Bates Gone (1 Viewer)

[sho nuff]

I am only speculating. But I would like to know if Thompson went to Bates and tried to figure out a way to keep Bates while hiring another HC. It doesn't seem like that happend, but I don't know for sure. If it didn't, it's awful management.

I think once Thompson decided Bates would not be the HC, he probably did not go to Bates...and why would he really? Same as those thinking he did this for Favre. Id rather him find the head coach he wanted...rather than worrying about which HC Favre or Bates wanted. And I do not see there was really a way to keep Bates once he knew he would not be the HC.

 

[Pipes]

Anybody get the feeling Thompson has little regard for the past 15 years of Packer football and is seeking, perhaps to his detriment, to put his stamp on this team, even if it means really shaking things up for a year or two (and perhaps indefinitely)?

A little too much "my way or the highway" so far for my taste...

What would you want Thompson to do differently?

I would have liked for him to keep one of the two guards, either Wahle or Rivera. Maybe even both particularly as there is a lot of cap space now. I am one who thinks Favre still has another few good years left as long as the team commits to supporting him with the right players. Seems like Thompson may be shutting it down a bit early.

I will keep a close eye on his draft this year.

But they didn't have the cap space last year. They had to let guys like Sharper go just to keep the guys they did. Both Wahle & Rivera received multi million $ deals and the Packers just couldn't afford that thanks to Sherman's ineptness as a GM.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

This Thompson bashing has got to stop. The guy has only been in GB for a year and it takes time to fix the mess that Sherman left as a GM.

Yeah it sucks that Bates left but the fact is he's 59 years old with no head coaching experience, there may be a reason for that. Yeah the Packers defense improved last year but look at their schedule. The defense faced QB's like Orton, Grossman, Harrington twice, Batch, Dilfer, McMahon, Boller, B Johnson twice, Brooks, Vick & Griese. The only really good QB's that Packer defense faced this year were Palmer, Delhomme and Hasselbeck (for a half). I would hope the defense would look good against stiffs like that.

We need to give Thompson time. Unfortunately Packer fans are spoiled and expect the playoffs every year. The Packers have had a tremendous run but years of drafting at the end of the first round and really crappy drafts have caught up with them. Let see what happens.

You get a big fat for that one. Right on.

 

[sho nuff]

This Thompson bashing has got to stop. The guy has only been in GB for a year and it takes time to fix the mess that Sherman left as a GM.

Yeah it sucks that Bates left but the fact is he's 59 years old with no head coaching experience, there may be a reason for that. Yeah the Packers defense improved last year but look at their schedule. The defense faced QB's like Orton, Grossman, Harrington twice, Batch, Dilfer, McMahon, Boller, B Johnson twice, Brooks, Vick & Griese. The only really good QB's that Packer defense faced this year were Palmer, Delhomme and Hasselbeck (for a half). I would hope the defense would look good against stiffs like that.

We need to give Thompson time. Unfortunately Packer fans are spoiled and expect the playoffs every year. The Packers have had a tremendous run but years of drafting at the end of the first round and really crappy drafts have caught up with them. Let see what happens.

Though, some of the drafts have produced some solid players...(Kampman, Barnett, Collins, Walker...)

 

[sho nuff]

Anybody get the feeling Thompson has little regard for the past 15 years of Packer football and is seeking, perhaps to his detriment, to put his stamp on this team, even if it means really shaking things up for a year or two (and perhaps indefinitely)?

A little too much "my way or the highway" so far for my taste...

What would you want Thompson to do differently?

I would have liked for him to keep one of the two guards, either Wahle or Rivera. Maybe even both particularly as there is a lot of cap space now. I am one who thinks Favre still has another few good years left as long as the team commits to supporting him with the right players. Seems like Thompson may be shutting it down a bit early.

I will keep a close eye on his draft this year.

But they didn't have the cap space last year. They had to let guys like Sharper go just to keep the guys they did. Both Wahle & Rivera received multi million $ deals and the Packers just couldn't afford that thanks to Sherman's ineptness as a GM.

Possibly could have kept one...but it would have taken some other moves....getting rid of Hunt earlier than they did....possibly parting ways with Flanagan and go to Wells at Center...and looking back...this probably should have happened given how Flanagan played and was hurt all year (never fully recovered from last season's injury)

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Anybody get the feeling Thompson has little regard for the past 15 years of Packer football and is seeking, perhaps to his detriment, to put his stamp on this team, even if it means really shaking things up for a year or two (and perhaps indefinitely)?

A little too much "my way or the highway" so far for my taste...

What would you want Thompson to do differently?

I am one who thinks Favre still has another few good years left as long as the team commits to supporting him with the right players. Seems like Thompson may be shutting it down a bit early.I will keep a close eye on his draft this year.

Shutting it down? How so?Both Thompson and McCarthy have stated they are not in rebuilding mode and they want Favre back.

