One sentence summary, my long-winded analysis of 2008

[pbmax]

Uhhh...mission? I think you may be confusing our TennesseePackerBacker with TEXASPackerBacker.

A few hundred miles to the west and to the right...

I doubt TN Packerbacker is to the RIGHT of TX Packerbacker, ideologically speaking.

[MJZiggy]

Uhhh...mission? I think you may be confusing our TennesseePackerBacker with TEXASPackerBacker.

A few hundred miles to the west and to the right...

I doubt TN Packerbacker is to the RIGHT of TX Packerbacker, ideologically speaking.

Read it the other way 'round. Texas is to the west and no one is further to the right...

[bobblehead]

When MM and TT got together I remember a theme.

1) We need to pound the ball in the Run game.
2) We need to be more physical than our opponent.
3) The battle is won and lost on the DL and OL

Now give me your perception of this team. 1) We don't run well enough 2) We seem to be more finesse and not physical enough 3) The team weakness is DL and inconsistency on the OL.

They seem to understand what we need but haven't accomplished it.

[mission]

Oh shit-- you guys are right, I'm wrong...

I did think it was the $other$ "backer"

[gbgary]

the carolina game...when he put his play-calling ego in front of the team just to prove a point on first and goal and got nothing, is when he finished it with me. i've called for his head ever since.

[Joemailman]

interesting topic; my one sentence that would define last year would be

We were 0-7 in games with a four or less point differential

Now the reason............that's debatable

I would be curious to know if this is a common theme with bad teams. I don't see too many blow outs. I would bet most games are decided by 6 or less.

What made the Packers failure unusual was not that they lost a lot of close games. That happens to teams every year. What was unusual was that the Packers lost 7 games in which they had a lead in the last 4 minutes of the game. I don't know that I've seen that before.

[texaspackerbacker]

Re: One sentence summary, my long-winded analysis of 2008

I read this in an article. I know we have discussed it, but phrased in a single sentence this way it really hit home as to why the season was so frustrating to so many:

They lost seven times when they were either ahead or tied with less than 4 minutes left in regulation.

Seven times the game was there to be won, and they failed. Thinking back to those times we can remember offensive failures, defensive failures, special teams failures, and yes, questionable coaching decisions.

In 13 of 16 games the team either won, or was in position to win at the very end of the game. Thirteen times! That would seem to indicate the talent level is high enough to compete with anyone. The distressing thing is that failures were not limited to a single aspect of the team. It was everyone. It was offense, it was defense, it was special teams. Yet each of these units was good enough to contribute to the team winning the game or being in position to win games in the final possessions for each team in 13 of 16 games.

If it was one part of the team that was the cause of the failures most of the time you could work to fix it. It is much more difficult when the entire team lets you down at one time or another. How do you fix that in one off season?

The Question. -What was the cause? I think it really boils down to just two possibilities:

1. Coaching. Not just the head coach, his entire staff. An overall philosophical approach that is too soft. Schemes that are "soft" and approaches to practicing that are "soft". We've debated the schemes many times, but not so much the approaches to practice. Very little hitting in practice, training camp with lots of time off, greatly limiting the number of two-a-day practices, not having two practices on consecutive days, practicing indoors when the weather is the least bit bad, and always when it gets cold, not even opening the indoor practice to the outdoor temperatures, etc. etc. In short, being demanding of the players in talk, but not in action; making being a professional football player just a little too easy, too convenient.

2. Just one of those things that happens from time to time.


The Answer- Number 1 above. An overall approach that is too soft. too convenient, too easy. Soft schemes make it easy on the opponent. Soft coaching philosophies do not prepare the players to perform at crunch time, perform with injuries, perform when it matters the most, perform under adverse and pressure packed conditions.

The Evidence- Failures by all aspects of the team, failures in crunch time, mental mistakes, mis-communication, inconsistent performances, abundant penalties, etc. result from soft coaching. Letting teams hang around to win at the end, not putting teams away, not beating the opponents confidence level result from soft schemes.

The Solution- Toughen up the program. I don't necessarily think it requires wholesale changes of the staff. Maybe a few changes, but more importantly a commitment to being less "soft" in scheme and in coaching philosophy. McCarthy has continually shown a willingness to "tweak" his practice philosophy, and hopefully will realize he may have gone too far in one direction. Whether he can or will toughen up his schemes remains to be seen.

If the team were not talented, it would not have won or been in position to win 13 times. There is talent on the roster. Sure, there are areas that need to be improved, but a foundation exists. Now the staff needs to get the most out of it.

Patler, I've got a lot of respect for a lot of what you say--unlike what i read from a lot of other people, but I disagree with your conclusions here.

The message here is that there is about an eyelash of difference between 13-3 and 6-10---and that eyelash of difference is that old four letter word: LUCK!--primarily, but certainly not limited to injuries.

I grew up in the Lombardi era, and I understand how some people crave Vince's style of toughness, and yeah, maybe a few--very very few coaches have gotten away with that way of doing things in recent years. But for the most part, that was then and this is now. It just doesn't work to coach that way. It is a societal thing; Parenting is different; Schools are different; Forms of entertainment are different; Contractual obligations are different; People/PLAYERS are different. There just ain't an unquestioning willingness to submit to authority anymore. You give them the choice of "my way or the highway", and they'll take the highway, jump to another team, make more money, and probably come back to beat you.

