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

[Pokerbrat2000]

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.

You saying we need to bring Capers back?

 

[adambr2]

You saying we need to bring Capers back?

Lol, not quite! But I will acknowledge he had a couple incredibly successful years here and it wasn't all just the staleness of the last few years that I think he gets primarily remembered for.

 

[gopkrs]

You saying we need to bring Capers back?

What I read was that a change doesn't have to be chaotic. Please no 3 man rushes coach.

 

[Schultz]

I am not a Joe Barry fan. I thought the defense played great yesterday. You can only stop a team that talented for so long. Great point in an earlier post about not getting stops in the late 4th quarter. Seemed to be a recurring theme. I was pleasantly surprised by the pressure the D was able to put on Purdy. IMO the FO has to absolutely see who is interested/available for the DC position. IMO that includes Joe Barry. If they can find someone, they are both confident in and comfortable with then pull the trigger. If it is a case of this guy might be better, or he will be a little bit better then keep Barry for the continuity he brings. In other words, if they can find their Craig Counsell then turn Joe Barry into David Ross.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What I read was that a change doesn't have to be chaotic. Please no 3 man rushes coach.

I agree with Schultz, Barry called a pretty good game yesterday, as well as an excellent one against the Cowboys. The Packers were mixing things up and actually not doing just a 3 man rush most of the game. I think Campbell might be done and it is time to bring in another fast, more athletic ILB to take his place. Throw in 2 new safeties and I think this defense will be improved, no matter who the DC is.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I agree with Schultz, Barry called a pretty good game yesterday, as well as an excellent one against the Cowboys. The Packers were mixing things up and actually not doing just a 3 man rush most of the game. I think Campbell might be done and it is time to bring in another fast, more athletic ILB to take his place. Throw in 2 new safeties and I think this defense will be improved, no matter who the DC is.

I think you nailed it as far as personnel needs. I think we all knew S was going to be a problem back in training camp. That's probably draft priority #1. ILB is ok, but Campbell seemed to be a one-year wonder. I like McDuffie even if it's just depth. Walker is an athletic guy who can be used more creatively. I'd look for depth at Edge, assuming Smith is in his last year or two.

That's not much, really. What was lacking for so much of the season was a creative mind at DC. I gotta believe MLF and staff have been looking at candidates for a while. I still don't/won't believe Barry is the right guy. MLF had a heavy hand in the D the last two months. MLF is an offensive play caller and doesn't need the distraction of in-game responsibilities of a real DC. Depends on who is available.

 

[pacmaniac]

MLF had a heavy hand in the D the last two months. MLF is an offensive play caller and doesn't need the distraction of in-game responsibilities of a real DC. Depends on who is available.

Gotta wonder how much time his helping Barry with the D took away from his time with the offense. Maybe if he wasn't spending time with Barry, our red zone offense would have been a little bit better.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Gotta wonder how much time his helping Barry with the D took away from his time with the offense. Maybe if he wasn't spending time with Barry, our red zone offense would have been a little bit better.

I hadn't thought of that. It's a good question. I'm certain that Barry didn't change everything about his soft-zone style overnight. The straw seemed to be the near disaster in Carolina. From that point forward, the personnel were the same but the play-to-play calling was constantly moving between zone and man, moving guys around, confusing the opponent, and it worked. I don't think Barry was doing that by himself.

One final thought - and I don't know where to post so I'll post it here - The crowd wants Carlson's head on a spike. That's not really fair given all the other miscues.

I'm thinking about that last Packer possession. Love had over one minute and all three time outs. There was no need to make that risky, cross-body, sideline-to-sideline pass he threw for a pic. That's probably a big lesson learned by the budding star. They had plenty of time and the entire field to make plays. FWIW. I'm happy with a season I certainly never saw coming. This is a very good, very young team. Expectations are going to be high now, and that's a good thing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm thinking about that last Packer possession. Love had over one minute and all three time outs. There was no need to make that risky, cross-body, sideline-to-sideline pass he threw for a pic. That's probably a big lesson learned by the budding star. They had plenty of time and the entire field to make plays. FWIW. I'm happy with a season I certainly never saw coming. This is a very good, very young team. Expectations are going to be high now, and that's a good thing.

I also think MLF didn't make proper use of his timeouts when the 9'ers had the ball. He definitely should have used at least 1 prior to the 2 minute warning. I get it, he figured it would be nice to have them all and the ball, but a young QB with under a minute left on the clock, needing a FG to tie it up, is going to put way too much pressure on each throw.

