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

[PikeBadger]

Litmus test? Could be a funeral.

Test aced. Could be their funerals?

 

[milani]

Test aced. Could be their funerals?

I guess raising the dead is a reality.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You would think this would translate into positive results against 3 rather sub par offenses like NY, Tampa, and Carolina. But we also know we had hiccups against those kind of teams earlier. Barry has to plan for these QBs etc. With Hebert, Goff, and Mahommes not on the other side of the line it may lull our players to sleep. If we do not see turnovers something is probably wrong. I suspect those teams are going to try and play ball control and just move the chains. But also remember that Tampa has Mike Evans and Godwin who can burn you.

I think it also helps that Love and the offense is finally starting to click. They were on the field for almost 1/2 of the first Quarter. If the offense continues to prosper, I think the defense will too.

I didn't get home until 3 am, but that perhaps was one of the more exciting regular season games I have attended.

 

[milani]

I think it also helps that Love and the offense is finally starting to click. They were on the field for almost 1/2 of the first Quarter. If the offense continues to prosper, I think the defense will too.

I didn't get home until 3 am, but that perhaps was one of the more exciting regular season games I have attended.

Our number of plays and TOP are more equal to the opposition lately. Whereas early in the season not so much.

 

[gopkrs]

I just hate the 3 man rush. Old school coaches just can't get over it. One more man back just does not make up for all the time the QB will most likely have imho. And for me, that's reason enough not to want a def coord. Other things defense; Someone has gotten a lot out of our secondary and that's great. On the other hand, with Campbell in I think our inside linebackers regress.

 

[milani]

I just hate the 3 man rush. Old school coaches just can't get over it. One more man back just does not make up for all the time the QB will most likely have imho. And for me, that's reason enough not to want a def coord. Other things defense; Someone has gotten a lot out of our secondary and that's great. On the other hand, with Campbell in I think our inside linebackers regress.

I hate the 3 man rush as well. There are a few times maybe with a large lead late in the game to run out the clock when you could do it. The one time I was annoyed was in the first half with 3rd and 18 and they went 3 man. Gave Mahommes all day. He starts running and just before he crosses the line he makes a play. Barry should have used a conventional 4 man or blitzed and if Mahommes decides to take off he does it right away. If he gains 18 so be it. It just so happens that the infamous " OWENS CAUGHT IT " catch occurred on a 3 man rush and cost us the 98' playoff game with 3 seconds left. Steve Young even had time to slip, regain his balance, and throw. Had there been a 4 man by the time he regains his balance he has to choose a different passing lane or scramble. Even the great Fritz Shurmur was foolish enough to use the 3.

 

[weeds]

I hate the 3 man rush as well. There are a few times maybe with a large lead late in the game to run out the clock when you could do it. The one time I was annoyed was in the first half with 3rd and 18 and they went 3 man. Gave Mahommes all day. He starts running and just before he crosses the line he makes a play. Barry should have used a conventional 4 man or blitzed and if Mahommes decides to take off he does it right away. If he gains 18 so be it. It just so happens that the infamous " OWENS CAUGHT IT " catch occurred on a 3 man rush and cost us the 98' playoff game with 3 seconds left. Steve Young even had time to slip, regain his balance, and throw. Had there been a 4 man by the time he regains his balance he has to choose a different passing lane or scramble. Even the great Fritz Shurmur was foolish enough to use the 3.

Damn, I hated that game...but you hit it square. That early exit ... gave Holmgren extra time to complete a few extra trips to Seattle in Paul Allen's jet.

 

[Voyageur]

I've never been a Barry fan, never will be. I don't think he's a great coach, and probably not even a good one. But, let's face it. The objective is to give up less points than what the opposition let's you score. That's been happening lately, and with a lot of the guys on the field being bargain basement free agents, and lower round draft picks that when we first hear about them we're like; "Who's that?"

It's difficult winning in the NFL when your best players can't take the field, and they eat up a lot of cap room. On defense, we've been short handed all year. Guys like Ballentine, Valentine, Ford, and Owens, have stepped up, and even if not all that talented, have done a fairly remarkable job of keeping the opposition out of the end zone.

