A Case Study in Rebuilding - From Very Close to Home

[vince]

Obviously, no two teams are composed of the identical talent mix, and no two teams' growth paths will ever be identical, but just for the sake of gaining perspective on the state of the Packers, it is enlightening to look at another franchise - and the path they have taken to rise to become Super Bowl contenders... None other than the Chicago Bears...

Their growth path looks eerily similar (albeit a mirror image) to the process the Packers are going through right now...

Following is a brief look at the historical growth of of the Bears' last few seasons...
__________________________________________________ ____________________

2001 13-3
Many said that, while the Bears had some standout talent, most notably on DEFENSE, they were not as talented a TEAM as their record indicated this year. Their subsequent "fall from grace" would give credence to that notion...

2002 4-12
Commencing with the 2003 draft, the rebuilding begins. Only 4 starters would ultimately survive the rebuilding process. However, the Bears stay with their current coaching staff - for another year.

2003 7-9
After 2 years of losing, Dick Jauron fired. Former Defensive Coordinator Lovie Smith hired.

A couple good draft picks and 1 or 2 mostly low-profile free agent signings added some depth to the team.

2004 5-11
APPEARANCES indicate indicate the team is still headed in the wrong direction, but history has proven otherwise...

Offensive Coordinator Terry Shea fired after this season, replaced by Ron Turner.

This would be the year - one year after their new Head Coach was able to implement his systems and determine how their existing roster would fit with them - where they were particularly successful in filling out their roster with talent that would significantly contribute to their success.

The Bears stay stubbornly on plan and stick with "their guys" giving them the necessary NFL experience that is needed.

2005 11-5
The corner appears to be turned...

2006 ????
4-0 so far, with 3 landslide wins, 1 against the defending conference champion... Super Bowl contention???

Offensive Starters
O.Kreutz... Drafted in 1998
R.Grossman... Drafted in 2003
D.Clark... Signed as FA in 2003
J.McKie... Signed as FA in 2003
B.Berrian... Drafted in 2004
T.Jones... Signed as FA in 2004
J.Tait... Signed as FA in 2004
R.Brown... Signed as FA in 2004
R.Garza... Signed as FA in 2005
F.Miller... Signed as FA in 2005
M.Muhammad... Signed as FA in 2005

Defensive Starters
M.Brown... Drafted in 2000
B.Urlacher... Drafted in 2000
A.Brown... Drafted in 2002
I.Scott... Drafted in 2003
H.Hillenmeyer... Signed as FA in 2003
L.Briggs... Drafted in 2003
C.Tillman... Drafted in 2003
A.Ogunleye... Traded for in 2004
T.Harris... Drafted in 2004
N.Vasher... Drafted in 2004
D.Manning... Drafted in 2006

*Only 3 of 22 starters were with the team before 2002
*15 of 22 starters were added during their losing stretch from 2002-2004
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Now let's move the timeline forward 3 years and look at the Packers recent history.

2004 10-6
Many said that, while the Packers had some standout talent, most notably on OFFENSE, they were not as talented a TEAM as their record indicated this year. Their subsequent "fall from grace" would give credence to that notion...

A first round 31-17 drubbing by the rival Minnesota Vikings, combined with a history of poor free agent signings, resignings, salary cap mismanagement and poor drafting causes GM Mike Sherman to be replaced by Ted Thompson, a Ron Wolf disciple and the architect of the Seattle Seahawks recent talent build-up that ultimately brought them to the brink of a Super Bowl title.

Previous salary cap mismanagement, compounded by a lack of depth throughout the roster, forces the rebuilding process to begin immediately.

2005 4-12
After 1 year of losing, Head Coach Mike Sherman fired. Former Offensive Coordinator Mike McCarthy hired.

At the same time as the new coaching staff, 11 new starters are introduced to begin to rebuild the team - six on defense and five on offense.

2006 ???
By almost all accounts, the early returns on the offseason draft are positive, and some mostly unheralded free agent signings add talent and depth to the roster.

Could there be some turnover in the coaching ranks (DC/DB Coach) after the team and coaching staff finds out more about itself in it's first year of implementing new personnel and systems - similar to the Bears?