If either of those guys say otherwise, they will be included as fair game during deer hunting season.

Of course but you are fooling yourself if you think they don't want Favre back.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Anybody get the feeling Thompson has little regard for the past 15 years of Packer football and is seeking, perhaps to his detriment, to put his stamp on this team, even if it means really shaking things up for a year or two (and perhaps indefinitely)?

A little too much "my way or the highway" so far for my taste...

What would you want Thompson to do differently?

I would have liked for him to keep one of the two guards, either Wahle or Rivera. Maybe even both particularly as there is a lot of cap space now. I am one who thinks Favre still has another few good years left as long as the team commits to supporting him with the right players. Seems like Thompson may be shutting it down a bit early.

I will keep a close eye on his draft this year.

But they didn't have the cap space last year. They had to let guys like Sharper go just to keep the guys they did. Both Wahle & Rivera received multi million $ deals and the Packers just couldn't afford that thanks to Sherman's ineptness as a GM.

I've seen enough restructuring take place in Oakland and San Francisco to believe that if you want one guy badly enough, it can happen. All three guys, no way. But to see all three go was frustrating. I agree that Sherman did not leave Thompson much to work with.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

Anybody get the feeling Thompson has little regard for the past 15 years of Packer football and is seeking, perhaps to his detriment, to put his stamp on this team, even if it means really shaking things up for a year or two (and perhaps indefinitely)?

A little too much "my way or the highway" so far for my taste...

What would you want Thompson to do differently?

I am one who thinks Favre still has another few good years left as long as the team commits to supporting him with the right players. Seems like Thompson may be shutting it down a bit early.I will keep a close eye on his draft this year.

Shutting it down? How so?Both Thompson and McCarthy have stated they are not in rebuilding mode and they want Favre back.

If either of those guys say otherwise, they will be included as fair game during deer hunting season.

Of course but you are fooling yourself if you think they don't want Favre back.

My mind is not made up. But what Thompson does with the draft and FA pursuits will be the determining factors, IMO.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Anybody get the feeling Thompson has little regard for the past 15 years of Packer football and is seeking, perhaps to his detriment, to put his stamp on this team, even if it means really shaking things up for a year or two (and perhaps indefinitely)?

A little too much "my way or the highway" so far for my taste...

What would you want Thompson to do differently?

I am one who thinks Favre still has another few good years left as long as the team commits to supporting him with the right players. Seems like Thompson may be shutting it down a bit early.I will keep a close eye on his draft this year.

Shutting it down? How so?Both Thompson and McCarthy have stated they are not in rebuilding mode and they want Favre back.

If either of those guys say otherwise, they will be included as fair game during deer hunting season.

Of course but you are fooling yourself if you think they don't want Favre back.

My mind is not made up. But what Thompson does with the draft and FA pursuits will be the determining factors, IMO.

Favre will likely have made his decision prior to the draft and possibly the FA signing period.

 

[sho nuff]

Anybody get the feeling Thompson has little regard for the past 15 years of Packer football and is seeking, perhaps to his detriment, to put his stamp on this team, even if it means really shaking things up for a year or two (and perhaps indefinitely)?

A little too much "my way or the highway" so far for my taste...

What would you want Thompson to do differently?

I would have liked for him to keep one of the two guards, either Wahle or Rivera. Maybe even both particularly as there is a lot of cap space now. I am one who thinks Favre still has another few good years left as long as the team commits to supporting him with the right players. Seems like Thompson may be shutting it down a bit early.

I will keep a close eye on his draft this year.

But they didn't have the cap space last year. They had to let guys like Sharper go just to keep the guys they did. Both Wahle & Rivera received multi million $ deals and the Packers just couldn't afford that thanks to Sherman's ineptness as a GM.

I've seen enough restructuring take place in Oakland and San Francisco to believe that if you want one guy badly enough, it can happen. All three guys, no way. But to see all three go was frustrating. I agree that Sherman did not leave Thompson much to work with.

There is also a reason San Fran was stuck so badly in the cap position they were in.

 

[Team Tosh]

And just because a coach leaves...how does that automatically set the team back a couple of years?

Jump to conclusions much?

it often does. I would say "more often than not" but have no stats to back this up.

How much is it going to set back a team that was 4-12?More often than not it is when a string of losses is set there...and the cap situation is all over the place.

What McCarthy and his new staff will have going for him is alot of young players on both sides of the ball, a top 5 draft pick, and plenty of cap space (depending on how Thompson wants to use it).

I'm not concerned about their record this past year. But new unproven coaches, plus the lack of talent they have and possible retirement of Favre, the Packers have a rough road ahead. I don't want that to be the case, but I'm very dissapointed that we lost Gates. He seemed to be the one bright spot on an otherwise upsetting year. He got that defense to overacheive last year.

