2019 Dumb Things I Read

[pbmax]

Regarding Tom Silverstein's report that Zizzi left without a contract and that his asking price was high.

Bart VanVoorhis @bartstarrfan
More of the Packers trying to win on the cheap. Maybe they can find an UDFA to coach ST for them. This had Ball's hands all over it.

Categories of dumb: Conspiracy, assumption of incompetence without evidence, flying in the face of known evidence, assertion of claim that is possibly not falsifiable

Level of dumb (out of 10): I am going to give this 6/10 on the Joe Philbin school of challenges dumb

Charges: Not only is Twitter user BVV unsure who negotiates contracts for coaches, he fails to consider that there is already a salary structure for cordinator/coaches and Steve Zizzou's ask might have been beyond both Pettine and Hackett. Zizzou was an assistant head coach with Miami.

[mraynrand]

where are the 2,018 other dumb things you read?


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OK2otVeNzqo/TaxHSvec5LI/AAAAAAAACb0/QfIHBwOql2Q/s1600/dumb+4.jpg

[pbmax]

where are the 2,018 other dumb things you read?


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OK2otVeNzql2Q/s1600/dumb+4.jpg

Either I read less or the written work of the year was better than advertised.

[Patler]

"But despite what was described as a great visit between the two, the Packers allowed the well-respected coach to leave town without a deal. Given the state of their special teams last year, losing out on the best available coach is a blow to the Packers’ hopes of turning things around quickly."

Yup, all hope is lost. There is only one coach in all of the football coaching universe who can do it, and it is a guarantee that Rizzi would have done it. Clearly, the Packers poor performances on STs since 2006 were the result of not having Rizzi. Each and every one of the many different coaching combinations McCarthy had on STs was incompetent, nothing else factored into the STs failures. Therefore, the only thing that can fix it is hiring Rizzi.

I also hate the "allowed the coach/player/executive leave town without a deal" comments that are used whenever a "name" candidate is in town for an interview. What should the team do? Give the candidate whatever he asks for? Keep him under lock and key until he gives in to the team's offer?

[Fritz]

Exactly, Patler. You get Brad Childress to pick the guy up at the airport, throw wads of cash and some big-city Milwaukee strippers at him, tell him he'll be your new Winston Moss, then chain him to a table until he relents.

If you don't do that, it means you don't care.

God I love how simple football really is.

[mraynrand]

Exactly, Patler. You get Brad Childress to pick the guy up at the airport, throw wads of cash and some big-city Milwaukee strippers at him, tell him he'll be your new Winston Moss, then chain him to a table until he relents.

You know, maybe the Packers we be well served looking for a ST coach among the ranks of the sado-masochists who are into bondage - at least they would be used to having their hands tied.

[pbmax]

You know, maybe the Packers we be well served looking for a ST coach among the ranks of the sado-masochists who are into bondage - at least they would be used to having their hands tied.

Not sure about the coach, but having your hands tied might be a good way to practice though.

[mraynrand]

Not sure about the coach, but having your hands tied might be a good way to practice though.

Boxing gloves!

Still, I meant 'hands tied' as in 'having inferior talent' on special teams, due to poor player procurement. (This GM year is make or break for the brain trust)

[pbmax]

Boxing gloves!

Still, I meant 'hands tied' as in 'having inferior talent' on special teams, due to poor player procurement. (This GM year is make or break for the brain trust)

Yeah, I got you. I still don't think that was the entire disconnect, because some talented Packer teams were also terrible at ST.

Did not help that Ted preferred upside over ST at roster cut down time. Bush, Janis and Davis are among just a few guys who really were just ST starters and each at one point looked like they would start elsewhere. Was it Will Blackmon that had a huge ST career after a couple of years with the Packers? Cut a bunch of LB who were ST specialists too.

[Fosco33]

Yup, all hope is lost. There is only one coach in all of the football coaching universe who can do it, and it is a guarantee that Rizzi would have done it. Clearly, the Packers poor performances on STs since 2006 were the result of not having Rizzi. Each and every one of the many different coaching combinations McCarthy had on STs was incompetent, nothing else factored into the STs failures. Therefore, the only thing that can fix it is hiring Rizzi.

I also hate the "allowed the coach/player/executive leave town without a deal" comments that are used whenever a "name" candidate is in town for an interview. What should the team do? Give the candidate whatever he asks for? Keep him under lock and key until he gives in to the team's offer?