Granted, watching our defense is frustration at it's best. Teams seem to be able to move the ball down the field at will. It seems like it's mistakes on their part that stops them more often than a great play by a Packer. But, then and again, there are those plays that do happen and we're like; "Wow! Where did that come from?"

We saw that in it's entirety against KC. They moved the ball up and down the field. They got close enough to get FGs, and even though they could have gotten in the end zone they didn't, because someone stepped up and made a play, or the Chiefs destructed on their own. But, mixed in there was the fact that our defense had been spending way too much time on the field, and had to play too perfectly for us to have a chance at winning, until recently, when our offense came to life. Now, the defense isn't being told that they have to go out there and get the ball back right away or we're doomed! Obviously, that fact alone, will make it easier for them to play their game, and be looser, and more capable of improvising.

Like I said, I'm not a Barry fan. I never will be. I don't like the defense. I may be old school, but I think it's easier to put together a defensive roster that fills the needs of a base 4-3, than a 3-4, because we end up pretty much playing a 4-3 with our existing defense quite often, out of necessity. But, that's my opinion, nothing more.

As far as Barry's future. Even if the Packers made the playoffs, and went all the way and won it all, unless I saw something exceptional happening with our defense where teams couldn't move the ball, or were held well under their average scoring, I doubt very much if I'd be giving him a new contract. I'd be looking for someone who can turn our defense into a solid competitor, to insure that Love doesn't have to play like Rodgers had to almost every season, because the defense was lacking. In the end, what keeps you in ball games, so you have a chance at winning, is good defense.

Just my opinion.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I've never been a Barry fan, never will be. I don't think he's a great coach, and probably not even a good one. But, let's face it. The objective is to give up less points than what the opposition let's you score. That's been happening lately, and with a lot of the guys on the field being bargain basement free agents, and lower round draft picks that when we first hear about them we're like; "Who's that?"

It's difficult winning in the NFL when your best players can't take the field, and they eat up a lot of cap room. On defense, we've been short handed all year. Guys like Ballentine, Valentine, Ford, and Owens, have stepped up, and even if not all that talented, have done a fairly remarkable job of keeping the opposition out of the end zone.

Granted, watching our defense is frustration at it's best. Teams seem to be able to move the ball down the field at will. It seems like it's mistakes on their part that stops them more often than a great play by a Packer. But, then and again, there are those plays that do happen and we're like; "Wow! Where did that come from?"

We saw that in it's entirety against KC. They moved the ball up and down the field. They got close enough to get FGs, and even though they could have gotten in the end zone they didn't, because someone stepped up and made a play, or the Chiefs destructed on their own. But, mixed in there was the fact that our defense had been spending way too much time on the field, and had to play too perfectly for us to have a chance at winning, until recently, when our offense came to life. Now, the defense isn't being told that they have to go out there and get the ball back right away or we're doomed! Obviously, that fact alone, will make it easier for them to play their game, and be looser, and more capable of improvising.

Like I said, I'm not a Barry fan. I never will be. I don't like the defense. I may be old school, but I think it's easier to put together a defensive roster that fills the needs of a base 4-3, than a 3-4, because we end up pretty much playing a 4-3 with our existing defense quite often, out of necessity. But, that's my opinion, nothing more.

As far as Barry's future. Even if the Packers made the playoffs, and went all the way and won it all, unless I saw something exceptional happening with our defense where teams couldn't move the ball, or were held well under their average scoring, I doubt very much if I'd be giving him a new contract. I'd be looking for someone who can turn our defense into a solid competitor, to insure that Love doesn't have to play like Rodgers had to almost every season, because the defense was lacking. In the end, what keeps you in ball games, so you have a chance at winning, is good defense.

Just my opinion.

Well said and pretty much sums up my feelings on the topic. That wasn't a dominating performance by the Defense Sunday night, but it was a good enough one to probably land Barry another "plus mark" on his resume.

That said, given the struggles that the Packers have had with finding a top DC, unless the defense collapses in the final 5 games, I predict that Barry is going to be here in 2024.