 

[sho nuff]

I'm not concerned about their record this past year. But new unproven coaches, plus the lack of talent they have and possible retirement of Favre, the Packers have a rough road ahead. I don't want that to be the case, but I'm very dissapointed that we lost Gates. He seemed to be the one bright spot on an otherwise upsetting year. He got that defense to overacheive last year.

I do not see a lack of talent...I see a lack of depth.Overacheive a bit...but look into the numbers a bit more and it did not look as good as many think....I posted that a little while ago...

 

[Team Tosh]

You have got to be #######g kidding me.  Next to go is Favre now.

I am so close to not even rooting for Green Bay anymore.  Forget Ted Thompson and forget Mike McCarthy.  That was Bates' job and everyone knew that. 

:X   :X

Why? Because he did a very good job with the defense he is automatically qualified to be head coach?

And because McCarthy has been associated with teams that have lousy records that qualifies him to be a head coach I didn't like Thompsons draft last year. I'll certainly give him more time to prove himself as he seemed to do a decent job in Seattle. I have been upset with moves in the past that have proven to be great ideas, so I'll wait and see. I honestly hope I'm dead wrong in this regard.

 

[SWC]

And just because a coach leaves...how does that automatically set the team back a couple of years?

Jump to conclusions much?

it often does. I would say "more often than not" but have no stats to back this up.

How much is it going to set back a team that was 4-12?

Well that's a real good pointWhat'll they regress to 3-13? 2-14? I didn't think of that

While the Pack didn't have a great record last year, they were "in" every game, save the Baltimore blow-out. Moreover, they had the 7th best D in terms of giving up yardage, and that D was a large part of the team's remaining in games. Losing Bates will definitely set this team, and notably the D, back quite a bit.When you think of the Packer's D, and you realize that were actually ranked pretty well, you have to realize that it was a product of the scheme.

Bates' loss is a big one.

 

[MrPack]

Rumors on Pats boards are that Bates is coming on board to be the DC in NE. Will be announced very soon.

Personally, as a Pats fan, I'm very happy with this.

If this happens I will be a new Patriots fan. I like the Packers first and foremost with the Jets as my AFC team but they have fubared everything there too. I am almost in need of a new NFC team... I may have found my AFC team if Bates goes to any AFC team.

So then you're a frontrunner, not a fan.Understood.

 

[MrPack]

This certainly isn't good news, but it's not the end of the world yet. Let's give McCarthy and whoever he hires at least a year before we denounce the whole administration.

 

[SWC]

This certainly isn't good news, but it's not the end of the world yet.  Let's give McCarthy and whoever he hires at least a year before we denounce the whole administration.

I agree with this. I gave Rhodes a chance, too... but in the end, he wasn't the right direction. Unfortunately I have the same feeling now that I had then. I hope that I'm wrong.Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's. I'll root for them through anything.

 

[Kleck.]

Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's. I'll root for them through anything.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's.  I'll root for them through anything.

While in college at UW Eau Claire, I actually went to the Packer/Viking game at the Dome during the strike in 1987. Got to see such greats as Paul Ott Carruth at RB and Alan Risher at QB.

 

[sho nuff]

You have got to be #######g kidding me. Next to go is Favre now.

I am so close to not even rooting for Green Bay anymore. Forget Ted Thompson and forget Mike McCarthy. That was Bates' job and everyone knew that.

:X :X

Why? Because he did a very good job with the defense he is automatically qualified to be head coach?

And because McCarthy has been associated with teams that have lousy records that qualifies him to be a head coach I didn't like Thompsons draft last year. I'll certainly give him more time to prove himself as he seemed to do a decent job in Seattle. I have been upset with moves in the past that have proven to be great ideas, so I'll wait and see. I honestly hope I'm dead wrong in this regard.

I never said that did make him qualified...but since his units have had success in the past (QBs at KC, offense in NO)...he certainly is no less qualified than Bates is.I liked Thompson's draft...got a possible replacement for Favre...drafted well in other posisitions...(Collins, Underwood, Murphy, Poppinga, Whitticker...yes he was disappointing most of the time but still was a rookie...give him some time...as well as Coston who people think will make a good Olineman)

 

[sho nuff]

While the Pack didn't have a great record last year, they were "in" every game, save the Baltimore blow-out. Moreover, they had the 7th best D in terms of giving up yardage, and that D was a large part of the team's remaining in games. Losing Bates will definitely set this team, and notably the D, back quite a bit.

When you think of the Packer's D, and you realize that were actually ranked pretty well, you have to realize that it was a product of the scheme.

Bates' loss is a big one.

Again, look at the whole picture on the stats and see why they ranked that way as far as yardage...Losing Bates may set them back...but nobody can just say for sure it "will". Because you have no idea what scheme will come in and how the players will react to it.

