Fire Joe Barry -- Updated -- he's gone

[Pokerbrat2000]

Again I understand that context is needed here.

I'm just saying it wasn't a total, 60 minute performance that just erased all the concerns we ever had about this defense.

While I totally understand your concerns about Barry over the last 3 seasons, I think you need to drop the last 6 minutes of the Dallas game as "evidence" of such. If you were fighting for Mike McCarthy and Schottenheimer's coaching jobs, would you bring up the last 6 minutes of this game to prove just how capable both of them are?

 

[adambr2]

While I totally understand your concerns about Barry over the last 3 seasons, I think you need to drop the last 6 minutes of the Dallas game as "evidence" of such. If you were fighting for Mike McCarthy and Schottenheimer's coaching jobs, would you bring up the last 6 minutes of this game to prove just how capable both of them are?

I think it's fair to treat the last 6 minutes with an enormous asterisk and enormous grain of salt.

I don't know if it's fair to completely wipe it from the slate and disregard it like it never existed.

Lamb nearly made an incredible TD catch at the 1:20. If he does, it's 48-38 and we're just one more 2 pointer away from sweating an onside kick.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think it's fair to treat the last 6 minutes with an enormous asterisk and enormous grain of salt.

I don't know if it's fair to completely wipe it from the slate and disregard it like it never existed.

Lamb nearly made an incredible TD catch at the 1:20. If he does, it's 48-38 and we're just one more 2 pointer away from sweating an onside kick.

Trust me, I was nervous as hell during that last 6 minutes, feeling that the Packers made the decision to pull the starters and go into "victory formation" on both sides of the ball way too early. As far as what you do with that 6 minutes of game film as a coach, you don't use it to evaluate how your team plays out a blowout, you use it to evaluate when you should consider a game to be over.

 

[adambr2]

Trust me, I was nervous as hell during that last 6 minutes, feeling that the Packers made the decision to pull the starters and go into "victory formation" on both sides of the ball way too early. As far as what you do with that 6 minutes of game film as a coach, you don't use it to evaluate how your team plays out a blowout, you use it to evaluate when you should consider a game to be over.

Right. I'm not putting a ton of weight into it. More along the feelings of, I would have felt better once they did put starters back in if they hadn't continued to be dissected...or at least stopped one of the 2 pointers to keep it from being interesting at all....that's all.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Right. I'm not putting a ton of weight into it. More along the feelings of, I would have felt better once they did put starters back in if they hadn't continued to be dissected...or at least stopped one of the 2 pointers to keep it from being interesting at all....that's all.

I've never liked when the Packers have a lead and go into "prevent" on offense or defense. Seems like a recipe for disaster. Maybe it is the PTSD from the NFCCG against Seattle that kicks in? I prefer when you stick to what has been working to get you to that point, keep your foot on the opponents throat and not let up on that gas pedal until your QB is able to go into victory formation, kneeling to run that clock to 00:00.

But again, I don't think you grade players or coaches on what is happening in each play during that time period, but you question the coaches decision to get overly conservative. Yes, you can adjust "how conservative you get", by playing a bit tighter on defense or unexpectedly throwing the ball on offense to get another 1st down, but at the end of the day, it boils down to "when do we consider this lead safe enough to coast to victory?"

 

[adambr2]

I've never liked when the Packers have a lead and go into "prevent" on offense or defense. Seems like a recipe for disaster. Maybe it is the PTSD from the NFCCG against Seattle that kicks in? I prefer when you stick to what has been working to get you to that point, keep your foot on the opponents throat and not let up on that gas pedal until your QB is able to go into victory formation, kneeling to run that clock to 00:00.

But again, I don't think you grade players or coaches on what is happening in each play during that time period, but you question the coaches decision to get overly conservative. Yes, you can adjust "how conservative you get", by playing a bit tighter on defense or unexpectedly throwing the ball on offense to get another 1st down, but at the end of the day, it boils down to "when do we consider this lead safe enough to coast to victory?"

Whatever the answer is, apparently it's more than 32 points.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Whatever the answer is, apparently it's more than 32 points.

Odd things can happen in the NFL. Dallas actually came close to recovering the onside kick that Reed misplayed. What would have happened had they recovered that?

The ghost of Brandon Bostick was definitely in my living room on Sunday!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[adambr2]

Odd things can happen in the NFL. Dallas actually came close to recovering the onside kick that Reed misplayed. What would have happened had they recovered that?

The ghost of Brandon Bostick was definitely in my living room on Sunday!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

This is why I get annoyed with fans/analysts etc who get pissy with situations like MLF going for the TD when it was 41-16.

