Bates as HC

[b bulldog]

I wish he would have been given a shot, I know it is real early but he was my first pick.

[chewy-bacca]

I would like to think he would have been most of our 1st choice.

[gbpackfan]

There is something wrong with Bates. He is in his late 60's and he has NEVER been a head coach. That short stint with Miami doesn't count! :D We're not seeing something that every GM in the league sees. Sorry, but it is a fact.

[chewy-bacca]

IMHO he should get a shot over MM. who the EEF is MM!? :?

[b bulldog]

MM's resume surely can't wow anyone and Bates's resume can, enough said!

[ND72]

well evidently it did.

[digitaldean]

Yes, I would have wanted Bates as my first choice, too.

But since McCarthy's the coach, it's kind of a moot point, ain't it? :roll:

I will criticize McCarthy up and down, and will call for his head if called for. But I will also make sure that even I wanted to THROW A BRICK THROUGH MY TV during last nights game, I have to remember that they have time to correct SOME of the bad stuff. It's still only preseason, but it's obvious they have GAPING holes to fix.

I never expected playoffs this season, but I expect them during his tenure. If not, then he AND TT can go.

[ND72]

i'm going to say this again....NFL preseason, coaches do not game plan to win the game, they game plan to get certain plays on film, and certain players on film or certain situations. for instance, I read that last night GB decided to go 90% zone coverage on defense just to "get a look" at it. even though they won't play much zone coverage. it's just what teams do in the preseason.

[MJZiggy]

Fact is, that with 10 openings for HC this season, Bates didn't get any of them. There must be a reason why. I know he was fiery last year, but the defense wasn't perfect either. I don't know how much of that was Bates call or Sherman's but the man isn't God. McCarthy is the one who got hired and as such deserves the opportunity to play at least a regular season game before you guys start looking over your shoulders at "what could have been." What could have been is quite possibly he could have sucked worse than anything that might happen with M3 this year. M3 is the coach. Bates is not. He has a 3-year contract to prove himself and even if you end up wanting to hang him by his privates, there isn't much you could do about it.

[b bulldog]

Actually I heard from Brett's best friend that MM really wanted this game and did throw more at this preseason game than normal.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I all I know is if Bates was our defensive coordinator this year, that we would have a strong top 10 D. I wouldn’t of mined giving him a shot as HC, because I like what he did in Miami the year before, but I value him more as great motivational defensive coach.

[gbpackfan]

Actually I heard from Brett's best friend that MM really wanted this game and did throw more at this preseason game than normal.

I believe they spent 1 1/2 days on the Bengals, two at most. A lot of the time was spent on Chicago. MM wants every game and should. Game planning was not a high priority here.

I can't put this one on the coaches, it was the players. Blaming the coaches is a convienant (spelling?) excuse and a lame one at that!

[Terry]

Since you asked...

convenient.

[Brainerd]

M3 is the coach. Bates is not. He has a 3-year contract to prove himself and even if you end up wanting to hang him by his privates, there isn't much you could do about it.

Tell that to Ray Rhodes.

[Brainerd]

I believe they spent 1 1/2 days on the Bengals, two at most. A lot of the time was spent on Chicago. MM wants every game and should. Game planning was not a high priority here.

I can't put this one on the coaches, it was the players. Blaming the coaches is a convienant (spelling?) excuse and a lame one at that!

Is was without a doubt coaching and not the players. MM did nothing but use excuses about effort in his interview after the game. Yeah, no kidding. I guess no one told him that effort is the responsiblity of the coaching staff. As I've stated before players play for coaches they respect like they did for Bates last year. They was no lack of effort last year. He stated in the same interview that he didn't think the o-line was that bad but needed to see the video. What is he doing on the sidelines? Was he even watching the game? Why does he even bother showing up for the game if he needs to see the video before making any determination? Too many excuses and its only preseason.

Coaching is alot more than making TC shedules and running drills. MM has shown nothing, absoultely nothing that indicates he can be a HC in the NFL. Right now all indicators point to the opposite.