Bates' loss may be big...but it was obvious that once he was not made the HC...that he was not really going to be happy coming back as DC.

 

[MrPack]

This Thompson bashing has got to stop.  The guy has only been in GB for a year and it takes time to fix the mess that Sherman left as a GM. 

Yeah it sucks that Bates left but the fact is he's 59 years old with no head coaching experience, there may be a reason for that.  Yeah the Packers defense improved last year but look at their schedule.  The defense faced QB's like Orton, Grossman, Harrington twice, Batch, Dilfer, McMahon, Boller, B Johnson twice, Brooks, Vick & Griese.  The only really good QB's that Packer defense faced this year were Palmer, Delhomme and Hasselbeck (for a half).  I would hope the defense would look good against stiffs like that.

We need to give Thompson time.  Unfortunately Packer fans are spoiled and expect the playoffs every year.  The Packers have had a tremendous run but years of drafting at the end of the first round and really crappy drafts have caught up with them.  Let see what happens.

You get a big fat for that one. Right on.

I agree wif dis guy.

 

[sho nuff]

Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's. I'll root for them through anything.

 

[sho nuff]

Looks like Jim Gray will be coming in for an interview....

I think this would be a great hire as DC.

http://wfrv.com/sports/local_story_017091001.html

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Losing Bates may be a step back for the SHORT TERM. However, it is much too soon to declare doom and gloom for the Packer defense. We don't know who the new DC will be. We don't know what lies ahead with the draft...A.J. Hawk? We don't know how or if Thompson will be aggressive in the free agent market.

 

[MrPack]

Looks like Jim Jerry Gray will be coming in for an interview....

I think this would be a great hire as DC.

http://wfrv.com/sports/local_story_017091001.html

Fixed it for you. And I like this.

 

[sho nuff]

Looks like Jim Jerry Gray will be coming in for an interview....

I think this would be a great hire as DC.

http://wfrv.com/sports/local_story_017091001.html

Fixed it for you. And I like this.

Doh....little bit of a slip there...thanks...

 

[Pipes]

Just heard on sports talk radio in Madison the Mike Singletary will be interviewing for the DC position as well.

 

[Wingnut]

If this happens I will be a new Patriots fan. I like the Packers first and foremost with the Jets as my AFC team but they have fubared everything there too. I am almost in need of a new NFC team... I may have found my AFC team if Bates goes to any AFC team.

Fair weather fan much?

 

[sho nuff]

Just heard on sports talk radio in Madison the Mike Singletary will be interviewing for the DC position as well.

Very nice...hopefully have a good relationship from SF.I was touting Mike as a HC candidate a while back...guess most see him as not ready for that jump yet.

 

[Challenge Everything]

So then you're a frontrunner, not a fan.

Understood.

No need for name calling. A fan who would like to see good things happen. I aint seeing that. You're an idiot too but I wont say that here.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's.  I'll root for them through anything.

While in college at UW Eau Claire, I actually went to the Packer/Viking game at the Dome during the strike in 1987. Got to see such greats as Paul Ott Carruth at RB and Alan Risher at QB.

Hey, fellow Bulgold here!

 

[Challenge Everything]

If this happens I will be a new Patriots fan.  I like the Packers first and foremost with the Jets as my AFC team but they have fubared everything there too.  I am almost in need of a new NFC team... I may have found my AFC team if Bates goes to any AFC team.

     

Fair weather fan much?

No, been one since the '89' season. I was 10 at the time.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

If this happens I will be a new Patriots fan.  I like the Packers first and foremost with the Jets as my AFC team but they have fubared everything there too.  I am almost in need of a new NFC team... I may have found my AFC team if Bates goes to any AFC team.

     

Fair weather fan much?

No, been one since the '89' season. I was 10 at the time.

Then zip it and suck it up. Ted Thompson's been there one friggin year.

 

[Pipes]

Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's.  I'll root for them through anything.

While in college at UW Eau Claire, I actually went to the Packer/Viking game at the Dome during the strike in 1987. Got to see such greats as Paul Ott Carruth at RB and Alan Risher at QB.

Hey, fellow Bulgold here!

Me too

 

[sho nuff]

So then you're a frontrunner, not a fan.

Understood.

No need for name calling. A fan who would like to see good things happen. I aint seeing that. You're an idiot too but I wont say that here.

There is a need for namecalling when the so called "fan" would jump ship because his coach did not get the job.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's.  I'll root for them through anything.

While in college at UW Eau Claire, I actually went to the Packer/Viking game at the Dome during the strike in 1987. Got to see such greats as Paul Ott Carruth at RB and Alan Risher at QB.

Hey, fellow Bulgold here!

I guess we need an Eau Claire alumni board. Me too

 

[Fantasy_Freak]

Just heard on sports talk radio in Madison the Mike Singletary will be interviewing for the DC position as well.