Furthermore, even on the field, the old-time Packers were a helluva lot more like today's Packers than say today's Steelers or Bears--or some other "tough" team.

I cite that fateful Thanksgiving many years ago when the tehn "tough" Detroit Lions handed Lombardi's Packers their only loss. Vince's defenses were the ultimate of "bend don't break". Vince hated blitzing and lived by man coverage--with the LBs dropping into coverage and getting timely interceptions. We had cover safeties--not Taylor Mays/Ronnie Lott type head-hunting big hitters. Think Willie Wood. On offense, people think of power running, the Lombardi sweep, and Jim Taylor seeking out tacklers instead of avoiding them, but Starr's cautious pin point passing and occasional 3rd and 1 bomb was what did the job.

Over the half century that I have followed football, the huge majority of the "tough" teams have been mediocre, and the huge majority of the tough coaches have failures. The cerebral types--which Lombardi actually was--were the successes--think Landry, Shula, etc., and LUCK was often the difference that put the good teams over the top--that LUCK factor including, of course, the drafting and signing and keeping healthy of good players.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I would be curious to know if this is a common theme with bad teams. I don't see too many blow outs. I would bet most games are decided by 6 or less.

For what it's worth, only one team has lost more games by 4 points or less--the 1984 Cleveland Browns. Now, this was a historical achievement.

[Noodle]

Bravo Tex. One of your best posts.

It's as simple as this -- you want Bill Walsh coaching your team or Mike Ditka?

Give me the smart guy any damn day of the week.

And please, this thing about not enough hitting just does not wash. My guess is that the Packers do as much hitting as, say the Ravens or Steelers. This is the modern NFL, so unless someone has some information that the league's top defenses hit a lot more than the Packers, then this line of argument doesn't work.

[vince]

While I don't think McCarthy is a "soft" coach, and I also think he is being smart with the pactice schedule to try to optimize the health of the team as much as possible, I think there is some credence to the idea that McCarthy's marriage and birth of his daughter may have taken some edge off of him, which may have negatively impacted the team. He seemed to lack the edge he demonstrated his first two years.

Kind of like how Mick wouldn't let Rocky get laid before for a big fight... Makes a man weaker in the legs...

I do think he is a good coach though, and the stats and facts that have been laid out in this and other threads demonstrate that he has the foundation of a good team. After suffering through this season, I think he'll get that edge back and the team will rebound nicely.

I also think that in the game of football, unlike the classroom and society in general to which Tex alluded, an edge helps. For every Landry and Shula, there are more recent examples, such as Parcells, Cowher, Coughlin, and even Holmgren, that have a more in-your-face disciplinarian edge that justifies the opposite argument.

In the end, I think being able to be smart and flexible enough to push the right buttons at the right time is best. Intelligence and a sense of toughness wins out... All players can respect that, and a coach needs to be respected above all else.

Off the subject a bit, but I'm a big fan of what Singletary is doing out in San Francisco. It'll take some time, but when he gets "his guys" who want to play in a team-first environment, molded in his image, look out for one dangerously tough team to play.

[cpk1994]

I don't think not practicing outdoors in December is an issue. If memory serves I don't recall Holmgren doing it either.

Holmgren didn't. Remember the NFC title game against Carolina. They didn't practice outdoors before that game and they didn't have a problem with it. Using the "they didn't practice outdoors" as a reason for bad play is just looking for an exucse for it.

I tend to agree, but this why practice with the door closed? Even Sherman was smart enough to realize that getting used to the conditions and cold weather will prepare you to play in them.

The thing that I cannot stand about MM is how he talks a big game about how he wants to be this physical, hard hitting team, yet the offense is a finesse, timing based passing attack, and the defense is a passive bend-but-don't-break scheme.

MM needs to keep building the trenches and hope to find that stud linemen that they can run behind and have consistent success. Our running game is still too inconsistent.

Yeah becuase it really Hellped SHerman wins those games against Atlanta and Minnersota. The whole cold weather excuse is pure bullshit.

[Fritz]

I'm not sure, Patler. Marinelli came into Detroit with that mentality of the marine sergeant guy who was going to bust their schnutts in practice, then fielded teams that very often lost at the end of the game (prior to this year, when they just sucked continually).

I fall back to the position that it's all in the trenches. Those are the two places in which a team can assert control of a game. A defensive secondary, no matter how good, can't do that. Nor can a receiver. But the offensive line and the defensive line of your team can, at the end of the game, assert itself and control what happens moreso than any other position group, including QB.

So I'd like to see some talent procured and those two lines stabilized - particularly the offensive side - for the Packers. How, I do not know. It sounds like the big possible fa'sas far as defensive linemen will be re-signed by their teams. So I don't know. Maybe TT can find a second tier guy who can fill a gap, then maybe draft someone who can contribute in one area in his first year. I don't know. But it's the lines that in my estimation require the most attention.