 

[milani]

Damn, I hated that game...but you hit it square. That early exit ... gave Holmgren extra time to complete a few extra trips to Seattle in Paul Allen's jet.

Also gave Andy Reid a chance to interview with Philly. Otherwise he may have been ours instead of Ray Rhodes.

 

[milani]

Well said and pretty much sums up my feelings on the topic. That wasn't a dominating performance by the Defense Sunday night, but it was a good enough one to probably land Barry another "plus mark" on his resume.

That said, given the struggles that the Packers have had with finding a top DC, unless the defense collapses in the final 5 games, I predict that Barry is going to be here in 2024.

I wanted to say that none of the Packer defenses in the last 13 seasons dating back to 2011 could have held KC and Mahommes to 19 points. But then 2 years ago when we lost to them in KC we only gave up 13 points.

 

[rmontro]

Also gave Andy Reid a chance to interview with Philly. Otherwise he may have been ours instead of Ray Rhodes.

I can't help but wonder what a Reid coached Packers team might have looked like, and how long he would have remained our coach?

 

[milani]

I can't help but wonder what a Reid coached Packers team might have looked like, and how long he would have remained our coach?

The 1999 team was still 8-8 with Rhodes. The 2000 team won its last 4 and finished 9-7 under Sherman. Reid could have gotten the same results or better. He game plans well. He sees the big picture. And I believe he would have gotten better post season results than we had from 2001-2004.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I wanted to say that none of the Packer defenses in the last 13 seasons dating back to 2011 could have held KC and Mahommes to 19 points. But then 2 years ago when we lost to them in KC we only gave up 13 points.

Yup, they played well in KC that day. That was under Joe Barry though.

This current defense has to get better on run defense, containing the QB and shutting down opposing TE's. I've been a bit disappointed in Campbell this season, hopefully he stays healthy and improves.

 

[Voyageur]

The 1999 team was still 8-8 with Rhodes. The 2000 team won its last 4 and finished 9-7 under Sherman. Reid could have gotten the same results or better. He game plans well. He sees the big picture. And I believe he would have gotten better post season results than we had from 2001-2004.

Another thing Reid does well is find coaches that mesh together to create more unity on and off the field.

 

[El Guapo]

I can't help but wonder what a Reid coached Packers team might have looked like, and how long he would have remained our coach?

Well, we could conclude that the Packers would have been the ones converting a 4th & 26th instead of the other way around.

 

[Schultz]

I wanted to say that none of the Packer defenses in the last 13 seasons dating back to 2011 could have held KC and Mahommes to 19 points. But then 2 years ago when we lost to them in KC we only gave up 13 points.

LOL. Did you just prove yourself wrong?

 

[El Guapo]

Seeing reports that Robert Saleh is on the hot seat, that raises the stakes that could entice LaFleur to make a move. If he could bring his best friend in to be the DC, both LaFleur and Packers fans alike would get what they wanted.

 

[Schultz]

You would think this would translate into positive results against 3 rather sub par offenses like NY, Tampa, and Carolina. But we also know we had hiccups against those kind of teams earlier. Barry has to plan for these QBs etc. With Hebert, Goff, and Mahommes not on the other side of the line it may lull our players to sleep. If we do not see turnovers something is probably wrong. I suspect those teams are going to try and play ball control and just move the chains. But also remember that Tampa has Mike Evans and Godwin who can burn you.

Tampa has been running the ball much better recently also.

 

[milani]

Tampa has been running the ball much better recently also.

In the playoff loss their O line was strong against us most of the game. Last year when we beat them 14-12 not so much. They still have a QB that can hurt you with play action and he can play in cold weather.

 

[Magooch]

I've never been a Barry fan, never will be. I don't think he's a great coach, and probably not even a good one. But, let's face it. The objective is to give up less points than what the opposition let's you score. That's been happening lately, and with a lot of the guys on the field being bargain basement free agents, and lower round draft picks that when we first hear about them we're like; "Who's that?"