Isn't Singeltary already a DC in Baltimore?Being a Bears fan I got to say that would be a killer. To see Samarai Mike on the wrong side of the field when I see my Bears try to beat the Packers at Lambeau would break my heart.

Say it ain't so?

 

[sho nuff]

Just heard on sports talk radio in Madison the Mike Singletary will be interviewing for the DC position as well.

Isn't Singeltary already a DC in Baltimore?Being a Bears fan I got to say that would be a killer. To see Samarai Mike on the wrong side of the field when I see my Bears try to beat the Packers at Lambeau would break my heart.

Say it ain't so?

No...he was an assistant in Balt for 2 years...spent last year as an assistant HC/Defense (not coordinator) in San Fran.

 

[Fantasy_Freak]

Just heard on sports talk radio in Madison the Mike Singletary will be interviewing for the DC position as well. 

Isn't Singeltary already a DC in Baltimore?Being a Bears fan I got to say that would be a killer. To see Samarai Mike on the wrong side of the field when I see my Bears try to beat the Packers at Lambeau would break my heart.

Say it ain't so?

No...he was an assistant in Balt for 2 years...spent last year as an assistant HC/Defense (not coordinator) in San Fran.

Thanks, no offense but I hope this does not happen. I think you can understand why.

 

[Uncle Randy]

Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's.  I'll root for them through anything.

While in college at UW Eau Claire, I actually went to the Packer/Viking game at the Dome during the strike in 1987. Got to see such greats as Paul Ott Carruth at RB and Alan Risher at QB.

Hey, fellow Bulgold here!

I guess we need an Eau Claire alumni board. Me too

[yetanotherhijack]Um, me too...[/yetanotherhijackended]I'm all for giving the new regime a chance, but it is getting a little out of hand. Of course, we haven't seen who they will bring in as DC yet, but it will be hard pressed to find someone better than Bates, IMO.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

A very timely article here:

Green Bay's 7th ranked defense a statistical mirage

By Rick Cina - PackerChatters Staff Tuesday, 17 January 2006

It’s easy to glance at the 7th ranked Green Bay Packers defense and assume that the team must have performed quite well defensively this season.

After all, measuring a defense by how many total yards it allowed has been the most common, most popular means of NFL comparisons for decades. But just because it’s popular to measure a defense that way doesn’t mean it’s not also quite limiting, even misleading.

If we look more closely, we probably find that the 2005 Packer defense may not only have not been very good, it may not even have been good at all.

In many ways, it was an average to below average defense when considering more than just the superficial indicators.

The 1999 defense coordinated by Emmitt Thomas, with an arguably inferior group of players to this past year’s, was by several statistical indicators probably better than the healthier 2005 defense coordinated by Jim Bates.

(For example, the ’99 team amassed 41 turnovers, compiled an impressive 70.0 defensive passer rating, and gave up fewer yards per rush attempt and fewer points per game than the 2005 defense). And all 4 of the defenses coordinated by Ed Donatell were probably better than this year’s defense too. In recent times, only the 2004 defense coordinated by Bob Slowik was worse. And even that defense may not have been dramatically worse than the

2005 defense.

The best pass defense in the league?

Back in 1983, the 5-11 Philadelphia Eagles had the best pass defense in the league. Or at least that’s what their total passing yards allowed statistic said, as no team had allowed fewer passing yards. Yes, the Eagles ranked 25th in the league that year in defensive passer rating (their allowed completion percentage, yards per attempt average, touchdown percentage, and interception percentage). But no matter. They were still the best. Right?

Well, no. There’s a reason why the Eagles were number one in passing yards allowed that season. For one, they were a bad team. And bad teams usually have to play much of the season from behind. When a team plays from behind a lot, their opponents rarely find the need to throw the ball all that often. And, in the Eagles’ case, they didn’t. The Eagles only had to defend 430 passes in 1983. Only one team, the 2-14 Houston Oilers, defended fewer (424), and the Oilers ranked 2nd in pass defense (allowing 47 more passing yards). It’s difficult to give up a lot of passing yards when your opponents rarely throw the ball.

Likewise, the primary reason why the Packers ranked 1st in pass defense at

167.5 pass yards per game (and also one of the main reasons they finished 7th in total defense) is that they too had to defend only 430 passes all season, second only to New Orleans’ 418 (the Saints finished 3rd in passing yards allowed). Put into an historical perspective, no other teams have defended fewer passes than the Saints and Packers did in the previous 6 seasons. In 2004, the 4-12 Dophins (led by Jim Bates) came close, defending only 434 passes (which is also the main reason why Miami finished 8th overall in total defense in 2004, despite finishing 20th in points allowed and 31st against the run). From 1999 to 2004, the total of fewest pass attempts against one team’s defense was, in order, 463, 458, 452, 454, 445, and 434. Those particular 6 teams that defended the fewest pass attempts each year since 1999 averaged just 5 wins per season.

