MIKE HOLMGREN AND THE GREEN BAY PACKERS HOME FIELD MAGIC

[Bretsky]

Anybody miss the good ole days ?

I know the rats are cussing me out for mentioning the Packers best coach I've witnessed in the past fourty years..........but it seems that the recips Holmgren and Wolf created for Homefield Dominance is gone

1. Stellar Coaching "Staffs" (we seem to have improved heres so time will tell)
2. Unpredictable and effective play calling (HOLMY WAS GREAT HERE...MM ok I think)
3. Teams that can win the battles in the trenches (BEEN A WHILE)

That, along with an effective 12th man, would normally get us to 7 or 8 wins right off the bat.

Those days are gone; our homefield record the past few years is nothing to be proud of

We lost to the Dam Bengals at DAM HOME 17 years after the Favre comeback against another sorry ass Bengals squad

Unacceptable;
:bang:

What needs to be done to bring back the good ole days of dominance ?

[Brando19]

After the Bears game...Rodgers talked about how it is so important to get that Lambeau advantage back...and they're on track to doing that. :lol: I don't think a loss to the Bengals helped.

[mmmdk]

After the Bears game...Rodgers talked about how it is so important to get that Lambeau advantage back...and they're on track to doing that. :lol: I don't think a loss to the Bengals helped.

WE LOST TO THE BENGALS? :shock:

[mmmdk]

After the Bears game...Rodgers talked about how it is so important to get that Lambeau advantage back...and they're on track to doing that. :lol: I don't think a loss to the Bengals helped.

WE LOST TO THE BENGALS? :shock:

Now that's magic...

[pbmax]

Just remember that success makes everything look better.

Max McGee would complain each game about Holmgren calling too many passes on first down and then always running on second down. He would say, incomplete on first down, now watch us run on second and get stuffed.

So play calling always looks better with a win. Not even Max liked Holmgren's play calling when they weren't scoring.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So true PB. Memories fade of our inability to run and our pedestrian (being kind) backs.

I guess if 100 passes to SS was brilliant playcalling, Holmy had it spades.

[sheepshead]

I dont hold Mike Holmgren in high esteem. Just dont. The Lambeau mystique was something of a misnomer. Most of those historic playoff victories were Lombardi's. Then 30 years of Lambeau field under a tarp in January. Even if we made a playoff game we were traveling and getting spanked.
Had we been making the playoffs once in a while the numbers would have changed. Having said that-losing at home to the Bengals isnt what any packer fan wants.

(the word is "damn" by the way)

[pbmax]

I dont hold Mike Holmgren in high esteem. Just dont. The Lambeau mystique was something of a misnomer. Most of those historic playoff victories were Lombardi's. Then 30 years of Lambeau field under a tarp in January. Even if we made a playoff game we were traveling and getting spanked.
Had we been making the playoffs once in a while the numbers would have changed. Having said that-losing at home to the Bengals isnt what any packer fan wants.

(the word is "damn" by the way)
I don't mean to denigrate Holmgren. His record at home, late in the year and in the playoffs were legitimately on the level for best in the league for many years running. But coaching is only a part of it, play calling a even smaller slice. When the Packers were one of the 5 best teams in the League for four years in a row (95-98), then 2001 and 2002, your home record will look great. But it is more of an aftereffect of being really good than a plan that can be executed.

[Fritz]

Ever notice that that famed "mystique" is strongest when the Packers field strong teams, and weakest when they have poor teams?

Could it be that there is a relationship between winning and mystique?

Winning - in the trenches, first of all - will help get that old magic back.

[mraynrand]

Fritz...PBmax...PBmax....Fritz...Hard...to....tell ......Apart......

[Cheesehead Craig]

Fritz...PBmax...PBmax....Fritz...Hard...to....tell ......Apart......
Just look at their pad level, that will tell you who is who.

[Bretsky]

3. Teams that can win the battles in the trenches (BEEN A WHILE)


Seems this this is what most agree on

Plenty of Holmgren Detractors in here; I wonder how some viewed him when he was leading the Packers

Best coach since Vince in GB and I doubt there are many arguments otherwise. IMO part of this is sour grapes. Who has been better ?

As Ron Wolf was also the best GM I've witnessed

TT needs to get us guys on this roster that win the battles in the trenches

Perhaps that will involve looking further into FA on the OL side

Or perhaps these developmental guys will turn into studs

[Scott Campbell]

3. Teams that can win the battles in the trenches (BEEN A WHILE)


Seems this this is what most agree on

Plenty of Holmgren Detractors in here; I wonder how some viewed him when he was leading the Packers

Best coach since Vince in GB and I doubt there are many arguments otherwise. IMO part of this is sour grapes. Who has been better ?

As Ron Wolf was also the best GM I've witnessed

TT needs to get us guys on this roster that win the battles in the trenches

Perhaps that will involve looking further into FA on the OL side

Or perhaps these developmental guys will turn into studs


Holmy seemed to mail it in during his last year here. And it felt like deja vu watching him steal paychecks up in Seattle last year.

[mmmdk]

3. Teams that can win the battles in the trenches (BEEN A WHILE)


Seems this this is what most agree on

Plenty of Holmgren Detractors in here; I wonder how some viewed him when he was leading the Packers

Best coach since Vince in GB and I doubt there are many arguments otherwise. IMO part of this is sour grapes. Who has been better ?

