that the guy was a slam dunk pick? So good that MM didn't need to do a big search? Or does it mean MM is so wrapped up in his DC search that someone had to remind him he needed a special teams coach, so he just said "Oh, yeah, that's right. Uhh, I guess we'll promote that guy that was the assistant last year." Or does it mean something else?

???

I think it means that MM has a very difficult time expanding his coach searches beyond the group of coaches with which he has worked before. I disliked this in his original staff, and I dislike it in his current efforts. In his original staff announcements he made a big deal about mentioning the few with which he had no prior relationship. I thought it was some what odd at the time. Now I see it as a problem with him.

[pbmax]

I agree with your assessment Patler, but given that we didn't know that Jim Haslett was in town for two days until after the fact, I think its possible that interviews occurred and have not been reported.

[pbmax]

Ah, see? I occasionally get one right.

from JSOnline (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/37550999.html)


A National Football League source said coach Mike McCarthy decided to promote Slocum after interviewing at least two outside candidates in the last week.

[pbmax]

And then I should read the entire article:

Mike Priefer: Kansas City and Herm Edwards connection
Larry Mac Duff: San Francisco with McCarthy
Brian Schneider: Can't find the connection here, but took another job

Mac Duff has a pretty good resume, and Priefer would just seem to be a recommendation, so this search doesn't seem out of the norm. But the result, as Patler mentioned, is familiar.

That said, the hire that backfired the most was Sanders, who was unfamiliar to M3. Next would be Schottenheimer, who M3 knew.

[LL2]

Does this mean that MM likes Slocum so much - he considered moving Slocum to the defensive staff before hiring a coordinator - that the guy was a slam dunk pick? So good that MM didn't need to do a big search? Or does it mean MM is so wrapped up in his DC search that someone had to remind him he needed a special teams coach, so he just said "Oh, yeah, that's right. Uhh, I guess we'll promote that guy that was the assistant last year." Or does it mean something else?

???

I think it means that MM has a very difficult time expanding his coach searches beyond the group of coaches with which he has worked before. I disliked this in his original staff, and I dislike it in his current efforts. In his original staff announcements he made a big deal about mentioning the few with which he had no prior relationship. I thought it was some what odd at the time. Now I see it as a problem with him.

I tend to agree. It almost seems as if MM is interviewing Nolan, Haslet, and Williams to make it look like he is interested in outside people.

[Ballboy]

this is a status quo move...if we were going to fire Stock, why would we promote one of his assistants who would have the same basic scheme with maybe a few of his own variations?

This is a dumb move.

[Patler]

this is a status quo move...if we were going to fire Stock, why would we promote one of his assistants who would have the same basic scheme with maybe a few of his own variations?

This is a dumb move.

I don't necessarily think that Slocum will be StockII. I think a good assistant to a coordinator does what he is asked to do (although he may make other suggestions), but given the chance to be in charge, might do things differently on his own.

My concern is that there seemed to be a lot of other guys out there with pretty good track records of success on Special Teams; yet MM sticks with a guy with whom he has a relationship extending back much farther than just with the Packers, a guy with an NFL background not nearly as proven as some others. But, apparently MM thinks highly of Slocum, and considered him for a spot on the defensive coaching staff. I just hope he is right. I'm all for giving a good candidate an opportunity, but MM does not have time to make a mistake at this stage.

[Patler]

I tend to agree. It almost seems as if MM is interviewing Nolan, Haslet, and Williams to make it look like he is interested in outside people.

The way I look at it, Nolan and Haslett are not outsiders. Both are coaches with whom MM has a background. I think Williams is the only one that MM has not worked with before.

[Patler]

And then I should read the entire article:

Mike Priefer: Kansas City and Herm Edwards connection
Larry Mac Duff: San Francisco with McCarthy
Brian Schneider: Can't find the connection here, but took another job

Mac Duff has a pretty good resume, and Priefer would just seem to be a recommendation, so this search doesn't seem out of the norm. But the result, as Patler mentioned, is familiar.

That said, the hire that backfired the most was Sanders, who was unfamiliar to M3. Next would be Schottenheimer, who M3 knew.

That's true, and Sanders was the one I was thinking about earlier. In a press conference when Sanders was announced, MM made a big deal that he had never worked with him before, but was hiring him anyway. He said little about why Sanders was the best guy for the job and instead alluded to this providing "continuity". He made more of the fact that he had asked Bates to stay, but Bates declined. This was when a first had the feeling that MM did not really believe strongly in Sanders, which was wrong for the critical position of DC for a head coach who is offense oriented.

