Harry Sydney - The Differences in Coach(es)

[IPBprez]

PACKER REPORT - DOT - COM


Sydney Speaks! I like what I see!

By: Harry Sydney

Date: May 19, 2006

Harry Sydney is not one to sugarcoat anything when it comes to expressing his feelings about the Green Bay Packers. He will tell fans what they need to hear, or read. He explains in his column today why he is as optimistic as ever about the Packers.

Lately I have been asked, ‘What's up with my new change of attitude?’ I'm not sure what those that ask mean? Then they say that I seem more positive about the Green Bay Packers, and I say I am because of the things I am seeing take place. Let me explain:

I'm not going to sound positive when I see things that I believe aren't about winning football.

You must understand that I am a FOOTBALL HOMER, not necessarily a PACKER HOMER, so I'm never, and I mean never, going to say things look great when they don't. I'm not going to make any excuses for a player, or a coach. That's not my style. A mistake is a mistake; bad play is bad play. As I've said before my opinions are based on years of experience as a player and a coach.

My years at San Francisco under Bill Walsh and George Seifert taught me about winning football and what it took to get to Super Bowls.

I learned how to be a student of the game which is different than just being a player.

I learned how to see the big picture, not just focus on my job but everyone's job. That's what a student does because that makes him a better player.

Then when Mike Holmgren was hired in 1992 he brought the same philosophy to Green Bay that he had learned in San Francisco. The standards began to change. I also was part of that transformation and the benefits of those changes were two more Super Bowl trips, winning one. I have been very lucky to be part of four Super Bowls being one of only 11 men in the history of the NFL to have played and coached in a Super Bowl and won. Let the truth be known if the Packers would have won the game against the Denver Broncos I would have been the only individual in the history of the NFL to have won four back to back Super Bowl games two as a player and a coach. I'm not saying that to blow my own horn, but to let you know when I say something it's because of my love of the game and my knowledge of it. Nothing is based on emotions, and trust me, nothing is personal!!!!

My change of attitude with the Packers is because of the fact that thus far I like what I've seen.

I didn't like what I saw under Mike Sherman and his regime.
I didn't like his decision-making process, play calling and the way he handled the different situations during his tenure.

(Neither did I - IPBprez)

Mike Sherman is gone now and Mike McCarthy is here. I have coached with both of them. Trust me, they are different people. The best way I can explain the difference is telling you a story about each.

When Sherman and I were coaching together we had a home game and it was roughly 11:40, 20 minutes before the game. We were just getting ready to walk through the tunnel and he stopped me in a panic and he said to me, ‘Harry, what happens if they use this defense because we didn't practice against it?’ I said to him, ‘Listen, Mike, they only used this defense 5% of the time and we couldn't practice against everything, so if they do use it the players and us as coaches will have to adjust.’ That really confused him, so I further explained. I said, ‘We teach them how to handle black and white but they get paid to handle gray; that's why they are professional athletes.’ Needless to say he spent a lot of the game expecting something that never happened. So if you have read my articles lately, or if you live in the Green Bay area, and have heard me on the radio on Monday or Tuesday, you might have noticed a little change in my tone.

(Hmmmmmm - pretty much sums it up...)


Now it's only fair that I tell you one of my McCarthy stories. I can't remember the game, but I remember the event. We were playing a team that liked to blitz a lot and during the game they hadn't, but McCarthy was waiting to see the look and he was always in Brett's ear telling him regardless of what play we have called that when you see that look change the play and go for the juggler. Finally, we got the look and Brett saw it. He changed the play, touchdown, it was that simple. I saw a coach prepare his player to execute, but much more I saw McCarthy give Brett Favre permission to use his knowledge and experience to be successful, but at the same time not see a ghost.

(Right about now, I'm thinking a certain line of thought -- can you figure it out? What are we about to see in the 2006 Season - that hasn't been seen so far - for the most part -- ever, in our Star QB's career...? My ESP is makin' my neck itch... Tromadz, you got an inkling? IPBprez)


Let's make no mistake about it, I'm still going to tell it like it is.

I do like Mike McCarthy and respect him, but that doesn't really matter because you need someone to tell you what you might not want to hear but need to hear, whether you like it or not.

I don't bleed green and gold, but I DO LIKE WHAT I SEE!!!!!

===========================================

Editor’s note: Harry Sydney is a former fullback and assistant coach for the Green Bay Packers. If you have a question for Harry, e-mail it to PackerReport.com managing editor Todd Korth at [email protected], and he will forward it to him.