Looking back at ST DVOA rankings. The packers have been in bottom half (best was 14th, sometimes mid 20s and once the worst team).

I read same article and didn’t think it was dumb. Does player quality matter? Of course. Can a great coach help - certainly. If not - then he opposite is true and coaching doesn’t matter. We should just let the players coach themselves or put an ad in GBPG for any mouth breather.

I’d have liked to see Rizzi in GB. Without knowing what he’s asked for - we do what we can - speculate. His ST ranks in Miami were all over the map - from 6th to worst - generally slightly ahead of GB.

[Patler]

Looking back at ST DVOA rankings. The packers have been in bottom half (best was 14th, sometimes mid 20s and once the worst team).

I read same article and didn’t think it was dumb. Does player quality matter? Of course. Can a great coach help - certainly. If not - then he opposite is true and coaching doesn’t matter. We should just let the players coach themselves or put an ad in GBPG for any mouth breather.

I’d have liked to see Rizzi in GB. Without knowing what he’s asked for - we do what we can - speculate. His ST ranks in Miami were all over the map - from 6th to worst - generally slightly ahead of GB.

I didn't think, or suggest that the whole article was dumb. I do think that the two sentences I quoted are dumb.

I have always criticized statements like that in the first sentence; "...the Packers allowed the well-respected coach to leave town without a deal." Dumb for the reasons I said. Dumb for the added reasons brought out by Fritz.

To suggest that losing out on one specific coach "... is a blow to the Packers’ hopes of turning things around quickly" is at best poorly reasoned and at worst just dumb. In fact, the sentence itself is somewhat contradictory. The first clause posits the very poor performance of STs last year ("Given the state of their special teams last year,...") as the basis for the conclusion that losing out on Rizzi "... is a blow to the Packers’ hopes of turning things around quickly."

I would suggest that, especially given the state of their special teams last year, there should be many reasons for the hope of turning things around quickly. It shouldn't hinge on hiring Rizzi.

Was Zook so good as a coordinator that the only better one would be Rizzi? Isn't there another coach out there who could use the same players more effectively than Zook did? I believe there is. Perhaps someone none of us has heard of. Perhaps someone who has not been known as a special teams guy to this point. It's LaFleur's job to find him. Part of being a good head coach is identifying coaches who are ready to advance, ready to move into new areas. A college ST coordinator ready to move into the NFL. An NFL ST assistant ready to become the top guy. The linebacker coach ready to make the change.

Some head coaches always seem to have good STs, even as their coaching staff changes and the roster changes from year to year. MM seemed to always have very poor ST's even as his roster changed and even though he used three different coordinators; 7 different guys in the assistant roles, two of whom he promoted to coordinator; and seven different coordinator/assistant combinations.

MM promised that STs would be better from the switch to 3-4, because of more linebackers who had the body types he wanted for STs. He was given rosters with 3 FBs at times, even though many teams carried none. All played STs. He was given 4 TEs at times (didn't they have 5 once?) and high numbers of LBs, the "extras" being ST guys. He was given a lot of draft picks who were projected as being able to contribute on STs because of their size/speed combinations. Players like Janis, Bush, Lattimore, Francois, Goodson, etc. made roster because of STs. And yet, nothing much came of it.

Gutekunst cut or didn't resign a lot of players with ST experience, and injuries took out most of the others. Janis, Thomas, Ripkowski, Kerridge, Goodson, Evans, Rollins, Davis, Allsion, Rodgers wre all ST guys with some experience who did not contribute this year for one reason or another.

I would suggest that getting Rizzi is just one factor that could turn around ST's quickly. LaFleur replacing MM could be another. Getting a better/more effective coordinator other than Rizzi could be another. Young players thrown into the fire in 2018 having more experience is yet another. Finding an effective return guy (Davis healthy?) and coverage guys to replace what Janis, Goodson and Randall did in 2017 are yet others.

The hope for a quick turn around on STs did not hinge on signing Rizzi. Implying that it did, in my opinion, is just dumb. It was not "a blow to the Packers’ hopes of turning things around quickly." It was just one missed opportunity of many opportunities to do so.

[pbmax]

Does anyone agree with the current beat writer consensus that draft and develop cost the Packers veterans who could be backups and excel on ST? There are more than a couple of examples of those guys getting released at the end of camp or midseason due to roster adjustments/injuries.