A simple mention of no prior background with him would have been fine, but I thought MM made too much about it with Sanders and with another of the coaches (Moss maybe?). To me the important thing is to get the best people available, and that often may not be someone that you worked with before. Why would it be when MM himself worked on a lot of staffs for teams that were not real successful.

[run pMc]

I don't know a thing about this ST guy, but if M3 thinks he's the best candidate, then good for him.

Anybody notice this at the bottom of the article?


Surgery complete: Center Scott Wells underwent surgery to repair a torn right labrum Tuesday, which was discovered in his physical after the season, a source familiar with the operation said.


Was this guy suiting up with a torn labrum? Ouch.

[rbaloha1]

Lets trust MM's judgment on this one.

[Pacopete4]

Lets trust MM's judgment on this one.

Why? What's he done to ear our trust, him or TT in this specific department?

[rbaloha1]

Lets trust MM's judgment on this one.

Why? What's he done to ear our trust, him or TT in this specific department?

Good point. Bad move with the punter but good draft selections with Crosby and Blackmon.

Maybe its more blind faith. I mean how much worse can it get than Stock?

[cpk1994]

Lets trust MM's judgment on this one.

Why? What's he done to ear our trust, him or TT in this specific department?13-3 and an NFC title game is what he has done.. He has earned trust at least through next season based off that.

[Patler]

I do trust TT and MM generally. That doesn't mean I like everything they do. Has MM earned your trust in his ability to hire coaches? I think MM is a good offensive mind. I think he is good with the players, from all indications. I'm sort of luke warm about they way he manages games near the end, and I am concerned about whether or not he surrounds himself with the best staff that he possibly can.

Head coaches are both football men and executives. As an executive he hires a staff, assigns duties, oversees and directs operations of the staff, and evaluates performance. I'm not sure that he has done a good job in his executive role as head coach of the Packers. I am concerned that he continues to follow some of the same practices that were not successful in hiring his initial staff.

[MacCool606]

I guess it's remarkable how opinions change with each years record.

Last year I was impressed with the coaching staff and how well they developed a very young team. I thought upgrading talent was a real weakness of Mike Sherman's staff. The "growing" occurred on both sides of the ball.

This year there are questions about the staff and MM's questionable hires.

I guess this all revolves around the other discussions of whether we were lucky or good last year, and if we were unlucky or bad this year.

[Guiness]

I tend to agree. It almost seems as if MM is interviewing Nolan, Haslet, and Williams to make it look like he is interested in outside people.

The way I look at it, Nolan and Haslett are not outsiders. Both are coaches with whom MM has a background. I think Williams is the only one that MM has not worked with before.

This is such a Catch-22 situation.

How much can you really tell from an interview??? Obviously, he made some mistakes when he first assembled his staff - and now that his first selections didn't pan out, he's got to get away from his comfort zone - and pick guys he may not have worked with before, and hope he can work with them. You can evaluate their past performance, and talk to people who've worked with them, but it's tough.

I've been on both sides of a hiring process in the past where styles of work, personalities, habits, etc have made things go sour.

[Patler]

I tend to agree. It almost seems as if MM is interviewing Nolan, Haslet, and Williams to make it look like he is interested in outside people.

The way I look at it, Nolan and Haslett are not outsiders. Both are coaches with whom MM has a background. I think Williams is the only one that MM has not worked with before.

This is such a Catch-22 situation.

How much can you really tell from an interview??? Obviously, he made some mistakes when he first assembled his staff - and now that his first selections didn't pan out, he's got to get away from his comfort zone - and pick guys he may not have worked with before, and hope he can work with them. You can evaluate their past performance, and talk to people who've worked with them, but it's tough.

I've been on both sides of a hiring process in the past where styles of work, personalities, habits, etc have made things go sour.

Yup, and with his ST coordinator hire he has stayed within his comfort zone. Maybe Slocum will be great, I'm not necessarily down on him, but with his hire and the leading DC coordinator candidates it seems to be more of the same, guys MM knows from past associations.

[Freak Out]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KSXqQUOlL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

[Fritz]

Well, Patler, as you point out in an earlier post on this thread, MM can't afford a mistake in his hiring of assistants this time.

Therefore, if he screws this up - whether from not going outside the people he's worked with or from hiring someone he has no relationship with whom it turns out he can't work with or can't do the job - then the problem will be resolved because MM will be out on his ear. Probably followed closely by Ted. For some reason, I see those two as a twofer. I don't think Ted will get the luxury that some GM's do of trying out a couple of coaches...

Don't forget too that some folk here (not sure that I'm one of them) are of the opinion that even a mediocre hire will be better than Sanders, and even a mediocre defense might be enough to vault the Pack to the winning side. Not to a Superbowl, though.