The average pass attempts per season that an NFL team has had to defend since 1999 is 525.9, so the Packers faced almost one hundred fewer pass attempts in 2005 compared to the league average in recent years. When a defense has to defend that many fewer passes, it’s understandable why they give up so many fewer passing yards.

Defending primarily weak passers

Another important reason why the Packers finished 1st in pass defense, and 7th overall, is that they faced just 4 quarterbacks who finished the season with passer ratings above 80.0: Jake Delhomme, Carson Palmer, Brad Johnson, and Matt Hasselbeck. Johnson functioned as a backup this past season, and Hasselbeck threw just 8 passes against the Packers’ defense. Those 4 quarterbacks threw just 96 total passes, or 22.3% of the total passes defended by the Packers. All together, those four 80-plus passer rating quarterbacks were 63 for 96 for 715 yards with 5 touchdowns and 2 interceptions, a 96.5 passer rating. Against the rest of the NFL, those 4 quarterbacks combined for a 94.8 passer rating. In 2004, by comparison, the Packers faced 9 quarterbacks with 80-plus passer ratings, and they had to defend 314 of their 518 total passes from those better performing quarterbacks, 218 more than the 2005 Packers did.

The 2005 Packers faced 14 quarterbacks who finished the season with passer ratings of 79.9 and lower: Harrington, Dilfer, Griese, Bouman, Brooks, Culpepper, Batch, Vick, McMahon, Orton, Garcia, Boller, Grossman, and Wallace. Those 14 quarterbacks combined for 334 pass attempts, which means that 77.7% of the 430 passes the Packers had to defend were thrown by quarterbacks with season-ending passer ratings below 80. All together, those 14 quarterbacks combined for 189 completions in 334 attempts for 2,161 yards with 17 touchdowns and 8 interceptions, an 83.2 passer rating. Against the rest of the NFL, those 14 quarterbacks combined for a pathetic 67.4 passer rating (1,583/2,800 for 17,338 yards, 80 touchdowns, 115 interceptions), a huge differential.

Put together, the Packers faced 18 quarterbacks with a combined 77.3 passer rating against the rest of the NFL, or when not including the passing statistics they compiled against the Green Bay defense. In 2004, the composite passer rating of Packer opponents when playing the rest of the NFL was 88.8.

The final passer rating statistics for all 18 quarterbacks against the Packers was 86.2, which was the second worst for Green Bay in last 47 years (it was an outrageous 99.1 in 2004, and 86.1 in 1958). The Packers allowed

252 completions in 430 attempts (58.6%) for 2,876 yards (6.7 yards per

attempt) with 22 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. The 86.2 passer rating ranked 25th in the league (just like the ’83 Eagles), tied with New Orleans. The Packers ranked 30th in touchdown passes per attempt, 27th in interceptions per attempt, 14th in completions per attempt, and 14th in net passing yards per attempt (subtracting sack yards and dividing by attempts).

So it’s probably fair to say that the Packers really had anything but the best pass defense in the NFL. They were just one the most untested/unchallenged ones.

Other defensive statistics to consider

The Packers started the year out well defending the run, but the run defense got worse as the season went along. In the first 7 games, they had allowed 706 yards in 207 attempts, a 3.4 yards per carry average, and a 100.9 yards per game average. In the last 9 games, the defense allowed 1,310 yards in 296 carries, a 4.4 yards per carry average, and 145.6 yards per game. The Packers finished the year ranked 23rd in run defense (125.6 rushing yards per game), and 18th in rushing yards per attempt (4.0). It should be pointed out, though, that only 5 teams had to defend more than the 504 rushing attempts that the Packers’ defense did, which is the reverse effect of what happened with the pass defense (only one team defended fewer passes), and one of the main reasons why the Packers finished lower in the rankings in total rushing yards allowed.



The total 344 points allowed is the second most (2004) by a Green Bay defense since 1990. The Packers finished tied with Minnesota for 19th in points allowed, moving up 4 ranking slots from 2004, when they ranked 23rd.

The most improved area for the Packers from 2004 to 2005 was big plays allowed. Although they allowed 16 plays of 20 yards or more in the last 4 games, they had allowed just 30 big plays in the previous 12. So all together the defense allowed just 46 plays of 20 yards or more (36 passes, 10 runs) out of 969 total plays defended. In 2004, the Packers allowed an atrocious 74 big plays (60 passes, 14 runs) out of 967 total plays defended, though some of that has to do with facing better quarterbacks who threw the ball more often.

Squelching the big plays may not have been necessarily due to substantially better tackling, however. In a subjective analysis of missed tackles, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has indicated that the Packers missed 112 tackles in 16 games in 2005, or 7.0 per game. In 2004, there were 6.9 missed tackles per game. In 2003, 2002, and 2001, there were 6.1, 6.8, and

6.6 missed tackles per game respectively.