 

[Timmons]

That's an interesting article and I agree with the differences in coaching philosophies, however, to NOT remember which game he was referring to with the "brett" example... that's VERY suspect. Furthermore, quoting another coach in time of need for an article. Sydney doesn't gain my respect, hence I don't care what his opinion is, even if I agree with it.

 

[DePack]

That's an interesting article and I agree with the differences in coaching philosophies, however, to NOT remember which game he was referring to with the "brett" example... that's VERY suspect. Furthermore, quoting another coach in time of need for an article. Sydney doesn't gain my respect, hence I don't care what his opinion is, even if I agree with it.

Gotta agree with you Timmons. I take by the article that he is one of those Sportstalk radio guys. Needs to make headlines for himself, hence the fact that half the article was about his TREMENDOUS playing and coaching career :roll:

He has never walked down the tunnel 20 minutes before a game with Mike McCarthy the HEADCOACH. I hope and expect that MM will be just as thorough as Sherman was.

I will ask this though. Where was this story about Sherman when we were winning division titles? It's easy to rip the man after he is gone. He should relocate here in Philly......he'd fit right in.

 

[Packnic]

whether or not any of that may not ever be known. but you can tell just in the way they handle themselves that there is a big difference in styles and personalities. i never felt that sherman was sure of himself and i kinda felt that the whole team carried that concerned look he always had on his face with them. you can see that mm is more confident and i believe its the right change we needed. we need some attitude around here.

 

[Timmons]

The change is most welcome. I liked Sherman when he expected his players to deliver... going for it on 4th and one. There was even article a few years ago where a player was quoted (I think it was an Olineman). he said, that they loved it when Sherman put in their shoulders to deliver. I thnk Sherman waivered too much and that hurt in the long run.

 

[Zero2Cool]

That's an interesting article and I agree with the differences in coaching philosophies, however, to NOT remember which game he was referring to with the "brett" example... that's VERY suspect. Furthermore, quoting another coach in time of need for an article. Sydney doesn't gain my respect, hence I don't care what his opinion is, even if I agree with it.

Let's try an consider the time frame of each memory too.

 

[GakkofNorway]

I think Sherman and Rossley did a good job the first years, but they lacked the abillity to come up with new ideas as the league adapted to their style, therefore they became too predictable.

 

[TheStone]

I never heard of this guy before. My own fault I think, but I just read
his article and I must say I don't like him :!:

All this blabla about HIS great career ONLY to explain why he is SOOOO
impartial. Why not just say: "I didn't like MS, but I liked what I've seen from MM so far."

On the other side I enjoyed what he wrote about the team..... :-?

Am I schizophrenic :?: :shock:

And what also worries me is that the only words in this text that are
multilingual are "blabla" and "schizophren(ic)".
Must mean something or maybe it's just the offseason :wink:

 

[IPBprez]

That's an interesting article and I agree with the differences in coaching philosophies, however, to NOT remember which game he was referring to with the "brett" example... that's VERY suspect. Furthermore, quoting another coach in time of need for an article. Sydney doesn't gain my respect, hence I don't care what his opinion is, even if I agree with it.

Let's try an consider the time frame of each memory too.

I would agree here, as well. The Era of which Coaching Staff holds sway has everything to do with the mentality of the Team and what type of game they bring to the Opponent(s).

I would also add, that to this day, I am bewildered by Brett's consistent defense of Mike Sherman. Sherman, in essence, wasted Brett's huge talent on several levels. Most of which are exceedingly obvious.

Here, we once had a former TE Coach, who became the Head Coach and never once, in his whole tenure did he work to make the TE position the highlight that it was under Mike HOLMGREN. --- I will never forgive the guy for that. Did he just coast thru his job as Tight Ends Coach, or what? It was just plain wrong! Disagree all ya like - but make sure you don't flip the coin when another Coach pulls the same stunt.

Here's the deal -- I see Mike McCarthy as the guy who'll shoulder butt ya, if ya try and grab his spot at the bar.... especialy when they're four-deep waiting on a table for All-Ya-Can-Eat Fish Fry Fridays..... He don't take no bull, he don't give no bull - and he answers a straight question with a STRAIGHT answer -- I can only respect that. He comes from blue-collar stock --- which means he isn't afraid to get his fingers dirty nor will he send errand boys (Assistant Coaches) down the field to deliver messages to a Player because whatever.... We saw that a LOT with Mike Sherman.