My theory with timeouts. If it looks like you are going to need another offensive possession to tie or win the game, then use your timeouts on defense when the clock is running. When you are on offense, you have much more control of the game clock.

 

[gopkrs]

The other thing is we use time-outs and they don't make it. We are deep in our own territory and they have 3 time outs.

 

[Firethorn1001]

I also think MLF didn't make proper use of his timeouts when the 9'ers had the ball. He definitely should have used at least 1 prior to the 2 minute warning. I get it, he figured it would be nice to have them all and the ball, but a young QB with under a minute left on the clock, needing a FG to tie it up, is going to put way too much pressure on each throw.

I generally didn't have a problem with the timeout usage. I think it was around 1st and 10 at the 15 with another 1st down potential. It is possible that MLF had little faith in the defense stopping them and was potentially waiting for the 49ers to be in a position where it was either score or turnover on downs before considering the TO burns. Start burning them when it is 1st and 10 on the 15 with another 1st down there, really chance they could get the 1st and then you are completely in a hold them or they drain the entire clock.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I generally didn't have a problem with the timeout usage. I think it was around 1st and 10 at the 15 with another 1st down potential. It is possible that MLF had little faith in the defense stopping them and was potentially waiting for the 49ers to be in a position where it was either score or turnover on downs before considering the TO burns. Start burning them when it is 1st and 10 on the 15 with another 1st down there, really chance they could get the 1st and then you are completely in a hold them or they drain the entire clock.

I disagree. The 9'ers plan on offense was to milk that clock and the Packers timeouts, so as to not give Love and the offense much, if any time. Even an extra 30 seconds helps when you are on offense. I rewatched the last 3 minutes of the game, the 49'ers ate up a almost 60 seconds, running 1 play, before the 2 minute warning.

BTW, the Packers started their final drive, with all 3 timeouts and ended the game, still having 2 timeouts.

The other thing is we use time-outs and they don't make it. We are deep in our own territory and they have 3 time outs.

A much better problem to have, that of having the lead still and possession of the ball.

 

[Firethorn1001]

gree. The 9'ers plan on offense was to milk that clock and the Packers timeouts, so as to not give Love and the offense much, if any time.

Will probably just end up agreeing to disagree on this

When exactly was the right time to use the timeouts? 1st time was really 1st and 10 at the 26. But it's 1st and 10 at the 26. There are 2 more 1st downs to get potentially. The next play was for 8 so, 2nd and 2 you gotta assume with 3 tries for a 1st down, they will convert. Then its 1st and 10 at the 15, they rip off 9. Once again at that point, assume 3 plays to get the next 1 yard will happen so at that point playing that they are going to score or get the 1st. They get the 1st you start burning timeouts to get least hold onto 30 seconds or so.

I don't think they were ever really in a great logical position to burn TOs because the odds weren't in their favor that they wouldn't have just been wasted.

I think they start burning TOs too early its game over.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Will probably just end up agreeing to disagree on this

I can agree with this.

Even Greg Olsen was questioning what was going on in that final 3 minutes. Stating something like "it is when you are on defense that you want to start using your timeouts to make sure you give your offense enough time if SF scores." Well SF did score, the go ahead TD and only left 1:07 on the game clock for Love. That puts a ton of pressure on a 1st year TD.

Watch the last 3 minutes of that game, if you can. Had everything stayed the same (called plays, results, etc.) and MLF uses 2 timeouts, Love has about 2 minutes and 1 timeout when they get the ball back.

Add on bonus observation: Why did Greenlaw NOT go down after his interception? Had he fumbled it and the Packers recover, Packers are still on offense, first down.

 

[Firethorn1001]

Watch the last 3 minutes of that game, if you can. Had everything stayed the same (called plays, results, etc.) and MLF uses 2 timeouts, Love has about 2 minutes and 1 timeout when they get the ball back.

Add on bonus observation: Why did Greenlaw NOT go down after his interception? Had he fumbled it and the Packers recover, Packers are still on offense, first down.

The one item I will add is that you are coming up with an end result of time based on what happened. (With everything the same they would have had 2 minutes and a TO). At that moment in time, MLF had absolutely no way to know what was going to happen and could only react to the situation at hand which, in both cases, was burning TOs when it was statistically probable they were going to get the 1st and, in that case, would have been wasted TOs IMHO.

As for Greenlaw not going down. He didn't have Julius Peppers on the team otherwise he would have taken a knee early.

 

[milani]

You saying we need to bring Capers back?

Maybe he means bring back Donnatell and switch back to a 4-3 and we shall see immediate results.

