Whitt promoted to secondary coach

[HarveyWallbangers]

Didn't Schottenheimer and Washington split secondary duties? Washington worked primarily with the CBs and Schottenheimer worked primarily with the safeties. Thus, you could give him credit for Collins but not Williams. Then again, you could ask why it took him 3 years to get Collins to maximize his potential? Collins always had the talent. Rouse didn't progress. I actually think Washington is a bigger loss. Then again, he couldn't work any magic with Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas. Hard to hold that against him though.

[Gunakor]

Didn't Schottenheimer and Washington split secondary duties? Washington worked primarily with the CBs and Schottenheimer worked primarily with the safeties. Thus, you could give him credit for Collins but not Williams. Then again, you could ask why it took him 3 years to get Collins to maximize his potential? Collins always had the talent. Rouse didn't progress. I actually think Washington is a bigger loss. Then again, he couldn't work any magic with Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas. Hard to hold that against him though.

Washington, to my understanding, was the nickel package/CB's coach. Shotty was in charge of the defensive backfield as a whole, to my understanding, which essentially meant Washington was Shotty's underling. It doesn't suprise me that with Shotty being fired, Washington would go with him. I thought they both did suprisingly well this year.

Rouse didn't progress, but Rouse hasn't been healthy all season either. Charlie Peprah I thought looked better in regular season action than he looked in preseason, and Charles Woodson didn't look too terribly bad back there either. Maybe it's Rouse?

As for Collins, I don't know why it took so long. But he's not the first player who took a few years to finally get it. We give other players 3 years to prove themselves without bitching about it... So Collins needed 4. That he needed 4 years to finally get it doesn't concern me as much as the fact that he finally DID get it. Someone has to be given credit for that, and the guy it should be given to is out of a job now. That just doesn't sit well with me, and makes me nervous heading into the new season.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Maybe Kurt will be brought back for a third time.

[MJZiggy]

This is where we disagree. I subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. If you agree that our DB's were tops in the NFL this year, then you must also agree that it wasn't broken. Why change anything?

I would guess that the people in charge were of the opinion that Schot didn't have much to do with the improvement.

Look at it this way, if other coaches responsible for most of the improvement, you risk losing them by keeping Schott because they won't get recognized for their efforts. Plus, it can breed resentment internally and cause friction between coaches.

If it aint broke, you still change the dirty oil.

This is kind of how I see it. If the team improved, but it was something other than Schott's contribution, then shouldn't the people who were truly responsible for the improvement receive the credit for it, i.e. the coach's job? What if they improved in spite of Schottenheimer? Considering the past performance, I think that's entirely plausible.

[Gunakor]

This is where we disagree. I subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. If you agree that our DB's were tops in the NFL this year, then you must also agree that it wasn't broken. Why change anything?

I would guess that the people in charge were of the opinion that Schot didn't have much to do with the improvement.

Look at it this way, if other coaches responsible for most of the improvement, you risk losing them by keeping Schott because they won't get recognized for their efforts. Plus, it can breed resentment internally and cause friction between coaches.

If it aint broke, you still change the dirty oil.

This is kind of how I see it. If the team improved, but it was something other than Schott's contribution, then shouldn't the people who were truly responsible for the improvement receive the credit for it, i.e. the coach's job? What if they improved in spite of Schottenheimer? Considering the past performance, I think that's entirely plausible.

Point taken. I guess that, since I don't know what happened exactly, I'd hesitate to make any changes to what worked so wonderfully for us in 2008. The way the coaching staff for the DB's was set up was working, so I'd just keep everything the same until it didn't work anymore. If they were going to can Shotty, they should have done so after a year in which the DB's struggled. This year they weren't just good, they were elite. So I'd keep everything exactly the same.

I'm all for this move if it works out. But if the DB's become merely average next season, look back to this move as the reason why. You just don't go tinkering with something that works IMO. Even if Shotty wasn't THE key to make this thing work, he certainly did nothing to prevent it from working. So I can't really support this move. Just keep everyone in the same job they were in and let's repeat the DB performance of 2008 in 2009.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that Bob Sanders' defense was #1 in the NFL in 2008. Would you fire him after such an outstanding performance by his defense simply because his defense wasn't so good in the years prior? I'm guessing no. Shotty's defensive backfield was #1 in the NFL this year, so why are we canning him because his defensive backfield wasn't so hot in years prior? I mean, you are judged by your most recent performance, after all.

Christ... now I'm starting to sound like Tex, I know. I'm all for change when change could mean getting better, but when you are already at the top there's no need for change. I don't see any possibility this change makes our DB's better, but a very good chance it makes our defensive backfield worse. So in this particular case, I agree with Tex. Change is uncalled for.

[cpk1994]

This is where we disagree. I subscribe to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. If you agree that our DB's were tops in the NFL this year, then you must also agree that it wasn't broken. Why change anything?