[Patler]

Well, Patler, as you point out in an earlier post on this thread, MM can't afford a mistake in his hiring of assistants this time.

Therefore, if he screws this up - whether from not going outside the people he's worked with or from hiring someone he has no relationship with whom it turns out he can't work with or can't do the job - then the problem will be resolved because MM will be out on his ear. Probably followed closely by Ted. For some reason, I see those two as a twofer. I don't think Ted will get the luxury that some GM's do of trying out a couple of coaches...

Don't forget too that some folk here (not sure that I'm one of them) are of the opinion that even a mediocre hire will be better than Sanders, and even a mediocre defense might be enough to vault the Pack to the winning side. Not to a Superbowl, though.

I agree, although I'm not sure that TT is on the same length leash as MM. In fact, I think there may be a feeling that the football staff has not gotten as much out of some of the young players as they should have, whether it is the fault of their schemes, their ability to teach, their ability to strategize and adapt.

A really interesting factor in all this is that unlike many GMs, even though TT has full control over the football operations he answers to a guy with good football knowledge in Murphy. If things continue badly on the field, Murphy might be in a unique position to evaluate if the problem is with TT and the players on the roster, or if the players are OK but coaching not so good, or if it is both.

[Fritz]

True, so what would you do if your GM can find talent wonderfully but has chosen a coach who didn't work out? Do you let him try again and tell him he'd better get it right? Do you take a strong interest and role in the hiring of a new coach? i wonder.

Do you wonder if MM would've been a great offensive coordinator but not quite good enough as an executive head coach in terms of hiring coaching talent?

[Bretsky]

Does this mean that MM likes Slocum so much - he considered moving Slocum to the defensive staff before hiring a coordinator - that the guy was a slam dunk pick? So good that MM didn't need to do a big search? Or does it mean MM is so wrapped up in his DC search that someone had to remind him he needed a special teams coach, so he just said "Oh, yeah, that's right. Uhh, I guess we'll promote that guy that was the assistant last year." Or does it mean something else?

???

I think it means that MM has a very difficult time expanding his coach searches beyond the group of coaches with which he has worked before. I disliked this in his original staff, and I dislike it in his current efforts. In his original staff announcements he made a big deal about mentioning the few with which he had no prior relationship. I thought it was some what odd at the time. Now I see it as a problem with him.



:bclap:

[Joemailman]

I tend to agree. It almost seems as if MM is interviewing Nolan, Haslet, and Williams to make it look like he is interested in outside people.

The way I look at it, Nolan and Haslett are not outsiders. Both are coaches with whom MM has a background. I think Williams is the only one that MM has not worked with before.

This is such a Catch-22 situation.

How much can you really tell from an interview??? Obviously, he made some mistakes when he first assembled his staff - and now that his first selections didn't pan out, he's got to get away from his comfort zone - and pick guys he may not have worked with before, and hope he can work with them. You can evaluate their past performance, and talk to people who've worked with them, but it's tough.

I've been on both sides of a hiring process in the past where styles of work, personalities, habits, etc have made things go sour.

Yup, and with his ST coordinator hire he has stayed within his comfort zone. Maybe Slocum will be great, I'm not necessarily down on him, but with his hire and the leading DC coordinator candidates it seems to be more of the same, guys MM knows from past associations.

How do you know that the guys he has interviewed so far for DC are the leading candidates? The fact that he hasn't hired anyone could mean he wants to interview guys whose teams are still playing. Guys he hasn't coached with. Looks to me like McCarthy is being very deliberate this time. He knows he has to get it right or he could be the one out the door.

[Bretsky]

I tend to agree. It almost seems as if MM is interviewing Nolan, Haslet, and Williams to make it look like he is interested in outside people.

The way I look at it, Nolan and Haslett are not outsiders. Both are coaches with whom MM has a background. I think Williams is the only one that MM has not worked with before.

This is such a Catch-22 situation.

How much can you really tell from an interview??? Obviously, he made some mistakes when he first assembled his staff - and now that his first selections didn't pan out, he's got to get away from his comfort zone - and pick guys he may not have worked with before, and hope he can work with them. You can evaluate their past performance, and talk to people who've worked with them, but it's tough.

I've been on both sides of a hiring process in the past where styles of work, personalities, habits, etc have made things go sour.

Yup, and with his ST coordinator hire he has stayed within his comfort zone. Maybe Slocum will be great, I'm not necessarily down on him, but with his hire and the leading DC coordinator candidates it seems to be more of the same, guys MM knows from past associations.