[gbpackfan]

I couldn't disagree more. Players make plays! Coaches are important but the lack of effort was on the players, not MM and his staff. But, since our society is moving towards the "blame someone else for my faults" way of thinking, I guess you are spot on. MM wasn't perfect last night, but Vince Lombardi couldn't have coached that group of slackers to a victory Monday night! Got to have heart boys, HEART!

[gbpackfan]

Since you asked...

convenient.


Much appreciated.

[Partial]

Actually I heard from Brett's best friend that MM really wanted this game and did throw more at this preseason game than normal.

I believe they spent 1 1/2 days on the Bengals, two at most. A lot of the time was spent on Chicago. MM wants every game and should. Game planning was not a high priority here.

I can't put this one on the coaches, it was the players. Blaming the coaches is a convienant (spelling?) excuse and a lame one at that!

Should that make much of a difference though? I feel like good players should be able to go out and produce regardless of what the game plan is.

[Brainerd]

I couldn't disagree more. Players make plays! Coaches are important but the lack of effort was on the players, not MM and his staff. But, since our society is moving towards the "blame someone else for my faults" way of thinking, I guess you are spot on. MM wasn't perfect last night, but Vince Lombardi couldn't have coached that group of slackers to a victory Monday night! Got to have heart boys, HEART!

Calling me out for placing blame when you are blaming the players and you didn't even have the balls to quote me. You're a boob. JSO is more your speed. No one makes sense over there.

Since you brought up Lombardi:

The 1958 Packers were 1-10-1 coached by Ray McLean. Had slacker players like Starr, Hornung, Taylor, Nitschke, Gregg, Kramer, Ringo, McGee and so on.

The 1959 Packers were 7-5-0 coached by Vince Lombardi. Had the same slacker players. A year later the same slacker players played in the title game but lost. A year later the same slacker players won the NFL championship.

Coaching had nothing to do with it at all. They all just decided without any coaching to stop being slackers. Lombardi just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

I repeat myself, you're a boob.

[gbpackfan]

Dude, settle down with the personal attacks. Damn man! I know we are all jacked up over the loss the other night but let's not tear each other apart.

I didn't "have the balls" to quote you? HA HA. What the hell does that mean? HA HA. I didn't quote you because I didn't think what you said was stupid or boob-ish. I just disagree.

Another thing, I wasn't comparing the 2006 Packers to Lombardi's Packers. I was just joking! What is your deal?

As for going back to JSO, I was one of the original guys asked to come to Packerrats.com when it first started. So settle down, learn to relax and make your points with out name calling. Trust me bro, you're the one who is acting like this is the JSO page and posts like that is one of the reasons this site was created.

[gbpackfan]

Actually I heard from Brett's best friend that MM really wanted this game and did throw more at this preseason game than normal.

I believe they spent 1 1/2 days on the Bengals, two at most. A lot of the time was spent on Chicago. MM wants every game and should. Game planning was not a high priority here.

I can't put this one on the coaches, it was the players. Blaming the coaches is a convienant (spelling?) excuse and a lame one at that!

Should that make much of a difference though? I feel like good players should be able to go out and produce regardless of what the game plan is.


Partial, I agree. That is kind of the point I was making. I was just trying to clarify a point made earlier.

Oh, and BRING BACK SNOOPY!

[MadtownPacker]

Bates must do something to set some alarms off to GMs cuz he deserves a shot and if he didnt get it in Miami or in GB something is wrong with his crazy ole ass.

http://www.nfluk.com/imagefolder/medium/Feature%20Article/jimbates.jpg

[woodbuck27]

Fact is, that with 10 openings for HC this season, Bates didn't get any of them. There must be a reason why. I know he was fiery last year, but the defense wasn't perfect either. I don't know how much of that was Bates call or Sherman's but the man isn't God. McCarthy is the one who got hired and as such deserves the opportunity to play at least a regular season game before you guys start looking over your shoulders at "what could have been." What could have been is quite possibly he could have sucked worse than anything that might happen with M3 this year. M3 is the coach. Bates is not. He has a 3-year contract to prove himself and even if you end up wanting to hang him by his privates, there isn't much you could do about it.