I would guess that the people in charge were of the opinion that Schot didn't have much to do with the improvement.

Look at it this way, if other coaches responsible for most of the improvement, you risk losing them by keeping Schott because they won't get recognized for their efforts. Plus, it can breed resentment internally and cause friction between coaches.

If it aint broke, you still change the dirty oil.

This is kind of how I see it. If the team improved, but it was something other than Schott's contribution, then shouldn't the people who were truly responsible for the improvement receive the credit for it, i.e. the coach's job? What if they improved in spite of Schottenheimer? Considering the past performance, I think that's entirely plausible.

Point taken. I guess that, since I don't know what happened exactly, I'd hesitate to make any changes to what worked so wonderfully for us in 2008. The way the coaching staff for the DB's was set up was working, so I'd just keep everything the same until it didn't work anymore. If they were going to can Shotty, they should have done so after a year in which the DB's struggled. This year they weren't just good, they were elite. So I'd keep everything exactly the same.

I'm all for this move if it works out. But if the DB's become merely average next season, look back to this move as the reason why. You just don't go tinkering with something that works IMO. Even if Shotty wasn't THE key to make this thing work, he certainly did nothing to prevent it from working. So I can't really support this move. Just keep everyone in the same job they were in and let's repeat the DB performance of 2008 in 2009.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that Bob Sanders' defense was #1 in the NFL in 2008. Would you fire him after such an outstanding performance by his defense simply because his defense wasn't so good in the years prior? I'm guessing no. Shotty's defensive backfield was #1 in the NFL this year, so why are we canning him because his defensive backfield wasn't so hot in years prior? I mean, you are judged by your most recent performance, after all.

Christ... now I'm starting to sound like Tex, I know. I'm all for change when change could mean getting better, but when you are already at the top there's no need for change. I don't see any possibility this change makes our DB's better, but a very good chance it makes our defensive backfield worse. So in this particular case, I agree with Tex. Change is uncalled for.

I think that Schottenheimer was fired not for performnace, but for loyalty to Sanders.

[sharpe1027]

Point taken. I guess that, since I don't know what happened exactly, I'd hesitate to make any changes to what worked so wonderfully for us in 2008. The way the coaching staff for the DB's was set up was working, so I'd just keep everything the same until it didn't work anymore. If they were going to can Shotty, they should have done so after a year in which the DB's struggled. This year they weren't just good, they were elite. So I'd keep everything exactly the same.

I'm all for this move if it works out. But if the DB's become merely average next season, look back to this move as the reason why. You just don't go tinkering with something that works IMO. Even if Shotty wasn't THE key to make this thing work, he certainly did nothing to prevent it from working. So I can't really support this move. Just keep everyone in the same job they were in and let's repeat the DB performance of 2008 in 2009.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that Bob Sanders' defense was #1 in the NFL in 2008. Would you fire him after such an outstanding performance by his defense simply because his defense wasn't so good in the years prior? I'm guessing no. Shotty's defensive backfield was #1 in the NFL this year, so why are we canning him because his defensive backfield wasn't so hot in years prior? I mean, you are judged by your most recent performance, after all.

Christ... now I'm starting to sound like Tex, I know. I'm all for change when change could mean getting better, but when you are already at the top there's no need for change. I don't see any possibility this change makes our DB's better, but a very good chance it makes our defensive backfield worse. So in this particular case, I agree with Tex. Change is uncalled for.

There are plenty of reasons to can a coach even if the unit directly under them was #1.

Maybe the other coaches were doing all/most of the work. If that is the case and the unit takes a big step forward, wouldn't getting him further out of the way help and why the hell would you keep someone like that?

Maybe they are looking to go in a different direction next year and he refused.

Maybe he was loyal to other guys that had to go.

Maybe he was against proposed changes this past year, they implemented the changes anyway and that resulted in the improvement. Do you keep the guy who was standing in the way?

In the end I find it unlikely that the light suddenly went on for him. This year stands out from every other year he has ever been a coach and he still gets fired. I find that curious. It seems likely that this years the good play was in many ways despite his coaching rather than because of it, but that's just my opinion.

[Gunakor]

Point taken. I guess that, since I don't know what happened exactly, I'd hesitate to make any changes to what worked so wonderfully for us in 2008. The way the coaching staff for the DB's was set up was working, so I'd just keep everything the same until it didn't work anymore. If they were going to can Shotty, they should have done so after a year in which the DB's struggled. This year they weren't just good, they were elite. So I'd keep everything exactly the same.

I'm all for this move if it works out. But if the DB's become merely average next season, look back to this move as the reason why. You just don't go tinkering with something that works IMO. Even if Shotty wasn't THE key to make this thing work, he certainly did nothing to prevent it from working. So I can't really support this move. Just keep everyone in the same job they were in and let's repeat the DB performance of 2008 in 2009.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that Bob Sanders' defense was #1 in the NFL in 2008. Would you fire him after such an outstanding performance by his defense simply because his defense wasn't so good in the years prior? I'm guessing no. Shotty's defensive backfield was #1 in the NFL this year, so why are we canning him because his defensive backfield wasn't so hot in years prior? I mean, you are judged by your most recent performance, after all.

