Joe Barry'd again

[OneTwoSixFive]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:37 AM, Brit Pack said:

I'm not saying keep Joe but whoever comes in will face similar problems as we don't have the horses to win. Even though we have invested 8 first rounders, that is meaningless, in the same way that we never invested a first round WR for Rodgers. It doesn't matter.  I think we are getting hung up on the idea we should be good because we have 8 1st rounders, rather than fact that they are all injured or not performing for various reasons. I just don't see the talent on the defence regardless of the coach.

For example is poor tackling down to poor players or poor coaching, a bit of both but ultimately if players get in a spot to make a play and whiff, the player takes most of that blame. Every week especially in the run game I see that poor tackling.

The team just doesn't have those dawgs that go out and play and set the tempo for the rest of the team. Even the good players are too passive. The only guy I see play with emotion and soul is Rasul and it shows in his stats, it shows in his performances. There needs to be some nasty on this defence for it to win regardless of the coach and that is the bigger issue to me.

OK, so you blame the players for poor performance and by extension, the drafting. However, it's not mistakes mostly by one or two players, just as its not one kind of mistake that hurts the Packers at the moment, it is is many, many different things done badly by many different players, maybe even most players. When the problem is that widespread, you can definitely point to the coaching. 

This argument can only devolve into a he said, she said, get-you-nowhere disagreement..................UNTIL we see what a new guy can do with much the same team. The new guy could be a position coach, a coordinator or a head coach, I'm not putting this all on on guy, though to my mind La Fleur, as the guy in charge, takes a good portion of blame, regardless.

I want to see at least three coaching changes after the end of the season - they need a shake-up. When a team gets to the point where other teams are regularly poaching your guys, THEN you know you are getting the better coaches in there.

[Bumski]

Defense has stunk under multiple coordinators, typically suffering from the same issues. It's definitely not the drafting though. NO WAY!

[Brit Pack]

4 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

OK, so you blame the players for poor performance and by extension, the drafting. However, it's not mistakes mostly by one or two players, just as its not one kind of mistake that hurts the Packers at the moment, it is is many, many different things done badly by many different players, maybe even most players. When the problem is that widespread, you can definitely point to the coaching. 

This argument can only devolve into a he said, she said, get-you-nowhere disagreement..................UNTIL we see what a new guy can do with much the same team. The new guy could be a position coach, a coordinator or a head coach, I'm not putting this all on on guy, though to my mind La Fleur, as the guy in charge, takes a good portion of blame, regardless.

I want to see at least three coaching changes after the end of the season - they need a shake-up. When a team gets to the point where other teams are regularly poaching your guys, THEN you know you are getting the better coaches in there.

I'm not saying coaching is absolved of blame at all. I just equally see that the players we have are not of quality and just because we have spent premium draft picks on defence doesn't really equate to much. 

I also see that a defence needs a tone setter, a player that is the heart and soul of the team that drives the rest forward. Any dominant defence has that player.

If you look at the Dallas defence that went from being at the bottom of the League in 2020 to a top ten team in 2021, to now a top 3 defence. I see that as two factors a) Dan Quinn became the DC in 2021 b) the drafting of Micah Parsons in 2021. That guy makes everyone around him significantly better.

And we just don't have that player. We had it when we had a Reggie White, or when Clay Matthews was in his prime and of course Charles Woodson. Have a couple of those guys on your team and everyone else plays up to that standard and those elite players hold the rest accountable. Average players then become good players and then good players play like great ones. We have a lot of average or below average players and in reverse our good ones rather than playing great play down and become average. That attitude for a defence needs a leader inspite of the coach. Just like a QB has to be the leader of the offence and elevate everyone around him, a defence needs the same.

[thrILL!]

We don’t have a Dan Quinn at DC either. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

We have Gary and we have Alexander and we have Clark on defence. They may not be as good as Woodson, but they are all pretty good. As long as they are healthy, they are good enough to be the leaders of the defence.

[Brit Pack]

2 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

We have Gary and we have Alexander and we have Clark on defence. They may not be as good as Woodson, but they are all pretty good. As long as they are healthy, they are good enough to be the leaders of the defence.

Jaire to a point but those guys don't really set the attitude of a defence. They for me are good players but not elite ones. If they played with elite players they would be great. I don't see their personality shine out. I don't see other players elevating their game playing for them. Clark has been on a steady decline since he got paid and I really question if he got a third contract with us.

They for me are like B.J Raji and Tramon Williams of the 2010 team. Put them with Charles Woodson and Clay then they become great players.  

Elite players take over games, they cover up coaching deficiencies. What did Andy Reid win before he had elite players playing for him in Mahomes and Kelce? What has Biliecheck done since Brady and Gronk left?

We as fans of the Packers even question is MLF a good coach or was it Rodgers that really brought us all those three consecutive 13-3 seasons? And we still can't tell now if MLF is any good because his players on offence are so inexperienced. 

Coaching is overrated in my book as plays break down so quickly and things go off script, that not all things planned go to plan, soneone misses a block, runs the wrong route etc elite players know how to improvise and take over games. Give me a bad coach with elite players rather than an elite coach with average players. 