The Packers finished with 43 defensive penalties, which was 8 fewer than in

2004 (51), but still more than every other year in the Bob Harlan era. The Packers averaged 34.5 defensive penalties per season from 1990 to 1999, and 29.0 from 2000 to 2003 under Ed Donatell. The defense did improve in this area as the season went along, though, as it had 28 penalties through the first 9 games, and just 15 accepted penalties in the next 7.

The Packers allowed just 35.9% of 3rd downs (74 of 206) to be converted, which ranked a solid 9th in the NFL. That was surprisingly a slightly worse conversion rate than 2004, when the defense allowed 35.0% to be converted (69 for 197).

The Packers were only slightly better in turnovers forced this year compared to last year. They ranked 26th with 21 turnovers forced, compared to tied for last with 15 turnovers forced in 2004. The 21 turnovers included 11 fumble recoveries and 10 interceptions.

The Packers ranked 22nd in the league in red zone defense (53.2%). In Weeks 12-14, the Packers only allowed 1 touchdown in 9 red zone trips. But then in Weeks 15-17, they allowed 8 touchdowns in 9 trips.

To summarize, the Packers tied for 19th in points allowed per game, ranked 18th in rushing yards per attempt, 25th in defensive passer rating (which considers completions, passing yards, passing touchdowns, and interceptions on a per attempt basis), 26th in turnovers per play, 9th in 3rd down conversion rate, and 22nd in red zone defense (touchdowns allowed per red zone appearance.

Toward a better way to rate a defense

There has to be superior ways to measure the effectiveness of a defense rather than just by counting the number of yards allowed, as there are so many other factors to consider other than that one, single statistic.

Fortunately, there has been some progress in recent years with finding better ways to measure defensive performances by looking at multiple categories on a per attempt basis.

Troy Aikman (and others) developed a system of statistical measurement for offensive and defensive statistics that uses 7 categories instead of one and 10 years of statistical data to determine what an average (or normed) score would be. Called the Aikman’s Efficiency Ratings (AER), it uses points allowed per game (minus touchdowns from kick/turnover returns), yards per play (divided into rushing and passing yards per play), turnovers forced, red zone efficiency, first downs allowed, and third down conversion average. All those categories produce a score, with 75 being the normed average. In 2005, the Packers’ final defensive score was 72.5, which meant the Green Bay defense ranked 21st in the league overall.

On the FOOTBALLOUTSIDERS.com website, an increasingly respected play-by-play, weighted system that adjusts for strength of opponent to rank defenses, the Packers ranked 22nd against the pass, 22nd against the run, and 22nd overall using their DVOA ranking system. Broken down further using the handy FOOTBALLOUTSIDERS.com pass defense data, the Packers ranked a solid 8th in the NFL against the opposing team’s #1 wide receiver, but 28th against #2 receivers, 26th against “other” receivers, and 30th against tight ends.

An overrated, untested defense

Finally, it should be said that by all reports Jim Bates, the Packers’

defensive coordinator in 2005, did a very good job this season with the Green Bay defense, especially considering the limited talent he had to work with. He seemed to be a very good coach. But the overall performance of the Packers’ defense probably improved from the D- range in 2004 to the D+ or C- range in 2005. An improvement like that probably isn’t enough to claim that Bates sparked anything close to a dramatic turnaround.

This was a very overrated, untested defense that gets praises heaped upon it primarily because it’s usually only compared to the atrocious 2004 defense, and because the one, non-adjusted measure that is continually cited---7th best in total yards allowed---is looked to as the one statistic that overrides all the others.

There probably needs to be more of an effort to broaden our perspectives and comparisons when assessing the overall performance of a defense.

 

[sho nuff]

Just heard on sports talk radio in Madison the Mike Singletary will be interviewing for the DC position as well.

Isn't Singeltary already a DC in Baltimore?Being a Bears fan I got to say that would be a killer. To see Samarai Mike on the wrong side of the field when I see my Bears try to beat the Packers at Lambeau would break my heart.

Say it ain't so?

No...he was an assistant in Balt for 2 years...spent last year as an assistant HC/Defense (not coordinator) in San Fran.

Thanks, no offense but I hope this does not happen. I think you can understand why.

I know why...one of the reasons I liked the guy as well...cause it would get at the Bears fans a bit...

 

[sho nuff]

Similar to what I had posted earlier...and Thomas, who they mentioned, is up there as a candidate for the DC job as well.

 

[MrPack]

So then you're a frontrunner, not a fan.

Understood.

No need for name calling. A fan frontrunner who would like to see good things happen. I aint seeing that. You're an idiot too but I wont say that here.