And the Packers did not tend to draft special team projects, preferring the athletic model of prospect. Now that model landed the Packers several good special teamers (read above for the list) but the tenure for most was one to two years. They did draft body types for ST when McCarthy shifted the offense toward personnel groups, but that was a mixed bag for special teams.

I tend to think the Packers usually have talent on ST but not experience. They also tend not to have returners that excel (Davis is an oft injured exception).

I think a better than average ST coach can help with the former. Not sure what they do about the latter. But I am pretty sure that this is the reason that when the Packers climb out of the bottom 1/3 of rankings, its usually coverage that leads the way.

[Patler]

I don't think "draft and develop" is necessarily a detriment to special teams. Even with it, you should have a core of third and 4th year players leading your special teams every year, because most last that long even in the draft and develop scenario. While that group may constantly change, you add in a Bush or Janis here (more on Janis later) and a Kuhn or Ripkowski there (more later on Rip, too) and you should have leadership and experience.

I do think Gutekunst made a huge blunder this year, and did not think about ST's enough in his off season planning, preseason decisions and in season moves.

While the overall ST performance was not always good, the Packers had a number of effective ST performers, including Janis, Goodson, Rollins, Rodgers, Ripkowski and Kerridge on coverage units and Davis on returns. In the past, Montgomery had shown ability, too,

Goodson and Rollins were coming of very significant injuries, severe enough that off season articles raised the possibilities that one or both might never play effectively again. Janis and Rodgers were not resigned. Ripkowski and Kerridge were waived. Just like that, all experience and leadership on coverage units was gone, and the season had not even started.

Davis has had a questionable history from the get go as a return man. Hands, decision making and availability have all been issues in his short career. While not nearly as dynamic, Janis did show some ability on returns, and over the years had gained some experience. He was steady, at least. When Montgomery was traded, they were left with nothing in this area, too. Montgomery must shoulder a lot of the blame for his departure, but I think the O-staff failed to find ways to use him, leading to his dissatisfaction. Remember, this was a player who wanted to return kicks, and willing accepted a switch to RB when the team needed him to. He didn't have the history of being a malcontent. Montgomery was not the only one who "dropped the ball" in his situation.

I don't think Gutekunst handled the punter and long snapper issues well either. Vogel had a decent year in 2017, especially for a rookie. Maybe ultimately Scott will be better, but he was not this year.

Hunter Bradley is not the long term answer, unless he improves significantly. For various reasons, I listened to but did not watch most of the last 8 games or so until the last week of the season when I watched them all over about 3 nights. In one of the first, Bradley had a couple poor snaps, so I watched closely in all the other games. He seemed to have at least one off target snap in each game, often low on punts, and low or inside on placement kicks. To Scott's credit, he handled them well, and some were in fact quite difficult. I'm sure Bradley did not instill great confidence in Scott or Crosby. A lot of the writers didn't think Bradley had won the job in camp, but Gutekunst went with him anyway. Might have been a mistake.

Gutekunst scrapped STs entirely, except for Crosby, and I think was worse-off because of it. He needed to pick and choose better than he did last year.

[pbmax]

Bradley and Scott were curious decisions. I doubt they drafted a punter that early without planning for it in advance but his performance was highly variable. More unpredictable than Jon Ryan. Bradley was worrisome all camp and preseason.

It was never mentioned directly, but the release of both FBs had to be due to the number of young players at WR and TE. Subbing in old TEs for FBs just does not seem to work well.

Gute had a very weird year roster wise. Young WRs are obviously worth investing in even to the detriment of anther O position. But I can't envision them planning to keep Tonyan and they also signed M Lewis to barely play TE. Given the nature of the recent offense, none of the TEs was going to get enough work to be worth losing a FB.

[Patler]

Bradley and Scott were curious decisions. I doubt they drafted a punter that early without planning for it in advance but his performance was highly variable. More unpredictable than Jon Ryan. Bradley was worrisome all camp and preseason.

It was never mentioned directly, but the release of both FBs had to be due to the number of young players at WR and TE. Subbing in old TEs for FBs just does not seem to work well.