MJ:

I'm thinking... that you told them... " to shut up " ? :mrgreen:

[Brainerd]

But, since our society is moving towards the "blame someone else for my faults" way of thinking, I guess you are spot on.

How is that not a personal attack? How is that not name calling? It implies I'm stupid and just tossing out blame without thinking. I used MM's own words to make my point that he has shown nothing to indicate he is ready to be a HC in the NFL. In repsonse you stated that I was placing blame. You didn't use facts, you attacked me personally.

You did all this without quoting me so it would be difficult for anyone but myself to follow. A cowardly hit and run action by someone who simply wants to fling acusations without any need to back themselves up annoying things like facts. Like the annoying fact that coaching matters and not just players.


Another thing, I wasn't comparing the 2006 Packers to Lombardi's Packers. I was just joking! What is your deal?

You implied coaching doesn't matter and stated that even Lombardi couldn't have won Monday night. I supplied a contrary theory.


Dude, settle down with the personal attacks. Damn man!

You started the attack. I simply defended myself in what I thought was a humorous manner.


As for going back to JSO, I was one of the original guys asked to come to Packerrats.com when it first started. So settle down, learn to relax and make your points with out name calling. Trust me bro, you're the one who is acting like this is the JSO page and posts like that is one of the reasons this site was created.

Once again you are stating that I started this name calling. I simply posted a reply to your message showing that blaming the players was foolish. You started the JSO antics. I feel I politely rebuked you in an un-JSO manner. At least I supplied facts in my rebuttal to the name calling you started. Now you are throwing your connection to the moderators on this board in my face to somehow intimidate me. If the moderators want me gone it is their right. I'm sure they don't need your persmission to ban me from this board. Please refrain from the threats especially since it was you who started the name calling as I think I have proven.

[gbpackfan]

What is the name that I called you?

You know what, don't bother. It really isn't worth my time to reply. Get back to the Packers. This is just plain silly.

[MadtownPacker]

If you guys want you can step outside and handle it but when you come back in you have to be friends! :mrgreen:

http://www.terrysdoorsandmillwork.com/images/saloon_shutters.jpg

[pbmax]

I couldn't disagree more. Players make plays! Coaches are important but the lack of effort was on the players, not MM and his staff. But, since our society is moving towards the "blame someone else for my faults" way of thinking, I guess you are spot on. MM wasn't perfect last night, but Vince Lombardi couldn't have coached that group of slackers to a victory Monday night! Got to have heart boys, HEART!

Calling me out for placing blame when you are blaming the players and you didn't even have the balls to quote me. You're a boob. JSO is more your speed. No one makes sense over there.

Since you brought up Lombardi:

The 1958 Packers were 1-10-1 coached by Ray McLean. Had slacker players like Starr, Hornung, Taylor, Nitschke, Gregg, Kramer, Ringo, McGee and so on.

The 1959 Packers were 7-5-0 coached by Vince Lombardi. Had the same slacker players. A year later the same slacker players played in the title game but lost. A year later the same slacker players won the NFL championship.

Coaching had nothing to do with it at all. They all just decided without any coaching to stop being slackers. Lombardi just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

I repeat myself, you're a boob.

So is it your considered, non-Boob, opinion that the current Packers have 4-6 Hall of Famers on its roster?

Or might McCarthy have slightly less raw material?

[esoxx]

I equate Jim Bates situation to that of Fritz Shurmur. Both competent, well respected coordinators who just didn't make it to head coach. I'm not sure that means they have any character flaws or skeletons in their closets. Just didn't happen for them. I think age caught up to both though. When you get to a certain point and haven't made it beyond D-Coordinator, you probably get pigeon holed to an extent. As opposed to corn holed. :mrgreen:

[Brainerd]

I couldn't disagree more. Players make plays! Coaches are important but the lack of effort was on the players, not MM and his staff. But, since our society is moving towards the "blame someone else for my faults" way of thinking, I guess you are spot on. MM wasn't perfect last night, but Vince Lombardi couldn't have coached that group of slackers to a victory Monday night! Got to have heart boys, HEART!

