McGinn on Schottenheimer (very good article)

[Patler]

It's also being discussed on JSO.

There is actual discussion there?

Compared to other boards (or at least one other one) the answer is YES!

[Tarlam!]

Seven, I just woke up about an hour ago. One of the first things I saw this morning was your avartar!

That thing has a way about it........morning Seven

[Rastak]

I don't know that I buy into that poor tackling is the secondary coaches fault. The article seems to imply that Bates and company taught the guys to tackle last year and now they forgot all that and tackle poorly? I will buy into an argument that the schemes are now poor perhaps and that the players may be getting burned because of that...but poor tackling? Hmmmm,,,,,not his fault.

[Fosco33]

What I find amazing is that this same "article" appeared on here last week and this week as contributions from a number of posters. References to the 2004 secondary as "dysfunctional" were written here. Comparisons to the 2003 and 2005 secondaries before and after Schottenheimer were made on here.

This isn't the first time that I've seen a major bulletin board subject of discussion miraculously become the topic of an article later the same week, with the same slant on the discussion and even some of the same details and descriptions..

Of all the things to write about on the Packers, why Schottenheimer this week?. The 2004 secondary as "dysfunctional"? Why not "confused", "unprepared" "poorly coached" or some other descriptor?

Am I giving us too much credit??

That's hilarious, Patler.

[BobDobbs]

That is a great article and as usual McGinn relies heavily on pro scouts, which I love. He has a tendency to throw in some things that are ridiculous (implying that the fight between Carroll and Thomas was a coaching failure? I don't buy it).
But basically it is no great insight to see that the secondary has been worse when he is the coach.

What I want to know is. Why has Lionel Washinton not gotten the job? Every staff keeps him. That implies he must have something going for him. I mean, We've been changing D coordinators every year, but yet he stays. The players seem to love him. He played the position, he's an interactive coach. He put boxing gloves on Carroll to get him to stop holding(maybe they just have to carry that over to the games ). I just don't understand.

And I feel for the guy. Playing under Coach Shoddy and Slowik. Anyone ever work for a boss who was obviously dim witted and incompetent? Mmm hmm exactly

[FritzDontBlitz]

i agree with the article. does anybody remember mike mckenzie's gripe about not wanting to stay in green bay partly because lionel washington was passed over when shoimy was looking for a db coach?

lionel washington was a damn good db. what is kurt squattenheimer known for, other than being marty's brother?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

i agree with the article. does anybody remember mike mckenzie's gripe about not wanting to stay in green bay partly because lionel washington was passed over when shoimy was looking for a db coach?

lionel washington was a damn good db. what is kurt squattenheimer known for, other than being marty's brother?

Gooe point, was thinking the same thing.

[vince]

I don't know that I buy into that poor tackling is the secondary coaches fault. The article seems to imply that Bates and company taught the guys to tackle last year and now they forgot all that and tackle poorly? I will buy into an argument that the schemes are now poor perhaps and that the players may be getting burned because of that...but poor tackling? Hmmmm,,,,,not his fault.

Without going back through the games in my mind, I don't remember real poor tackling by the secondary anyway... I was at the NO game and did my fair share of tailgating, so perhaps my memory's fuzzy... Maybe someone can refresh my memory if that's been a problem...

But even beyond that, the secondary definitely has not done a good job in coverage, sometimes attributable to poor one-on-one coverage technique (a sign of poor coaching), other times to lack of understanding of a specific responsibilities within a coverage (poor coaching), and other times to the coverages theselves (poor coaching again).

I am convinced that this secondary (at least the starting four) has the skills and ability to excel. Granted, half of this unit is brand new in this scheme and the entire unit has little experience working together, but the problems associated with these issues need to be rectified quickly.

If this unit doesn't come together and perform up to their capabilities soon, we can and should lay the blame squarely on the coaching. Schottenheimer definitely needs to be held to the fire.

[Bretsky]

I was at the Bear game and the secondary was a mess; running all over as the ball was snapped to get into the right positions on way too many plays. Chaos would be fair. Ditto for two years ago

[Patler]

What I remember from the Bears game, which brought back nightmares from 2004, was that after big plays guys in the secondary looked at each other and you could tell they weren't even sure who screwed up. We saw these "discussions" (sometimes very animated) in 2004 among the guys in the secondary, and we saw it a couple times in the Bear game. Confusion even after the play is run is bad preparation and that's bad coaching.

[MJZiggy]

That is absolutely correct (as usual). There should not be confusion before or after the play. If nothing else, the coach's job is to make certain that every player under his watch knows exactly what they're supposed to be doing. Uncertainty is unaccptable.

[wist43]

I don't know that I buy into that poor tackling is the secondary coaches fault. The article seems to imply that Bates and company taught the guys to tackle last year and now they forgot all that and tackle poorly? I will buy into an argument that the schemes are now poor perhaps and that the players may be getting burned because of that...but poor tackling? Hmmmm,,,,,not his fault.

Poor coaching can affect every area of a players performance. Things happen very quickly out there, and if a player is mentally unprepared he won't be in proper position, and being out of position leads to taking poor angles and using poor technique.

All of these guys know the physical mechanics of tackling... they've been drilled on it all of their lives; but, knowing how to do something, and being mentally prepared and willing to do it, especially when it is something that sometimes calls for some sacrifice (like making sure you get your head in front), are two different things.

Good tackling requires not only the obvious physicality, but a mental and philosophical committment on the part of the player as well... And, that is one of the responsibilities of the coach.

[vince]

That is absolutely correct (as usual). There should not be confusion before or after the play. If nothing else, the coach's job is to make certain that every player under his watch knows exactly what they're supposed to be doing. Uncertainty is unaccptable.

And while it's unacceptable during ANY regular season game, if it happens during the first or second game, those problems need to be rectified pronto.

This is a situation where I'd love to be privy to daily meetings and practices, so you can see the man in action to really understand the reasons for the mishaps. All we can do is see the results, and those are obviously lacking at this stage of the season.

[Patler]

That is absolutely correct (as usual). There should not be confusion before or after the play. If nothing else, the coach's job is to make certain that every player under his watch knows exactly what they're supposed to be doing. Uncertainty is unaccptable.

And while it's unacceptable during ANY regular season game, if it happens during the first or second game, those problems need to be rectified pronto.

This is a situation where I'd love to be privy to daily meetings and practices, so you can see the man in action to really understand the reasons for the mishaps. All we can do is see the results, and those are obviously lacking at this stage of the season.

In 2004, if anything, it got worse as the season progressed. We'll see what happens this year.

[KYPack]

This whole article has been rattling around in the back of my mind, but I've been trying to tell myself it ain't so.

There is a huge element missing in our defensive coaching...attitude.

Playing pass defense is a whole mentality. You've got to stay alert, but be loose athletically. Then when a catch is made, you've got to deliver a blow like there is no tomorrow. We are almost in reverse. We are too tight when covering, then not aggressive enough after that catch.

Jim Bates was the perfect DC and it ran downhill to his DB coach. Sanders in in over his head, and KS ain't coaching our secondary boys up worth a shit. Our guys are confused in their schemes and about 50 % as aggressive as you need to be in cover.

This hire (of KS) has always given me pause. It's pretty obvious M3 screwed up. In both the DC and DB coach. is the rest of the staff as bad a hire as these two guys? The mentioned that the WR coach seems quite competent. Hey that's good, but what is our staff overall?

M3 may well have to shitcan most of the D staff in the off-season. Can he get adequate replacements, or does he even know who to go get?

This is bad.