My last question seems to be too much for the masses ----

"Will Mike McCarthy allow Brett Favre the freedom to call his own plays, finally?
(Something Sherman would never really do - especially with Rossley as OC - geesh)

Well, Cheeseheads? Opinions / Will he, or won't he?

 

[calicheesehead]

I beleive that MM trusts BF's knowledge of the game and the defenses which he faces. That being said I believe that MM will allow BF to call his own plays during the game to a degree, not 100% of the time but perhaps up to 10% of the time.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

My last question seems to be too much for the masses ----

"Will Mike McCarthy allow Brett Favre the freedom to call his own plays, finally?
(Something Sherman would never really do - especially with Rossley as OC - geesh)

Well, Cheeseheads? Opinions / Will he, or won't he?

Why should Favre call the plays?? Brett himself has said that he's not interested in calling the plays, that's not his job. His job is to execute.

Granted I believe that the QB should have a staple of audibles to go to if he reads that the defense is ready for the play or to quickly take advantage of a weakness. But that does not mean that he should call the plays throughout the game.

One of the main reasons for hiring MM was because of his offensive creativity. Play-calling is a huge component of that creativity. Why should that be handed over to the QB when that QB has never done it before?

The idea that Favre should call his own plays is not a route that we should take with this offense. MM and Jag should develop a good number of audibles for Brett though, which is not the freedom he had with Rossley's offense.

 

[DePack]

You stole my answer Bobby.

IPB....your analysis of MM may be correct. Whether or not that translates into a good coach, I'm not so sure. If it were that easy, every team would just issue some psychological test to hire their coach. Remember Shula and Landry were more like Sherman personalitywise and they did alright.


BTW....I emailed Mike Sherman and told him that you "will never forgive him". He asked me to see if you would reconsider......for the sake of him sleeping at night.








It IS nice to see you jump back on the Brett Favre bandwagon again!!!!

 

[IPBprez]

You stole my answer Bobby.

IPB....your analysis of MM may be correct. Whether or not that translates into a good coach, I'm not so sure. If it were that easy, every team would just issue some psychological test to hire their coach. Remember Shula and Landry were more like Sherman personalitywise and they did alright.


BTW....I emailed Mike Sherman and told him that you "will never forgive him". He asked me to see if you would reconsider......for the sake of him sleeping at night.

It IS nice to see you jump back on the Brett Favre bandwagon again!!!!

Number One -- I don't ride 'bandwagons' - that's for the Tampa Bay Buccaneer crowd - there one day and gone the next - whichever the latest fad is (?) - man, they're on it... woohoo... Everyone on here oughta know I don't operate that way.

I'm a "Packers" Acoplyte, not just a Favre-luver..... big diff..

Number Two -- Holmgren let Favre call the pplays quite often - he held rein with a steady hand, I grant that - but still, he would "ask" Favre what he thought oughta happen next in a series of plays, then said - "go do it" -- I've seen the video of that process in action.. so have most of you, I would think.

So, yes - Brett has had the luxury (of sorts) calling his own plays, if you will -- with a modicom of oversite by Iron-man Mike Homgren (fer sure) --- but, remember, back then, ol' Favre wasn't the seasoned veteran he is today -- Holmgren would probably just sit back and watch the fireworks (until the INT's came back, that is)......

Oh, and Shula only won one Superbowl, too -- and NONE with his SuperStar QB, Dan Marino -- I wouldn't rate him nearly as high as I would Bill Walsh. Ol' Tom Landry was one of my fav Coaches back in the Lombardi Era - them, and their hats... Wow! Landry was certainly a steadfast, stick with what works type of Coach - and he didn't put up with primadonnas, either - much like Lombardi, or Chuck Noll. After Landry went away - The Cowboys were never again that type of Team, and have only been able to buy their way into the brass ring ever since. Just can't stand them Cowboys....

You tell Shermy (or SherrRossley) I said "good luck"...!
Somehow, I don't think he'll ever be a Head Coach, ever again.....
He'd have to fall into the roll due to a death on the Team, somehow.
But, you tell him, anyway....

 

[DePack]

You stole my answer Bobby.

IPB....your analysis of MM may be correct. Whether or not that translates into a good coach, I'm not so sure. If it were that easy, every team would just issue some psychological test to hire their coach. Remember Shula and Landry were more like Sherman personalitywise and they did alright.


BTW....I emailed Mike Sherman and told him that you "will never forgive him". He asked me to see if you would reconsider......for the sake of him sleeping at night.

It IS nice to see you jump back on the Brett Favre bandwagon again!!!!