It's difficult winning in the NFL when your best players can't take the field, and they eat up a lot of cap room. On defense, we've been short handed all year. Guys like Ballentine, Valentine, Ford, and Owens, have stepped up, and even if not all that talented, have done a fairly remarkable job of keeping the opposition out of the end zone.

Granted, watching our defense is frustration at it's best. Teams seem to be able to move the ball down the field at will. It seems like it's mistakes on their part that stops them more often than a great play by a Packer. But, then and again, there are those plays that do happen and we're like; "Wow! Where did that come from?"

We saw that in it's entirety against KC. They moved the ball up and down the field. They got close enough to get FGs, and even though they could have gotten in the end zone they didn't, because someone stepped up and made a play, or the Chiefs destructed on their own. But, mixed in there was the fact that our defense had been spending way too much time on the field, and had to play too perfectly for us to have a chance at winning, until recently, when our offense came to life. Now, the defense isn't being told that they have to go out there and get the ball back right away or we're doomed! Obviously, that fact alone, will make it easier for them to play their game, and be looser, and more capable of improvising.

Like I said, I'm not a Barry fan. I never will be. I don't like the defense. I may be old school, but I think it's easier to put together a defensive roster that fills the needs of a base 4-3, than a 3-4, because we end up pretty much playing a 4-3 with our existing defense quite often, out of necessity. But, that's my opinion, nothing more.

As far as Barry's future. Even if the Packers made the playoffs, and went all the way and won it all, unless I saw something exceptional happening with our defense where teams couldn't move the ball, or were held well under their average scoring, I doubt very much if I'd be giving him a new contract. I'd be looking for someone who can turn our defense into a solid competitor, to insure that Love doesn't have to play like Rodgers had to almost every season, because the defense was lacking. In the end, what keeps you in ball games, so you have a chance at winning, is good defense.

Just my opinion.

That's pretty much my thoughts exactly. I would agree that we have looked better this year, but frankly the bar has been set so chshockingly low in the past under Barry that even performing at an avera*average* level looks like a night-and-day improvement. As it standsAs it stands, through week 12 we were 18th in total defense, 9th in passing defense, 27th in rushing defense, and 10th in scoring defense. I suppose if one was so inclined they could point to our pass and scoring defense and be relatively pleased with that, but at the same time someone of the opposite inclination could point to our rush and total defense and feel justified in saying we've been underwhelming on the whole.

Overall though I think 18th in total defense is more or less indicative of where we're at as a defense: it's just pretty average. There have not been too many games this season where I've walked away feeling like "we won that game *because* of our defense," but there have been more than a few in which I've left feeling like "we won that game *in spite of* our defense," and that's more or less how it's been for a few years now.

Just this past week, for instance: I've seen a lot of praise for our defensive performance against the Chiefs. And while I wouldn't call it a BAD performance, I don't think it was a particularly good one either. I think many will look at us holding them to 19 points and - without considering the context of the whole season and how the Chiefs' offense has been - will look at that and think something like "it's the Chiefs! They are an offensive juggernaut, they score at will, they have Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, and we held them to just 19 points!"

But the reality of the season is that this is just slightly below average for the Chiefs. By my count they've been held to 19 or less in 5/12 games this year, and overall are scoring 22.9 points per game. This is not the free-scoring Mahomes-Hill-Kelce Chiefs of years prior. Like I said: not a bad performance, but not a particularly great one, either. (And I think you could also make the case that some of the Chiefs' struggles were largely self-inflicted whether by mistakes, miscommunications, penalties, etc, but this is of course a bit more subjective). And this has largely been the case across the board, too: in twelve games this season, our defense has only had two games in which it held the opponent to significantly less than their scoring average (by "significantly," I mean at least 3 points/a field goal's worth of difference. This would be the second matchup against the Lions and the Rams game). In three games, they have allowed the opponent to score significantly more than their scoring average (same measure; Falcons, Lions, Steelers). In the rest, our opponents have scored against us roughly the same as their season-long scoring averages. Of course scoring is not the only way to evaluate a defense (and to be fair I have admittedly not bothered to dig deep enough to see which are actually pure "defensive" points conceded, less special teams or points off of turnovers), but I think it is a decent broad-strokes way to look at things.