 

[McKnowledge]

I agree with Schultz, Barry called a pretty good game yesterday, as well as an excellent one against the Cowboys. The Packers were mixing things up and actually not doing just a 3 man rush most of the game. I think Campbell might be done and it is time to bring in another fast, more athletic ILB to take his place. Throw in 2 new safeties and I think this defense will be improved, no matter who the DC is.

I like Campbell, and he is done...as an every down starter.

If he's willing to accept a lesser role and less money, I would love to have him remain with the team.

He can do it all, he just cannot do it every down at a high level for the entirety of the game.

Draft a ILB and have him mentor and provide valuable leadership in the locker room.

I agree 2 new starting safeties is a priority, but I like Owens and Ford as backups.

Valentine in the slot is potential gold...

I'll also go one step further and argue a revamp of the CB corp too...the Stokes experience should end...wanted Douglas to stay...but he played his way to a large contract...Packers should target a less vocal alpha dog opposite Alexander...

Along with the safeties, Packers need bigger CBs, because the NFC and league as a whole is in a golden era of TEs...

 

[milani]

I like Campbell, and he is done...as an every down starter.

If he's willing to accept a lesser role and less money, I would love to have him remain with the team.

He can do it all, he just cannot do it every down at a high level for the entirety of the game.

Draft a ILB and have him mentor and provide valuable leadership in the locker room.

I agree 2 new starting safeties is a priority, but I like Owens and Ford as backups.

Valentine in the slot is potential gold...

I'll also go one step further and argue a revamp of the CB corp too...the Stokes experience should end...wanted Douglas to stay...but he played his way to a large contract...Packers should target a less vocal alpha dog opposite Alexander...

Along with the safeties, Packers need bigger CBs, because the NFC and league as a whole is in a golden era of TEs...

Incredibly our D forced 4 punts last night and 2 very long FG attempts, one of which came when the 9ers started the drive in our territory. We have to get better on D. Dropping INTs has been most prevalent this season.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Incredibly our D forced 4 punts last night and 2 very long FG attempts, one of which came when the 9ers started the drive in our territory. We have to get better on D. Dropping INTs has been most prevalent this season.

The defense did most of their best work in the first half. It's not surprising that they crumbled in the second half when they needed to make a stop which seems to be the hallmark of Joe Barry defenses. I think it's better to get super aggressive when the collapse is on to potentially make a big play than to sit back and endure the gashing.

 

[milani]

The defense did most of their best work in the first half. It's not surprising that they crumbled in the second half when they needed to make a stop which seems to be the hallmark of Joe Barry defenses. I think it's better to get super aggressive when the collapse is on to potentially make a big play than to sit back and endure the gashing.

I would think so. But 2 of the punts we forced were in the second half. And after the first INT the 9ers did not move the ball. They just were able to eke out a long FG. The Niners wear down most defenses and they finally did against us. We had theirs worn down as well but their defenders did not drop INTs. And their D was certainly better in the red zone. Ours was not.

 

[rmontro]

Lol, not quite! But I will acknowledge he had a couple incredibly successful years here and it wasn't all just the staleness of the last few years that I think he gets primarily remembered for.

Weird thing with Capers, he had that history of building a good defense and then it would fall apart from there. Everywhere he went. I wonder how that works? You can maybe explain it easily enough for us, but for every team he was on?

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.

Well, if that's the case, and IF they're going to fire Barry, the sooner they get started on it the better. I don't want to relive the 2010s where we have a Super Bowl caliber offense but the defense can't ever make that last stop.

 

[Sanguine camper]

I would think so. But 2 of the punts we forced were in the second half. And after the first INT the 9ers did not move the ball. They just were able to eke out a long FG. The Niners wear down most defenses and they finally did against us. We had theirs worn down as well but their defenders did not drop INTs. And their D was certainly better in the red zone. Ours was not.

The quickest way to lose a game, especially if you're on the road and an underdog is to drop on interception. My high school football coach preached that. Funny that the guys who can’t catch play defense.

 

[Poppa San]

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.

They also got outdueled 51-45 in a wildcard game. Give Capers a 3 year contract since he sucks if he stays longer than that.

 

[adambr2]

They also got outdueled 51-45 in a wildcard game. Give Capers a 3 year contract since he sucks if he stays longer than that.

I mean if we're going to judge any coach by one singular bad game, Dan Quinn would have been shown the door a week ago.

The defense overall was very good in 2009.

 

[gopkrs]

Maybe he means bring back Donnatell and switch back to a 4-3 and we shall see immediate results.

About Donatelli, I think he meant that he was actually a good coach. That's what I thought too. That he got scapegoated.