Joe Barry is our new DC

[Sunshinepacker]

You literally said that MLF hired a bad coach on purpose because they’re buds.

Nope. I said I think he's a bad coach, but it's generally easier for someone you know to convince you that you'll be good at something than a stranger.

 

[Dantés]

Below.

Nope. I said I think he's a bad coach, but it's generally easier for someone you know to convince you that you'll be good at something than a stranger.

That may be your opinion, but it’s not what you said when I asked you.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That may be your opinion, but it’s not what you said when I asked you.

The glory of the Internet is being able to misrepesent your position because you typed something incorrectly while in bed or not really paying attention and then being forced to defend the position you never intended to have in the first place. To clarify anything I said, I think Barry was a poor hire based on past performance; I can't think of any reason that he would be the preferred candidate over a younger guy that has more upside (imo). MLF, though, was probably convinced after the interviews that Barry was the best option; there is a lot of evidence, research, and literature that shows that in-person interviews are primarily just a chance for the boss to see if he likes someone, the in-person interview doesn't really add anything most of the time. It was probably easier for Barry to convince MLF he was the best guy because MLF was predisposed to like Barry, it's harder to poke holes in a buddy's arguments than in a stranger's. Football is a sport that comes with a whole lot of excuses for coaches to point to and say, "This is why I couldn't do it, not because my scheme was poor, but because my GM was poor, or bad injury luck, etc."

Barry will hopefully prove that he was the best hire. I just don't see any objective reason to think he was the best option when looking solely at past performance.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not really, recent history tells us it doesn't matter when or who we hire at the DC spot. Always flashes of great games, but when January rolls around its the same ole same ole. Its been 10 + years since we had a dominate defense, now its hope like hell we outscore everyone, its just a waste of AR's time. Trust me, I hope Barry gets it turned around. Until I see it on weekly basis, it was a bad hire.

I was referring to a poster that seemed to think the decision was rushed and that the Packers would have been smarter to wait 2 months before making the DC hire. Again, I don't see how waiting past Free Agency and probably after a lot of your draft scouting is done, is advantageous. I would want a DC to hit the ground running ASAP. Not to mention that the list of qualified/desirable candidates is probably going to decline over the next 2 months, not increase.

 

[Dantés]

The glory of the Internet is being able to misrepesent your position because you typed something incorrectly while in bed or not really paying attention and then being forced to defend the position you never intended to have in the first place. To clarify anything I said, I think Barry was a poor hire based on past performance; I can't think of any reason that he would be the preferred candidate over a younger guy that has more upside (imo). MLF, though, was probably convinced after the interviews that Barry was the best option; there is a lot of evidence, research, and literature that shows that in-person interviews are primarily just a chance for the boss to see if he likes someone, the in-person interview doesn't really add anything most of the time. It was probably easier for Barry to convince MLF he was the best guy because MLF was predisposed to like Barry, it's harder to poke holes in a buddy's arguments than in a stranger's. Football is a sport that comes with a whole lot of excuses for coaches to point to and say, "This is why I couldn't do it, not because my scheme was poor, but because my GM was poor, or bad injury luck, etc."

Barry will hopefully prove that he was the best hire. I just don't see any objective reason to think he was the best option when looking solely at past performance.

I'm happy to read your clarification. I'm certainly not interested in holding something against you that you said by mistake.

I understand the reasoning of fans who don't like the hire because Barry hasn't been very successful in past stops as a coordinator. It's only rational to look what he did in the job the last time he had it.

I tend to think that the reason he was still the choice had a lot to do with the argument that his work with the Redskins was actually not bad, though it appears to have been at a glance, as well as the work he's done since then, working under Wade Phillips and Brandon Staley.

But yes, knowing and liking people makes hiring them much easier-- in the NFL and in other industries. I don't think that's entirely a bad thing. Being able to work harmoniously within a team atmosphere matters.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Trust me, I hope Barry gets it turned around. Until I see it on weekly basis, it was a bad hire.

So what you're actually saying is that no matter who the Packers would have hired as defensive coordinator would have been a bad choice.

 

[AmishMafia]

Nobody hires someone they think is going to be bad at the job, it's just been well established that the in-person portion of the hiring process is generally just a chance to see if the boss likes the person being interviewed. It's much easier for someone that you like to convince you that they're going to be good at the job. Obviously MLF doesn't believe Barry is going to suck but that only means that Barry convinced MLF that Barry was the best option. Going by prior job performance that doesn't appear true but only time will tell.

GM's don't intentionally hire bad coaches and owners don't intentionally hire bad GMs; it's just easier to be wrong in an industry (like sports) that has so little in the way of tangible performance measures and, when those measures are really bad, has so many easy excuses to convince people they shouldn't be measured by those things.

Excellent points.

 

[Poppa San]

So what you're actually saying is that no matter who the Packers would have hired as defensive coordinator would have been a bad choice.

Poster had a favorite in mind and when that person was not hired, THEN let's wait and see kicked in. Otherwise if the favorite was now the DC, the Packers would be having the best defense ever.

 

[GB psyco]

So what you're actually saying is that no matter who the Packers would have hired as defensive coordinator would have been a bad choice.

Absolutely, lol!! On a serious note, when was the last time you or any GB fan was excited about our defense?? Look at the history of Barry as DC, 32nd, 32nd, 28, 28. Just try and stop me from jumping up and down!! Sometimes the posts in here remind me of the packers.com inbox crap, all sunshine and rainbows. I've been watching since the 1st two SB's, and what I have been seeing since 2010 is crystal clear. I see our GM wasting AR's years just like Miami did with Dan Marino. Back to back HOF QB's and 2 Superbowl wins, outrageous!!