Gute had a very weird year roster wise. Young WRs are obviously worth investing in even to the detriment of anther O position. But I can't envision them planning to keep Tonyan and they also signed M Lewis to barely play TE. Given the nature of the recent offense, none of the TEs was going to get enough work to be worth losing a FB.

It made some sense when they started the season with Kerridge on the practice squad, but then they released him just a short time later, and when they finally signed a FB to the 53 man roster it was a guy who turned out to be very inconsistent. He had several complete whiffs on running plays, which is almost unheard of for a FB. I was surprised they didn't bring back Ripkowski at that point.

[Bretsky]

Does anyone agree with the current beat writer consensus that draft and develop cost the Packers veterans who could be backups and excel on ST? There are more than a couple of examples of those guys getting released at the end of camp or midseason due to roster adjustments/injuries.

.


I would agree with this for sure and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I agree with the premise

[pbmax]

I would agree with this for sure and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I agree with the premise

So you don't think ST can work without veterans dedicated to the units?

[gbgary]

rizzi didn't come to Green Bay for the interview because he wasn't interested. the only conclusion is that they didn't meet his price. supposedly he was the best guy out there and they wanted him. the fact that he left is telling. the Packers haven't realized that when it comes to signing the best at something they're going to have to pay the Green Bay tax to seal the deal.

[Fritz]

rizzi didn't come to Green Bay for the interview because he wasn't interested. the only conclusion is that they didn't meet his price. supposedly he was the best guy out there and they wanted him. the fact that he left is telling. the Packers haven't realized that when it comes to signing the best at something they're going to have to pay the Green Bay tax to seal the deal.

Part of the problem here is that we don't know what Rizzi wanted. If it was "just" a huge contract, then maybe you're right - although you'd have to consider the possible reverberations of paying a special teams coach more than, say, your offensive or defensive coordinator.

But maybe Rizzi wanted more power. And that could be problematic. Maybe he wanted some play-calling authority so he could show his chops as a potential head coach somewhere ("We're going to run a fake punt!"). Maybe he wanted to be an assistant head coach, and LeFleur does not like that model (how'd that work out for MM and Winston? Hard to say).

Or maybe having a better selection of strippers in places like Miami or New York or L.A. was worth way more to Rizzi than making three mill a year instead of two mill.

We just don't know.

[pbmax]

rizzi didn't come to Green Bay for the interview because he wasn't interested. the only conclusion is that they didn't meet his price. supposedly he was the best guy out there and they wanted him. the fact that he left is telling. the Packers haven't realized that when it comes to signing the best at something they're going to have to pay the Green Bay tax to seal the deal.

Gary, we have been dealing with FA for quite a long time. There isn't much, if any, evidence of a FA tax for GB. Some players won't want to play outdoors in the cold, but you can't eliminate personal preferences like that. Jimmy Graham didn't cost 10% more just because its GB; he wanted to play with Rodgers.

It is possible Rizzi used GB as a stalking horse to get an offer, reject it because it wasn't enough, and try to improve the deal elsewhere.

But nothing about this case seems to be about the Packers misjudging the market. They signed Pettine and Hackett without trouble. Rizzi may have been the most obviously qualified candidate, and the Packers know that too. If his demands went beyond that, its fair to let him go.

Patler is right. Just because we can't identify the next best candidate doesn't mean they can't.

The big question is this: does anyone at GB KNOW how to find the next most qualified candidate and identify them? Look at ST over the years. They were a catastrophe under Sherman too until he hired Bonamego. Just like drafting pass rush, I have my doubts they know what will work.

[Fritz]

Detroit just hired Bonamego.

[pbmax]

So about the too young for good special teams:

Packer Report @PackerReport
This isn't surprising. Been charting average ages for last decade. Some #Packers ages and where it ranked among youngest rosters
2007 — 25.72 (1st)
...
2009 — 25.70 (1st)
2011 — 25.74 (T-3rd)
...
2018 — 25.74 (T-10th)
So, essentially same age those seasons but look at ranking


There are multiple ways to measure this, but I don't think the youth argument holds much water. I suspect the only veteran different between the Packers and most teams on ST is one to three guys who are on the roster to play ST.

[MadScientist]

In an article about the Madden simulation of the SB:

Now, using a video game to try to see into the future might be a bit unorthodox (and completely inadvisable), but consider that Madden has predicted five of the last nine winners, For the Win noted.
5 out of 9 is basically random chance. smh.