Calling me out for placing blame when you are blaming the players and you didn't even have the balls to quote me. You're a boob. JSO is more your speed. No one makes sense over there.

Since you brought up Lombardi:

The 1958 Packers were 1-10-1 coached by Ray McLean. Had slacker players like Starr, Hornung, Taylor, Nitschke, Gregg, Kramer, Ringo, McGee and so on.

The 1959 Packers were 7-5-0 coached by Vince Lombardi. Had the same slacker players. A year later the same slacker players played in the title game but lost. A year later the same slacker players won the NFL championship.

Coaching had nothing to do with it at all. They all just decided without any coaching to stop being slackers. Lombardi just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

I repeat myself, you're a boob.

So is it your considered, non-Boob, opinion that the current Packers have 4-6 Hall of Famers on its roster?

Or might McCarthy have slightly less raw material?

Without Lombardi its unlikely the players mentioned would be Hall of Famers. They certainly showed nothing to indicate their future greatness under McLean and others which was my point. Coaching matters. I thought it was a simple concept. Favre was pathetic in what little time he played in Atlanta. Would Favre be Favre without Holmgren?

[Terry]

I couldn't disagree more. Players make plays! Coaches are important but the lack of effort was on the players, not MM and his staff. But, since our society is moving towards the "blame someone else for my faults" way of thinking, I guess you are spot on. MM wasn't perfect last night, but Vince Lombardi couldn't have coached that group of slackers to a victory Monday night! Got to have heart boys, HEART!

Calling me out for placing blame when you are blaming the players and you didn't even have the balls to quote me. You're a boob. JSO is more your speed. No one makes sense over there.

Since you brought up Lombardi:

The 1958 Packers were 1-10-1 coached by Ray McLean. Had slacker players like Starr, Hornung, Taylor, Nitschke, Gregg, Kramer, Ringo, McGee and so on.

The 1959 Packers were 7-5-0 coached by Vince Lombardi. Had the same slacker players. A year later the same slacker players played in the title game but lost. A year later the same slacker players won the NFL championship.

Coaching had nothing to do with it at all. They all just decided without any coaching to stop being slackers. Lombardi just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

I repeat myself, you're a boob.

Well, actually, three future HOF'ers joined the Packers in '59 also, plus Lombardi traded for two others - one an 11 year vet from the Eagles, another a second year player. Plus, by '61, Willie Wood (9 time All NFL player, 8 time pro bowler) and Herb Adderly (considered to be the finest cornerback in the NFL in his time) were on the team. Plus three of the guys you mention were rookies in 1958.

However, I do agree with your later comment about whether some of them would have been HOF'ers without Lombardi. Nitschke probably, same with Gregg and Wood. Adderly, I dunno, maybe - they did have a brilliant defensive coordinator also. Some of the others, who knows, but you're probably right. Interesting discussion, seeing as how I've just finished a huge discussion on this very subject elsewhere. I tend to be of your school of thought on this, but I must say, I've finally begun to think about the other side of the coin more thanks to the brilliant discussion from the other point of view put forward by another guy.

Anyway, in general, speaking of defensive gurus who became less successful Head Coaches, I'll throw out another name here that might surprise you. I've already obliquely referred to him. Phil Bengston.

Mind you, to be fair to Bengston, Nitschke believed (something else I just learned) that the loss of the kicker that year was crucial - that with their previous kicker, they might just have won four more games that year and been in the running for a fourth championship. Such a thing probably would have led to a far different career for Mr. Bengston.

[Brainerd]

Well, actually, three future HOF'ers joined the Packers in '59 also, plus Lombardi traded for two others - one an 11 year vet from the Eagles, another a second year player. Plus, by '61, Willie Wood (9 time All NFL player, 8 time pro bowler) and Herb Adderly (considered to be the finest cornerback in the NFL in his time) were on the team. Plus three of the guys you mention were rookies in 1958.
Yes, Lombardi added players year by year. Great players. I never meant to suggest that Lombardi won all those championships with just the players from 1958. But much of the core was there in 1958 and McLean did nothing with them. Rookies or not. Lombardi had to actually spend coaching time to rid the Packers of their losing attitude under previous regimes. Much like Holmgren had to many years later.