At the end of the day though I ultimately find myself banging the same drum that I have been for years now: even if we have been improved this year (improvements which again have more or less resulted in an "average" performing defense on the whole), we are still underperforming relative to the talent and investment put into assembling our defense as it stands. As I've said before, when you consider the combination of money and draft capital invested (I believe we're at *eight* first round picks on the defense?), this is one of the most "costly" defenses in league history, so "average" is simply not good enough. Years upon years of significant investment in the defense should not net us the 18th-ranked total defense. At the end of the day, we've either been drafting/acquiring the "wrong" players (in that the players we've brought in are not good enough to produce a better-than-average defense) or the players we've got are not being utilized to their best potential.

And ultimately I do not believe that players like Clark, Alexander, Gary, Walker, Van Ness, Campbell, etc are bad players. I don't believe that we have drafted particularly poorly on defense. And so I'm more inclined to believe that comes down to coaching. We hired a guy who has a track record of being a downright BAD defensive coordinator prior to joining us, and in the time since joining us he has consistently put forth a defensive product that has underperformed relative to the talent/players at his disposal, so I'd still be more than happy to see a new DC brought in when it's all said and done. I mean, let’s be real here: can anyone honestly say that Barry is maximizing this defense’s potential, that he’s getting the most out of the players at his disposal?

Well said and pretty much sums up my feelings on the topic. That wasn't a dominating performance by the Defense Sunday night, but it was a good enough one to probably land Barry another "plus mark" on his resume.

That said, given the struggles that the Packers have had with finding a top DC, unless the defense collapses in the final 5 games, I predict that Barry is going to be here in 2024.

I think you're right about this too, though. And this is an area in which I feel my own personal philosophy is more or less the opposite of the club's philosophy. It seems like the team has historically more or less taken the approach that coaching positions (and playing ones, for that matter) are yours "to lose" and you'll keep that job until you've given the team no choice but to make a change. It seems like we've often historically erred on the side of hanging onto coaches and/or players for too long rather than cutting them loose "too early". In general I'm of the opposite inclination: No spot should be guaranteed to anyone (players or coaches alike) and it should not be assumed that a player/coach should hold onto their spot unless they've actively done something egregious to lose it. I'm largely of the mind that each season should be seen as an audition, as a job interview for the following year and if you're not actively confirming yourself to be the right person for the job then your position should not be seen as "safe". By the team's precedent, Joe Barry might not have done enough to get himself fired (I am not sure I would reach the same conclusion myself), but I don't think he has really done anything to confirm that he is the best choice for his role, either.

I am reminded of a quote that I find myself bringing up a lot from Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel: "Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive."

 

[BrokenArrow]

In general I'm of the opposite inclination: No spot should be guaranteed to anyone (players or coaches alike) and it should not be assumed that a player/coach should hold onto their spot unless they've actively done something egregious to lose it. I'm largely of the mind that each season should be seen as an audition, as a job interview for the following year

So I'm guessing you would have fired Holmgren after the '94 season after 3 years of failing to reach double-digit wins?

 

[Magooch]

So I'm guessing you would have fired Holmgren after the '94 season after 3 years of failing to reach double-digit wins?

Sure, good “gotcha”.

 

[weeds]

Well said and pretty much sums up my feelings on the topic. That wasn't a dominating performance by the Defense Sunday night, but it was a good enough one to probably land Barry another "plus mark" on his resume.

That said, given the struggles that the Packers have had with finding a top DC, unless the defense collapses in the final 5 games, I predict that Barry is going to be here in 2024.

Yeah... the man is just an enigma wrapped in a question mark.

 

[Half Empty]

So I'm guessing you would have fired Holmgren after the '94 season after 3 years of failing to reach double-digit wins?

Since we obviously have 20/20 hindsight on the great job he eventually did, is the bar set at double-digit wins or, perhaps playoff appearances (2 0f the 3), or playoff wins, or...?

When we have a standard, and since we do have 20/20 hindsight, I can probably find coaches or players we can agree should have been dumped but weren't - at least as many as those that were given a longer leash and came through.