 

[GB psyco]

I was referring to a poster that seemed to think the decision was rushed and that the Packers would have been smarter to wait 2 months before making the DC hire. Again, I don't see how waiting past Free Agency and probably after a lot of your draft scouting is done, is advantageous. I would want a DC to hit the ground running ASAP. Not to mention that the list of qualified/desirable candidates is probably going to decline over the next 2 months, not increase.

Yes, I happen to agree that we rushed the hire. We could have hired Rex Ryan in August and be in the same position. And I will happily eat crow if this works out

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Absolutely, lol!! On a serious note, when was the last time you or any GB fan was excited about our defense?? Look at the history of Barry as DC, 32nd, 32nd, 28, 28. Just try and stop me from jumping up and down!! Sometimes the posts in here remind me of the packers.com inbox crap, all sunshine and rainbows. I've been watching since the 1st two SB's, and what I have been seeing since 2010 is crystal clear. I see our GM wasting AR's years just like Miami did with Dan Marino. Back to back HOF QB's and 2 Superbowl wins, outrageous!!

It's funny that you consider me as one of the posters being all sunshine and rainbows when most other members would definitely disagree.

I definitely agree that winning only two Super Bowls while having HOF starting quarterbacks for nearly 30 years is disappointing.

In addition I don't like the hiring of Barry either based on his lack of success as a defensive coordinator during previous stints but I prefer to wait and see how the defense actually performs before evaluating the move.

 

[GB psyco]

It's funny that you consider me as one of the posters being all sunshine and rainbows when most other members would definitely disagree.

I definitely agree that winning only two Super Bowls while having HOF starting quarterbacks for nearly 30 years is disappointing.

In addition I don't like the hiring of Barry either based on his lack of success as a defensive coordinator during previous stints but I prefer to wait and see how the defense actually performs before evaluating the move.

I agree, we'll have to wait and see, no choice in the matter. And I wasn't singling you out as being only positive, its just the vibe I get in some threads when talking GB

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And I wasn't singling you out as being only positive, its just the vibe I get in some threads when talking GB

I agree that in general posters around here are a tad too positive about the Packers.

 

[Poppa San]

I agree that in general posters around here are a tad too positive about the Packers.

On a packers fan board? you're kidding right? They can't like the packers.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I'm gonna wait and see on this hire.

My impression following the report that Leonhard and Evero were the top two in the running, with Leonhard not accepting the job... was that Evero was slighted enough to not accept the job and then Barry was leftover by default. I dunno.

I'm happy to be wrong about this hire, I think it's beneficial to have a linebacker coach on a team that has sucked at inside linebacker for a while.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

On a packers fan board? you're kidding right? They can't like the packers.

Fans liking the Packers shouldn't stop them from being able to fairly evaluate their success.

 

[Dantés]

A lot of Packer fans that cast themselves as "objective" and "fair" are really just biased in the negative, often moreso than the people they're criticizing for being biased in the positive.

Everyone is biased. If you have to try and win arguments by pointing that out, you've lost. Demonstrate why you believe you're right with actual substance.

 

[Dantés]

The Packers finalized their coaching staff with no additional significant changes.

I'm disappointed that they didn't hire any assistants to help Barry install the system he's supposedly bringing with him to Green Bay.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Demonstrate why you believe you're right with actual substance.

The Packers haven't made it to the Super Bowl for 10 consecutive seasons while featuring the most efficient quarterback in NFL history. I guess that should be good enough to be disappointed in the organization.

 

[jetfixer]

I agree that in general posters around here are a tad too positive about the Packers.

On my favorite basketball team boards they call these guys the Sunshine Patrol.

 

[Dantés]

The Packers haven't made it to the Super Bowl for 10 consecutive seasons while featuring the most efficient quarterback in NFL history. I guess that should be good enough to be disappointed in the organization.

I'm sure all Packer fans are disappointed in that outcome. I still don't find it very compelling as a carte blanche excuse to slant negative in regards to every individual facet or storyline around the team.

 

[gopkrs]

The Packers haven't made it to the Super Bowl for 10 consecutive seasons while featuring the most efficient quarterback in NFL history. I guess that should be good enough to be disappointed in the organization.

It is a new day and I am not going to lump in LaFleur with McCarthy. The team is different now. Two years ago I did not really think we had much of a chance against SF. But this year against tampa; I was shown that we have a team who can beat anybody. Call me an incurable optimist or whatever you want. But I think we are doing some right things and have some good pieces. I think we do need to do well in the draft. Looking forward to next year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm sure all Packer fans are disappointed in that outcome. I still don't find it very compelling as a carte blanche excuse to slant negative in regards to every individual facet or storyline around the team.

I don't think there's any reason to be negative about most things regarding the Packers either but on the other hand valid criticism is definitely justified.

It is a new day and I am not going to lump in LaFleur with McCarthy. The team is different now. Two years ago I did not really think we had much of a chance against SF. But this year against tampa; I was shown that we have a team who can beat anybody. Call me an incurable optimist or whatever you want. But I think we are doing some right things and have some good pieces. I think we do need to do well in the draft. Looking forward to next year.

I'm optimistic about the Packers chances to win another Super Bowl with Rodgers as well but the fact that they haven't even made it back to the big game in the last 10 seasons while having the most efficient quarterback in league history should be considered as a failure.

 

[Mavster]

So we kept all of Pettine's assistants.

My expectations for the defense are low again.

 

[Dantés]

So we kept all of Pettine's assistants.

My expectations for the defense are low again.

I really like the assistant coaches the Packers currently have. I wasn't hoping to see any one of them in particular replaced. But I did somehow want to see someone added who could help Barry install a new defense-- someone who has a background with him.