Christ... now I'm starting to sound like Tex, I know. I'm all for change when change could mean getting better, but when you are already at the top there's no need for change. I don't see any possibility this change makes our DB's better, but a very good chance it makes our defensive backfield worse. So in this particular case, I agree with Tex. Change is uncalled for.

There are plenty of reasons to can a coach even if the unit directly under them was #1.

Maybe the other coaches were doing all/most of the work. If that is the case and the unit takes a big step forward, wouldn't getting him further out of the way help and why the hell would you keep someone like that?

Maybe they are looking to go in a different direction next year and he refused.

Maybe he was loyal to other guys that had to go.

Maybe he was against proposed changes this past year, they implemented the changes anyway and that resulted in the improvement. Do you keep the guy who was standing in the way?

In the end I find it unlikely that the light suddenly went on for him. This year stands out from every other year he has ever been a coach and he still gets fired. I find that curious. It seems likely that this years the good play was in many ways despite his coaching rather than because of it, but that's just my opinion.

Very good points. But in the end, all that matters is production. Like I said, if everything works out then I'm in full support of the change. But if the production from our defensive backfield comes crashing back down...

I guess I just can't see how a move like this is going to make the #1 unit in the NFL even better. I hope I'm wrong.

[sharpe1027]

Very good points. But in the end, all that matters is production. Like I said, if everything works out then I'm in full support of the change. But if the production from our defensive backfield comes crashing back down...

I guess I just can't see how a move like this is going to make the #1 unit in the NFL even better. I hope I'm wrong.

First, it isn't about making the DBs better, it is about making the entire defense better.

Second, who is to say that even if they slip next year, they wouldn't have been worse with Schotty? Based on his record, I would bet that this year was either a fluke and/or not a direct reflection of his coaching skills.

[rbaloha1]

Retaining 2 defensive coaches eases the transition for the new coordinator.

Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the current players leads to better schemes.

[Gunakor]

Very good points. But in the end, all that matters is production. Like I said, if everything works out then I'm in full support of the change. But if the production from our defensive backfield comes crashing back down...

I guess I just can't see how a move like this is going to make the #1 unit in the NFL even better. I hope I'm wrong.

First, it isn't about making the DBs better, it is about making the entire defense better.

Second, who is to say that even if they slip next year, they wouldn't have been worse with Schotty? Based on his record, I would bet that this year was either a fluke and/or not a direct reflection of his coaching skills.

Well, Shotty might say they could've been better with him. And we'd have no way of proving him wrong, because he's gone now. You are missing the point I'm making, however.

When you find something that works, you ride it until it doesn't work anymore. Regardless what it looked like in the past. All that matters is what it looks like now, and what we let go started looking pretty good. I hope our DB doesn't suffer as a result.

[sharpe1027]

Well, Shotty might say they could've been better with him. And we'd have no way of proving him wrong, because he's gone now. You are missing the point I'm making, however.

When you find something that works, you ride it until it doesn't work anymore. Regardless what it looked like in the past. All that matters is what it looks like now, and what we let go started looking pretty good. I hope our DB doesn't suffer as a result.

I am pretty sure that I got your point: The DBs did well so all DB coaches stay until they fail. Seems so simple, but yet GMs and HCs wouldn't be paid millions to make these very decisions...

My point? I assume the Packers are being more proactive and putting more thought and analysis into their decisions.

[Patler]

When you find something that works, you ride it until it doesn't work anymore. Regardless what it looked like in the past. All that matters is what it looks like now, and what we let go started looking pretty good. I hope our DB doesn't suffer as a result.

I think the real question is, Was the defensive backfield really that good, or was it just that individuals played well? I know, I know! Let me explain!

The backfield at times looked like a mess, with no-name receivers running free and catching passes. One story said MM was absolutely irate with the number of mis-communications that lead to blown coverages at crucial times since the bye week. He put it on the coaches to get it fixed, but they really never did. Game after game the other team put together long drives that took all of just a few minutes as they connected to free receiver after free receiver. Sure, Woodson played well on a man, and Collins had his share of interceptions, and Harris too could lock down a receiver, but as a unit did the d-backfield really get the job done? I don't think so, and that falls on the coaches. They have little excuse because they did have talented individuals with which to work.

It wasn't all just the lack of pass rush either. At times a receiver would simply not be covered at all.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think the DBs were fine. You'll get breakdowns, but it wasn't terrible. Their stats against opposing QBs would seem to bear that out. I also think it would have helped immensely if they had gotten help from the DL. The DBs probably played about as well as you could expect given the ineptitude of the DL and the injuries to entire defense, DBs included.