Would it make sense that this upcoming offseason - again, one year after their new Head Coach will have had the opportunity to implement new systems and determine how their existing roster fits with them - should be a particularly fruitful year in adding talent - similar to the Bears?

2007 ???
Turn the corner????

2008 ???
Super Bowl contention???

Is it possible that 15 of 22 starters will be added to the Packers from 2005-2007 - like the Bears?

Is it possible that the current and continuing roster build-up could result in a mostly unpredicted 11-5 (or better) season in 2007 - like the Bears last year - only a year quicker than the Bears rebuilding timeline?

Because the Packers, unlike the Bears, started the process immediately, rather than giving their lame duck coach another year to fail, and because the Packers, at this stage of their rebuilding, appear to have been more successful in drafting talented contributors in the first year, it appears that the Packers are farther along than the Bears were at this stage of their process.

Obviously, there's much of this book yet to be written, but those TT detractors might benefit from taking a look at the big picture. Going the route that our previous GM took is what got us here in the first place.

Solid drafts and prudent free agent signings - at the right time in the process - is what will get us beyond what Mike Sherman was ever able to do.

[potsdam_11]

Nice post Vince.

We can only hope for a similar outcome at this point. I too, like what I have seen of the new talent pool, and there certainly are some striking similarities.

[wist43]

The Bears have been building a solid core of players over the past 4-5 years... They set out to build the team properly, i.e. the identity of the team is built around the running game and defense.

My hunch is that the Packers won't be able to rebuild as quickly, or as successfully b/c they don't care in the least about playing championship calibur defense, and while they talk about being committed to the running game, their philosophical approach to building that part of their team is predicated upon the gimmicky ZBS.

Beyond that, b/c their offensive system is so QB driven, their future success is tied directly to Aaron Rodgers... that's a dubious prospect.

The Packers are completely starting from scratch... they can't run the ball, and they can't play defense. Thinking that they'll be playoff competetive by 2008 is really going out there... just being somewhat competetive by 2008 would be a major accomplishment.

[wist43]

M.Brown... Drafted in 2000
B.Urlacher... Drafted in 2000
A.Brown... Drafted in 2002
I.Scott... Drafted in 2003
H.Hillenmeyer... Signed as FA in 2003
L.Briggs... Drafted in 2003
C.Tillman... Drafted in 2003
A.Ogunleye... Traded for in 2004
T.Harris... Drafted in 2004
N.Vasher... Drafted in 2004
D.Manning... Drafted in 2006

With the exception of Hillenmeyer, the Packers don't have a single starter that could replace any one of these guys...

[vince]

My hunch is that the Packers won't be able to rebuild as quickly, or as successfully b/c they don't care in the least about playing championship calibur defense,

Wist, with all due respect, this is one of the most ridiculously wrong statements I have read on this board in a long time.

The Packers have demonstrated that they set out to make the rebuilding of their defense priority ONE at this stage.

Who did they draft with their first round pick? A starting LB? Who did they sign in the offseason? A starting DE? A starting DT? Depth at LB? A starting S? A starting CB?

Would you say that the Bears didn't "care in the least about offense" when they sucked?

Wist, you are just flat out WRONG in that statement. The Packers have greater depth on D then they've had in the last number of years. They haven't produced yet on the field, but to say they don't care about it is so stupid it's laughable.

[vince]

..and while they talk about being committed to the running game, their philosophical approach to building that part of their team is predicated upon the gimmicky ZBS.

What in the HELL are you talking about? What is "gimmicky" about the most successful running scheme in football? And who the hell cares what you call it to make it sound ineffective when it's proven to be the MOST EFFECTIVE scheme in the league over the last decade.

Wist, please come with something more than that next time.

[vince]

Beyond that, b/c their offensive system is so QB driven, their future success is tied directly to Aaron Rodgers... that's a dubious prospect.

Wist, you apparently really don't understnd this system. This offense is built around running the ball effectively, and a completion-oriented passing attack.

With a new scheme, the running game is JUST BEGINNING to get on track. 100 yds last week... Thus far, the burden has been on Brett Favre, who has done well in the passing game.

Beyond your misunderstanding of the offensive system, you make two assumptions that are FAR from being definitive. 1. Aaron Rodgers will be the only option after Brett Favre... and 2. Aaron Rodgers will be ineffective when he assumes the QB role.