How do you know that the guys he has interviewed so far for DC are the leading candidates? The fact that he hasn't hired anyone could mean he wants to interview guys whose teams are still playing. Guys he hasn't coached with. Looks to me like McCarthy is being very deliberate this time. He knows he has to get it right or he could be the one out the door.


He seemed to take his sweet old time before hiring VB too

[Patler]

How do you know that the guys he has interviewed so far for DC are the leading candidates? The fact that he hasn't hired anyone could mean he wants to interview guys whose teams are still playing. Guys he hasn't coached with. Looks to me like McCarthy is being very deliberate this time. He knows he has to get it right or he could be the one out the door.,

Obviously I do not know for sure, I can only go by what the media reports. However, there is a lack of any solid rumors about any other candidates. To be honest, it is of concern to me more now that he has hired an old buddy as ST coordinator. Again, according to media reports there seemed to be a lot of available experienced coaches with solid sounding backgrounds in ST. It seems he may have interviewed a couple, ignored many, and then appointed his old colleague.

Will the same thing happen for the DC? We will find out soon.

[Joemailman]

Don't know I would call Slocum an old buddy. Before McCarthy hired Slocum in 2006, they had not worked together. :shock: Slocum had 15 years of coaching in the college ranks, much of it involved with special teams. http://www.packers.com/team/coaches/slocum_shawn/

[Patler]

Don't know I would call Slocum an old buddy. Before McCarthy hired Slocum in 2006, they had not worked together. :shock: Slocum had 15 years of coaching in the college ranks, much of it involved with special teams. http://www.packers.com/team/coaches/slocum_shawn/

Their relationship goes way, way back, almost 20 years. Both were graduate assistant coaches at University of Pittsburgh in 1990, Slocum on defense, McCarthy with QBs. Did you read the bio you linked? This is from it:


Slocum began his coaching career as a volunteer assistant at Texas A&M in 1989. He moved on to the University of Pittsburgh the following season (1990) as a graduate assistant defensive coach, serving on a Paul Hackett staff that included McCarthy, then a graduate assistant helping with the Panthers' quarterbacks.

I'm not saying Slocum will be bad, he might be good. But his experience as a ST coordinator is all in the college ranks. His NFL resume is very, very short. According to a JSO article others are available with more proven NFL success. McCarthy is staying with an old friend.

[Fritz]

We'd know for sure if MM hired for DC a guy he coached with in high school whose been out of football for the last eight years!

[RashanGary]

You bring up some great points, Patler. Maybe it pans out, but there are some major red flags here.

[Pugger]

I don't have a problem with MM hiring Slocum as our ST guy. He isn't Stock so I'll wager he'll bring his own methods and schemes to this unit. Let's not just assume he'll be StockII as someone here said earlier. I too think MM has his eye on someone for our DC whose team is still playing - which is a good thing if you think about it! :mrgreen:

[Fritz]

I hope he's a screamer.

[Waldo]

I'm not saying Slocum will be bad, he might be good. But his experience as a ST coordinator is all in the college ranks. His NFL resume is very, very short. According to a JSO article others are available with more proven NFL success. McCarthy is staying with an old friend.

I would think that a college ST coach might actually be better than an old pro one. Really how different are kickoffs, punts, and field goals from college to the pros? It isn't like there is a 1000 page playbook, ST is pretty straightforward. If anything the college playbook is bigger.

Most ST players are young guys fresh out of college that were stars in college and didn't play much ST. The teaching aspect of ST coaching is the same between the college and pros, there is quite a bit of it. Since he's used to working with kids at the college ranks, he probably relates to the average pro ST player better than the old pro ST coordinators.

Heck he taught one of the best punters in the NFL (Lechler) how to punt.

[Fritz]

I'm not saying Slocum will be bad, he might be good. But his experience as a ST coordinator is all in the college ranks. His NFL resume is very, very short. According to a JSO article others are available with more proven NFL success. McCarthy is staying with an old friend.

I would think that a college ST coach might actually be better than an old pro one. Really how different are kickoffs, punts, and field goals from college to the pros? It isn't like there is a 1000 page playbook, ST is pretty straightforward. If anything the college playbook is bigger.

Most ST players are young guys fresh out of college that were stars in college and didn't play much ST. The teaching aspect of ST coaching is the same between the college and pros, there is quite a bit of it. Since he's used to working with kids at the college ranks, he probably relates to the average pro ST player better than the old pro ST coordinators.

Heck he taught one of the best punters in the NFL (Lechler) how to punt.

Well, punts are a lot different. You seen these teams that do that Austraiian football style punting? Weird formation, the punter runs sideways, kicks the ball on the run. Kinda like rugby. Weird.

This does not invalidate your point. It's just weird.