Defensive Coordinator

[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.