Namecalling? You're the little child who has to resort to name calling. I just pointed out that you are a frontrunner, not a fan. From what I'm reading, looks like I'm in the majority.Now go root for your Steelers, Broncos, Seahawks, or Panthers.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's.  I'll root for them through anything.

While in college at UW Eau Claire, I actually went to the Packer/Viking game at the Dome during the strike in 1987. Got to see such greats as Paul Ott Carruth at RB and Alan Risher at QB.

Hey, fellow Bulgold here!

Me too

I made it a priority to never live more than one block from Water Street.

 

[SWC]

While the Pack didn't have a great record last year, they were "in" every game, save the Baltimore blow-out.  Moreover, they had the 7th best D in terms of giving up yardage, and that D was a large part of the team's remaining in games.  Losing Bates will definitely set this team, and notably the D, back quite a bit.

When you think of the Packer's D, and you realize that were actually ranked pretty well, you have to realize that it was a product of the scheme. 

Bates' loss is a big one.

Again, look at the whole picture on the stats and see why they ranked that way as far as yardage...Losing Bates may set them back...but nobody can just say for sure it "will". Because you have no idea what scheme will come in and how the players will react to it.

Bates' loss may be big...but it was obvious that once he was not made the HC...that he was not really going to be happy coming back as DC.

Fair point.My biggest concern isn’t so much Bates leaving, but rather that the D will now have its 4th DC in 4 years.

That’s not good for building a familiarity with the scheme/understanding what your fellow defenders will be doing/who they’ll be picking up, etc., week in and week out. By way of example, there is a reason that O-Lines gel as a unit after they’ve played together for a few years: they simply come to understand/know what the other guys on the line are capable of, and where they’ll be. I think that the D as a whole is the same way. Constantly changing schemes can’t help in such respects. When one looks at the stronger defenses in the league, they all appear to have been in relatively 1.) the same scheme and 2.) with largely the same core personnel for a good amount of time (i.e., Tampa, New England, Carolina, etc.). Whatever they do, I hope that it is a solid scheme, and that they stick with it.

Secondly, I think that having a defensive corps of players constantly have to be “re-introducing themselves,” and re-proving what they can do to a D-coordinator isn’t good. I heard that players are exasperated with this fact on local talk radio last night.

But, I will give whoever they bring in a chance (I hope it’s Singletary, myself) and hope that it all comes out for the best.

 

[sho nuff]

While the Pack didn't have a great record last year, they were "in" every game, save the Baltimore blow-out. Moreover, they had the 7th best D in terms of giving up yardage, and that D was a large part of the team's remaining in games. Losing Bates will definitely set this team, and notably the D, back quite a bit.

When you think of the Packer's D, and you realize that were actually ranked pretty well, you have to realize that it was a product of the scheme.

Bates' loss is a big one.

Again, look at the whole picture on the stats and see why they ranked that way as far as yardage...Losing Bates may set them back...but nobody can just say for sure it "will". Because you have no idea what scheme will come in and how the players will react to it.

Bates' loss may be big...but it was obvious that once he was not made the HC...that he was not really going to be happy coming back as DC.

Fair point.My biggest concern isn’t so much Bates leaving, but rather that the D will now have its 4th DC in 4 years.

That’s not good for building a familiarity with the scheme/understanding what your fellow defenders will be doing/who they’ll be picking up, etc., week in and week out. By way of example, there is a reason that O-Lines gel as a unit after they’ve played together for a few years: they simply come to understand/know what the other guys on the line are capable of, and where they’ll be. I think that the D as a whole is the same way. Constantly changing schemes can’t help in such respects. When one looks at the stronger defenses in the league, they all appear to have been in relatively 1.) the same scheme and 2.) with largely the same core personnel for a good amount of time (i.e., Tampa, New England, Carolina, etc.). Whatever they do, I hope that it is a solid scheme, and that they stick with it.

Secondly, I think that having a defensive corps of players constantly have to be “re-introducing themselves,” and re-proving what they can do to a D-coordinator isn’t good. I heard that players are exasperated with this fact on local talk radio last night.

But, I will give whoever they bring in a chance (I hope it’s Singletary, myself) and hope that it all comes out for the best.

The continuity thing I can agree with...and I like Singletary...but it looks as if Nolan has yet to be asked permission for MM to speak with him...Bob Sanders is near the top of the list...long time Bates guy and did coach with GB last season...Jerry Gray is the other that was interviewing today I believe.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Hell, I rooted for the Pack through the 80's.  I'll root for them through anything.

While in college at UW Eau Claire, I actually went to the Packer/Viking game at the Dome during the strike in 1987. Got to see such greats as Paul Ott Carruth at RB and Alan Risher at QB.

Hey, fellow Bulgold here!

Me too

I made it a priority to never live more than one block from Water Street.

Oh yeah. Used to live right next o the Holiday station on Water. Good times.

 

[metsjets91]

whyd they get rid of him