Play the game out for 60 minutes. As far as I'm concerned we should normalize still trying to score points with big leads instead of acting like things like what New Orleans did to Atlanta in Week 18 is such a cardinal sin.

Bring back point differential as a playoff tiebreaker and that should accomplish that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This is why I get annoyed with fans/analysts etc who get pissy with situations like MLF going for the TD when it was 41-16.

Play the game out for 60 minutes. As far as I'm concerned we should normalize still trying to score points with big leads instead of acting like things like what New Orleans did to Atlanta in Week 18 is such a cardinal sin.

Bring back point differential as a playoff tiebreaker and that should accomplish that.

I couldn't agree more.

I have never felt that playing at your highest level for 60 minutes is "running up the score". It is called playing your best football. That said, I do understand trying to improve your team and using a blowout game to audition and give snaps to your 2nd and 3rd stringers. But don't put those guys in and say "OK, we have a big lead, play prevent defense and offense, just run the ball up the middle and punt." Teams like Ohio State have been doing this for years and I think it is 1 of the reasons why they are so good every year. Their backups get to play some meaningful minutes in their blowout games and that pays dividends the following seasons.

Treat the entire 60 minutes as meaningful. Enough of this "Oh it is showing bad sportsmanship to play hard all 60 minutes." Kneeling down is ok, when the game clock is set to expire. This is how they do it in Basketball.

 

[Half Empty]

Wonder about the reaction if they kept the pedal to the metal when up by a bunch and Love got hurt.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Wonder about the reaction if they kept the pedal to the metal when up by a bunch and Love got hurt.

There is always that. Although, maybe I should have stated that while playing hard, you still play safe (QB makes quick drops and throw aways when needed). But yes, you increase the risk of injuries and that might be the top reason that starters are pulled in blowouts. That said, the Packers probably pulled their starters a bit early on Sunday, but had MLF and Barry told the backups to play like its still 0-0, maybe the Cowboys don't score 16 quick points.

 

[Poppa San]

This puppy will heat back up.

 

[Magooch]

If he were still under contract I could see a case for keeping him around.

As it stands bringing him back would require offering an entirely new contract which is frankly asinine imo.

Doing enough to not get fired is one thing. Actively being re-hired is another entirely.

 

[pacmaniac]

Unable to stop Garropolo on a game winning drive 2 years ago. Now unable to stop Purdy on a game winning drive.

 

[JFay05]

If he were still under contract I could see a case for keeping him around.

As it stands bringing him back would require offering an entirely new contract which is frankly asinine imo.

Doing enough to not get fired is one thing. Actively being re-hired is another entirely.I

 

[JFay05]

I would normally agree, but everyone will spout the "MLF did so much to turn this team around and he believes in Joe Barry, so we have to keep him". Matt LaFleur is O fer against the forty whiners, he cannot beat his former boss/mentor. How long do we let him hang around and get the team "missed it by this much" like he is Maxwell Smart.
That is what got Marty Shottenheimer fired. He was a great regular season coach who could not get over the hump in the post season. I still think it's time to fire Opie Taylor (Mark Murphy), and dismiss the coaching staff with the exception of Tom Clements if he will come back. I doubt MLF takes a demotion to OC, and given the team and coaches under him continue to fail, he just needs to go. He is a great OC and a **** poor HC

 

[Firethorn1001]

I still think it's time to fire Opie Taylor (Mark Murphy), and dismiss the coaching staff with the exception of Tom Clements if he will come back. I doubt MLF takes a demotion to OC, and given the team and coaches under him continue to fail, he just needs to go. He is a great OC and a **** poor HC

Ahh.. the good ole' 'Fire everyone' post made out of anger with absolutely no logic other than emotion.

MM retires in 2025. They aren't going to fire him.
When has an NFL coach ever been demoted in the modern era to take a coordinator position?

 

[gopkrs]

I thought we played very loose on pass plays and they were able to gain good positive yards when they wanted. Especially to our D's right side. And especially in the last quarter and a half. Bend don't break. And should have sent one extra rusher.