Unfortunately, we have both an average coach and average players. Hence we are very average.

[OneTwoSixFive]

Not always, but a lot of the time, the elite players you are talking about are taken high. For example you know SF's Nick Bosa wasn't going to last to pick 5 overall (he was taken with the 2nd pick). Neither Reggie White or Charles Woodson lasted until pick 5 overall, either. You might say "trade up", but the cost of getting up into the top three picks from the teens or twenty somethings, is absolutely brutal. The last high pick i remember was A.J.Hawk, 5th overall in 2006 (17 years ago) and even drafted as high as that, I wouldn't call him a tone-setter or generational player at that position.

It is so long since the Packers have had really high picks, it is long odds them getting the kind of player you describe, given where they have generally drafted. The extraordinary talent you are looking for tends to be gone when they pick. Sure they can get lucky if they snag a late bloomer who is only just  starting to show their talent, but that is rare (example Clay Matthews who shone brightest in the latter part of his final college season).

While it is also difficult to get the right coach/coordinator, I'd say it might be just a little easier than getting a superlative tone-setter for the team, as you described it.

I guess the biggest difference in how we see things is that you think the biggest problem is player ability, while I think it is coaching. Both matter of course, but it is in emphasis we differ.

Edited October 28, 2023 by OneTwoSixFive

[Mr Anonymous]

Seems to be some sentiment that the defense hasn't been all that bad this year. Just note, the Packers have only played against one top 10 offense thus far and that team (Detroit) rung up 400 yards and put 34 points on the board. Joe Barry isn't doing a better job, the schedule has just been light.

Barry is about to seal his unemployment fate over the next 6 weeks against these offenses...

Week 8: Minnesota (11th)

Week 9: LA Rams (6th)

Week 11: LA Chargers (8th)

Week 12: Detroit (4th)

Week 13: KC (2nd)

[Mazrimiv]

I can agree that the defense seems likely to get lit up by the better offenses coming up on the schedule.  Until that happens, all I can do is look at what they've done so far.  What they've done so far hasn't been that bad. 

Over the past 4 games, the GB offense has scored 0, 3, 3, 0 points in the first half.  One of those FG's came after a 3 play/zero yard drive that started at the 16 after a Ford INT.  GB doesn't hit 20 points in any of those games without a garbage time FG vs DET.  It's tough to win games that way, but the score remained close enough in three of them for the offense to have a chance to win it in Q4.

I don't know that I've seen anyone actively supporting Barry.  It's just tough to bag on the defense right now when the offense has been so much worse.

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

What they've done so far hasn't been that bad

Yes it is bad...

We are 27th in DVOA on defense 

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

he offense has been so much worse

No they haven't. 

The offense is 10 spots better in DVOA, coming in at 17th

[TransientTexan]

2 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

It's just tough to bag on the defense right now when the offense has been so much worse.

Is there some rule that they can’t *both* be bagged on at the same time?

[KFP7]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

No they haven't. 

The offense is 10 spots better in DVOA, coming in at 17th

going into the season, a 17th placed DVOA on offense would have been seen as a win

[Brit Pack]

11 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Not always, but a lot of the time, the elite players you are talking about are taken high. For example you know SF's Nick Bosa wasn't going to last to pick 5 overall (he was taken with the 2nd pick). Neither Reggie White or Charles Woodson lasted until pick 5 overall, either. You might say "trade up", but the cost of getting up into the top three picks from the teens or twenty somethings, is absolutely brutal. The last high pick i remember was A.J.Hawk, 5th overall in 2006 (17 years ago) and even drafted as high as that, I wouldn't call him a tone-setter or generational player at that position.

It is so long since the Packers have had really high picks, it is long odds them getting the kind of player you describe, given where they have generally drafted. The extraordinary talent you are looking for tends to be gone when they pick. Sure they can get lucky if they snag a late bloomer who is only just  starting to show their talent, but that is rare (example Clay Matthews who shone brightest in the latter part of his final college season).

While it is also difficult to get the right coach/coordinator, I'd say it might be just a little easier than getting a superlative tone-setter for the team, as you described it.

I guess the biggest difference in how we see things is that you think the biggest problem is player ability, while I think it is coaching. Both matter of course, but it is in emphasis we differ.

Don't have to pick top 5 to get studs.

Kelce - pick: 62, 2013
C.Jones - pick 37, 2016
T.Hill - pick 165, 2016
Mahommes - pick: Pick 10, 2017

You just have to guess/pick right when it comes to drafting.


 

[Brit Pack]

11 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I guess the biggest difference in how we see things is that you think the biggest problem is player ability, while I think it is coaching.

Just to add to this, take the 49ers since 2017 they have had Saleh, Ryans and now Wilks. While the coaching has changed the elite personnel of Bosa (from 2019), Warner, Arik Armstead, Buckner (til 2020) hasn't. 

Talent is what this team needs. The last elite player this defence had was Z.Smith, opponents had to account for him. Jaire if he stays healthy i would consider elite also.