However, I do agree with your later comment about whether some of them would have been HOF'ers without Lombardi. Nitschke probably, same with Gregg and Wood. Adderly, I dunno, maybe - they did have a brilliant defensive coordinator also. Some of the others, who knows, but you're probably right. Interesting discussion, seeing as how I've just finished a huge discussion on this very subject elsewhere.
Not sure about Wood making the Hall without Lombardi. The story or myth I know goes is that he tried out for the Packers cause no other team wanted him. Lombardi gave him a workout and remarked, as others had before him, that Wood was too small to play. Wood then walked to the goalpost and jumped up and hung on the crossbar. Lombardi gave him a spot on the roster to further prove himself. Not because of his size but because of his heart. Lombardi saw the man inside the player and treated them as men, not just a commodity to further his own career.

Which allows me to expand on a point I made in an earlier post about Favre and coaching. The Atlanta coaching staff headed by Glanville wanted Favre gone. They had given up on Favre. Given up on a slacker player. Where is Glanville and his staff now? Where is Holmgren and the staff he hired for the Packers?

This is why I believe players play only for those coaches they respect. When an entire team plays flat its the coaching not the players and that is what set me off. The blaming of the players when its obvious that MM lacks something and Sanders lacks every attribute a coach needs.


I tend to be of your school of thought on this, but I must say, I've finally begun to think about the other side of the coin more thanks to the brilliant discussion from the other point of view put forward by another guy.

When presented with facts its quite easy to change one's mind. Its just that I never saw a badly coached team in any sport win a championship. In fact dream teams have been known to lose gold medals while teams comprised solely of solid players with heart who are well coached have won gold medals. Miracle anyone?


Anyway, in general, speaking of defensive gurus who became less successful Head Coaches, I'll throw out another name here that might surprise you. I've already obliquely referred to him. Phil Bengston.

Mind you, to be fair to Bengston, Nitschke believed (something else I just learned) that the loss of the kicker that year was crucial - that with their previous kicker, they might just have won four more games that year and been in the running for a fourth championship. Such a thing probably would have led to a far different career for Mr. Bengston.

Yeah. poor Phil. He inherited an aging team that had literally gone where no team had gone before. Different situation than MM.

[Guiness]

I think football coaching is more important, and can more directly affect the outcome than just about any other sport. It's the reason that football coaches were the first to really cash in - they have the most impact on the outcome of the game.

I mean, how much impact can a baseball manager have??? I think he's pretty much limited to 'Go out and get us a hit' or 'If the ball comes to you, catch it and throw it to first.'

[Noodle]

I mean, how much impact can a baseball manager have??? I think he's pretty much limited to 'Go out and get us a hit' or 'If the ball comes to you, catch it and throw it to first.'

There are millions of cry baby red sox fans who'd violently scream "What about Grady Friggin Little!!!!" in countering you on this point.

Note to gbpackfan -- nicely done.

[gureski]

I'd like to point out that Bates was screwed by Thompson and that's part of the reason he didn't become a head coach this year. Bates was turning down interviews because he felt he had an understanding with Thompson that he'd be the next head coach. When Thompson went with McCarthy, it floored Bates and part of the reason Bates was so pissed was exactly because there were so many opportunities this year that he missed because Thompson did what he did.

I just think that needs to be said to those that are saying that there must be something wrong with Bates since he wasn't hired as a head coach. He likely would've been this year had Thompson not strung him out.

With all that said, I keep bringing up the fact that Bates is still under contract with the Packers. It is not inconceivable to me that they could make up before the season is over and Bates could end up either running the defense or helping run the defense. It would take some people putting their pride aside but it's possible. He's already on the payroll. It's his system at work on defense. It could happen. I wish it would.