 

[JFay05]

No logic is a very big stretch Firethorn. Look at the history. What is MLF's record in the playoffs, 0 fore every time we have faced them. What has the Joe Barry led defense done over the time he has led it, consistently under preformed. What did the hire of Bisaccia as ST coordinator resulted in, a move in ranking from 32 to 29. That is all at the feet of Matt LaFleur, and beyond that it falls at Mark Murphy's feet who has taken the role of coach and GM report to him.
While I was happy to see the Pack make the playoffs and beat the hated Cowgirls, my greatest concern was the last 3 games of the season would let the failures of leadership off the hook.
So in your response, let's bring them all back, wash rinse and repeat. Next year it is the same result.
I would rather see the Packers move on then repeat the Chargers failure in keeping Marty Shottenheimer too long, being on the outside looking in and hiring the wrong HC to see them wash rinse and repeat again.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Agree that if the Packers keep Joe Barry, it will be a other wash, rinse and repeat next year. Hard to hide a bad defense in a tight playoff game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Ahh.. the good ole' 'Fire everyone' post made out of anger with absolutely no logic other than emotion.

MM retires in 2025. They aren't going to fire him.
When has an NFL coach ever been demoted in the modern era to take a coordinator position?

Yup.

I was expecting some doom and gloom in here, but this is just beyond my expectations. Sure I wanted the Packers to win yesterday, but my god, they had the 49'ers on the ropes and came up short.

Get over yourselves and go watch Pickleball or something besides Packer Football.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No logic is a very big stretch Firethorn. Look at the history. What is MLF's record in the playoffs, 0 fore every time we have faced them. What has the Joe Barry led defense done over the time he has led it, consistently under preformed. What did the hire of Bisaccia as ST coordinator resulted in, a move in ranking from 32 to 29. That is all at the feet of Matt LaFleur, and beyond that it falls at Mark Murphy's feet who has taken the role of coach and GM report to him.
While I was happy to see the Pack make the playoffs and beat the hated Cowgirls, my greatest concern was the last 3 games of the season would let the failures of leadership off the hook.
So in your response, let's bring them all back, wash rinse and repeat. Next year it is the same result.
I would rather see the Packers move on then repeat the Chargers failure in keeping Marty Shottenheimer too long, being on the outside looking in and hiring the wrong HC to see them wash rinse and repeat again.

Right, so lets do everything based on last nights loss and Marty Shottenheimer!

Fire MLF!

Fire Gute!

Fire Murphy!

Fire ALL the coaches!

Trade everyone and start over!

We cant beat the 49'ers!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[games]

The Xs and Os guys will tell you that Barry's scheme is sound and it's the players that are the problem. They cite points per game and minimize other stats like DVOA.

1. With Elite teams, there is a high correlation in PPG allowed AND Defensive DVOA. This year's Packers are a statistical anomaly being #10 in points allowed but in the 20s in Defensive DVOA. My point: Statistical anomalies are not sustainable.

2. Why does this defense fold in the 4th quarter? The Packers defense gave up leads in up to six games this year in the fourth quarter. What good is a scheme or DC if they can't make a stop when it matters most?

The problem we face is when you revamp a system, there is always a transition. New DC, new scheme, and new playbooks require new players and existing players need to learn the new scheme. That takes time. Are we really going to get someone better at DC? And, even if they are better, how much time will it take to fully transition to the new system? Will it be like this year's offense that took 8-9 games to gel? Are we willing to put up with that?

 

[Sanguine camper]

The Xs and Os guys will tell you that Barry's scheme is sound and it's the players that are the problem. They cite points per game and minimize other stats like DVOA.

1. With Elite teams, there is a high correlation in PPG allowed AND Defensive DVOA. This year's Packers are a statistical anomaly being #10 in points allowed but in the 20s in Defensive DVOA. My point: Statistical anomalies are not sustainable.

2. Why does this defense fold in the 4th quarter? The Packers defense gave up leads in up to six games this year in the fourth quarter. What good is a scheme if it doesn't hold up when it matters most?

The problem we face is when you revamp a system, chaos ensues temporarily. New DC, new scheme, and new playbooks require new players and existing players need to learn the new scheme. That takes time. Are we really going to get someone better at DC? And, even if they are better, how much time will be wasted installing the new system? Will it be like this year's offense that took 8-9 games to gel? Are we willing to put up with that?

Those are good we'll reasoned points. I would add that a new DC might not need to make wholesale changes. V
arry's defense did play better when they were more aggressive. I think they need to fashion the defense to help maximize player talents. With the Packers, it's sake to say go with more man-to-man coverages and utilize Walker more in the blitz scemes.

 

[adambr2]

I don't buy that you're necessarily going to have a chaotic transition going to a new DC.

When Capers took over for Bob Sanders in 2009, he completely revamped the 4-3 and replaced it with a 3-4.

The Packers defense improved immediately and drastically the first season and won a Super Bowl in the second.