How's a veteran free agent like say, Steve McNair, doing this year? pretty well. If Aaron Rodgers isn't effective, he won't be the only option when Favre is gone. Also, Aaron Rodgers appears to have the arm strength and intelligence to do a very good job in this system. There's only one Brett Favre, but writing off the Packers because Brett Favre is a few years from retirement is a mistake.

[vince]

The Packers are completely starting from scratch... they can't run the ball, and they can't play defense. Thinking that they'll be playoff competetive by 2008 is really going out there... just being somewhat competetive by 2008 would be a major accomplishment.

Wist, you seemingly can't see your hand when you put it in front of your face. Why on earth would you believe that the first four games of a new coaching staff's tenure would be the optimal time frame to determine their future? PLEASE refer back to the first year of Lovie's tenure in the original post... By your logic, Lovie was taking the team in the wrong direction and should have been fired. Obviously, Bear fans are glad you're not their GM, and I'm glad that someone with vision is running the team in Green Bay.

[vince]

M.Brown... Drafted in 2000
B.Urlacher... Drafted in 2000
A.Brown... Drafted in 2002
I.Scott... Drafted in 2003
H.Hillenmeyer... Signed as FA in 2003
L.Briggs... Drafted in 2003
C.Tillman... Drafted in 2003
A.Ogunleye... Traded for in 2004
T.Harris... Drafted in 2004
N.Vasher... Drafted in 2004
D.Manning... Drafted in 2006

With the exception of Hillenmeyer, the Packers don't have a single starter that could replace any one of these guys...

OK, thank you for FINALLY saying something that makes sense. However, to say that the Packers are void of talent because the Bears are better at almost all positions is wrong as well.

It pains me to say this, but this Bears defense may very well rank right up there with the best of all time.

[MJZiggy]

Vince, you're not leaving me anything to do...

(It's ok, you're doing fine.)

[BallHawk]

Vince brings up some very good points.

[wist43]

My hunch is that the Packers won't be able to rebuild as quickly, or as successfully b/c they don't care in the least about playing championship calibur defense,

Wist, with all due respect, this is one of the most ridiculously wrong statements I have read on this board in a long time.

The Packers have demonstrated that they set out to make the rebuilding of their defense priority ONE at this stage.

Who did they draft with their first round pick? A starting LB? Who did they sign in the offseason? A starting DE? A starting DT? Depth at LB? A starting S? A starting CB?

Would you say that the Bears didn't "care in the least about offense" when they sucked?

Wist, you are just flat out WRONG in that statement. The Packers have greater depth on D then they've had in the last number of years. They haven't produced yet on the field, but to say they don't care about it is so stupid it's laughable.

The Packers turned their attention to upgrading their defense this offseason, and how did they go about doing it???

1) They kept the same scheme in place - I hate the scheme and have come to view it as far too passive.

2) They drafted Hawk... I was lukewarm on the pick, but accepted it b/c I viewed him as at least being a safe pick, i.e. not a bust. He'll be a good player, but nothing special.

3) They signed Charles Woodson for big $$$ - complete waste of money.

4) They resigned Kampman for $5 mil/yr... Average guy.

5) Manuel has been a bust.

6) Pickett has been ok... not above average, but ok.

That's your idea of beginning to build a championship calibur defense??? The bottom line is - the Packers have a very long history of being completely incompetent at scouting, evaluating, and acquiring defensive talent.

[Tarlam!]

Wist, I am surprised at you! No mention of Barnett in the last list of failures?

And you completely ignore Hodge, whom you happen to like a lot!

[Oscar]

Great work Vince. I hope the Pack can add a DE that is the real deal when it comes to rushing the QB. Some consistant presure back there will make alot of difference in the over all play of our defence. IMHO..

[Tarlam!]

I hope the Pack can add a DE that is the real deal when it comes to rushing the QB. Some consistant presure back there will make alot of difference in the over all play of our defence. IMHO..

Jeff, this was the jist of my post on the draft thread. I am hoping for a Mario Williams type animal to pick up at our drafting spot next April.

I know, I don't want much. I should be more demanding, but, I prefer to keep my wish list in the "do-able" section of wish lists...