As Ron Wolf was also the best GM I've witnessed

TT needs to get us guys on this roster that win the battles in the trenches

Perhaps that will involve looking further into FA on the OL side

Or perhaps these developmental guys will turn into studs

I loved Holmgren! Was sorry to see him go; a lot of the rescent towards Holmgren never really reached me. Seems a local thing that I haven't had insight to (till last few years). I'm still not sure what it's all about!?

[Bretsky]

3. Teams that can win the battles in the trenches (BEEN A WHILE)


Seems this this is what most agree on

Plenty of Holmgren Detractors in here; I wonder how some viewed him when he was leading the Packers

Best coach since Vince in GB and I doubt there are many arguments otherwise. IMO part of this is sour grapes. Who has been better ?

As Ron Wolf was also the best GM I've witnessed

TT needs to get us guys on this roster that win the battles in the trenches

Perhaps that will involve looking further into FA on the OL side

Or perhaps these developmental guys will turn into studs


Holmy seemed to mail it in during his last year here. And it felt like deja vu watching him steal paychecks up in Seattle last year.


Fan Perception

I too was irked at Holmy went he berrated a fan yelling at him; but at the same time I never bought into the mail it in belief. Wolf and Holmy somehow had a falling out. He was leaving after the year but IMO gave it all he had til the Packers were eliminated

[sheepshead]

3. Teams that can win the battles in the trenches (BEEN A WHILE)


Seems this this is what most agree on

Plenty of Holmgren Detractors in here; I wonder how some viewed him when he was leading the Packers

Best coach since Vince in GB and I doubt there are many arguments otherwise. IMO part of this is sour grapes. Who has been better ?

As Ron Wolf was also the best GM I've witnessed

TT needs to get us guys on this roster that win the battles in the trenches

Perhaps that will involve looking further into FA on the OL side

Or perhaps these developmental guys will turn into studs

I loved Holmgren! Was sorry to see him go; a lot of the rescent towards Holmgren never really reached me. Seems a local thing that I haven't had insight to (till last few years). I'm still not sure what it's all about!?

My beef was simple, I call him overrated. People were putting in the same breath as Lombardi, Landry, Halas etc. As we see now, no way. Second, the way he and he alone is responsible for the SB loss to Denver. He didnt have the team prepared and was out coached big time. The last thing is the classless way he left GB. He had Paul Allens dollars signs in his eyes and cherry picked from the packer roster and front office. I like him less as a person actually I guess.

[mraynrand]

SB loss to Denver. He didnt have the team prepared and was out coached big time. The last thing is the classless way he left GB. He had Paul Allens dollars signs in his eyes and cherry picked from the packer roster and front office. I like him less as a person actually I guess.

Prove that the team wasn't prepared for SB XXXII. Don't give me some crap about guessing from the result of the game. Demonstrate that they were not, in fact prepared in a way that wasn't typical of a Holmgren led team.

Holmgren cherry picked the GB roster? Please list all the players cherry picked. (you do know that 'cherry picked' means to most people that he took the best)

This ought to be good.

[pbmax]

3. Teams that can win the battles in the trenches (BEEN A WHILE)


Seems this this is what most agree on

Plenty of Holmgren Detractors in here; I wonder how some viewed him when he was leading the Packers

Best coach since Vince in GB and I doubt there are many arguments otherwise. IMO part of this is sour grapes. Who has been better ?

As Ron Wolf was also the best GM I've witnessed

TT needs to get us guys on this roster that win the battles in the trenches

Perhaps that will involve looking further into FA on the OL side

Or perhaps these developmental guys will turn into studs
There can be no argument that he wasn't the best coach since Lombardi, but that doesn't mean he's thisclose to perfect. Its not like Joe Gibbs was here between Lombardi and Holmgren.

But it wasn't Holmgren's greatness or his modest shortcomings that gave them the aura of invincibility at home. It was a great team. What I can believe is that Holmgren attracted a better staff right off the bat and that helped during his entire tenure make Packer players better.

This is an odd year to draw conclusions. A team in transition that can depend on one facet of the game can still be pretty good. While Favre developed, the defense kept the team in most games early in Holmgren's tenure. While M3's new offense took time to find a running game, Sander's second year defense held down the fort.

Its Capers first year and in his first game, the Bears did not know what was coming. His second game the Bengals did. The TV guys illustrated one call where the linebacker was to cross the face of the tackle while a blitzer came free from the outside. They showed Palmer calling an audible run into the hole between the two. This year is going to be hit or miss for the most part. Some teams will not have film, others may not know the best adjustments. Others will know the defense inside and out. Its going to be better next year.

But on offense, some of the same things are going wrong now that were wrong in year 2. There is precedent for it. Wolf struggled even in FA to find a pair of guards he liked initially. He and Holmgren started off with a retread from the 49ers and some other lesser lights. Eventually he drafts Aaron Taylor, though loses him for a year due to injury. And then he strikes gold late with Timmerman. Eventually Rivera, Flanagan, Wahle and even Joe Andruzzi.

But McCarthy isn't rebuilding from the 70s, 80s or from Lindy Infante. He can't wait for Year 5 to find Rivera. The time frame is shorter. Should be shorter. Holmgren made up for the gaps in the roster in 93, 94 and 95. Time for Campen and Philbin to do the same. Clifton injury or no.

[KYPack]

The Bengals play the Steelers twice a year and those 3-4 are very similar. Actual game time is a lot more effective than tape. Palmer did make many of the proper reads due to that experience.