Number One -- I don't ride 'bandwagons' - that's for the Tampa Bay Buccaneer crowd - there one day and gone the next - whichever the latest fad is (?) - man, they're on it... woohoo... Everyone on here oughta know I don't operate that way.

I'm a "Packers" Acoplyte, not just a Favre-luver..... big diff..

Number Two -- Holmgren let Favre call the pplays quite often - he held rein with a steady hand, I grant that - but still, he would "ask" Favre what he thought oughta happen next in a series of plays, then said - "go do it" -- I've seen the video of that process in action.. so have most of you, I would think.

So, yes - Brett has had the luxury (of sorts) calling his own plays, if you will -- with a modicom of oversite by Iron-man Mike Homgren (fer sure) --- but, remember, back then, ol' Favre wasn't the seasoned veteran he is today -- Holmgren would probably just sit back and watch the fireworks (until the INT's came back, that is)......

Oh, and Shula only won one Superbowl, too -- and NONE with his SuperStar QB, Dan Marino -- I wouldn't rate him nearly as high as I would Bill Walsh. Ol' Tom Landry was one of my fav Coaches back in the Lombardi Era - them, and their hats... Wow! Landry was certainly a steadfast, stick with what works type of Coach - and he didn't put up with primadonnas, either - much like Lombardi, or Chuck Noll. After Landry went away - The Cowboys were never again that type of Team, and have only been able to buy their way into the brass ring ever since. Just can't stand them Cowboys....

You tell Shermy (or SherrRossley) I said "good luck"...!
Somehow, I don't think he'll ever be a Head Coach, ever again.....
He'd have to fall into the roll due to a death on the Team, somehow.
But, you tell him, anyway....

lol...I'm just messin' with ya.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Number Two -- Holmgren let Favre call the pplays quite often - he held rein with a steady hand, I grant that - but still, he would "ask" Favre what he thought oughta happen next in a series of plays, then said - "go do it" -- I've seen the video of that process in action.. so have most of you, I would think.

If you definition of Favre calling the plays is that he has input into the play calling, then that seems just fine to me.

There's a big difference between asking Brett his opinion on playing calling versus the play calling that Peyton Manning does in Indy though. I thought that's what you were looking for MM to let Favre do.

So to your question, yes Favre should have input into the play calling throughout the game. Favre should not control the play calling though.

 

[Timmons]

Number Two -- Holmgren let Favre call the pplays quite often - he held rein with a steady hand, I grant that - but still, he would "ask" Favre what he thought oughta happen next in a series of plays, then said - "go do it" -- I've seen the video of that process in action.. so have most of you, I would think.

So, yes - Brett has had the luxury (of sorts) calling his own plays, if you will -- with a modicom of oversite by Iron-man Mike Homgren (fer sure) --- but, remember, back then, ol' Favre wasn't the seasoned veteran he is today -- Holmgren would probably just sit back and watch the fireworks (until the INT's came back, that is)......

So there's footage of Holmgren asking Brett for his input ONE TIME, and now we're saying that Holmgren let Favre call his own plays quite often? Not only is that TERRIBLE logic, it's flat wrong.

The art of play calling is one that should be left to the coaches. Player input is key. The coach needs to know what the players think. If you've got a receiver who's hot and hungry, the play caller needs to know it. If you've got a QB with an injured thumb, the play caller needs to know that.

The only plays Brett has called on a regular basis have been audibles. Which as mentioned above, he should continue to do.

However, the play calling should be done by the coach. There are reasons that they need to run certain plays, make reads on defense, and make adjustments accordingly.

So NO, Brett never has been a play caller and should never be. His input is welcome and his audibles will always be available (Remember the long TD in the SB win?) How about the TD he had a few years back in a goalline stance where one of the recievers was simply not covered. He called a quick snap and fired it right in there.

 

[digsthepack]

Agreed Bobby. Sherman never appeared to be interested in what Favre was seeing on the field and asking for his input. I always found that ridiculous and arrogant. As well as the fact that #4 really did not have an audible package under MS...more of a series of checkdown throws that never exploited what the defense gave away. MS always seemed too concerned about "what ifs" than just letting his coaches/players do what they did best.

Favre should and will have input under MM, but I do not think Favre's aggressive, risk-taking mentality is conducive to calling plays with regularity.

Even at this stage of his career, he needs to be managed and coached...something that the MS staff never really seemed to grasp as they appeared too in awe of the guy to rankle his feathers.

 

[DePack]

Agreed Bobby. Sherman never appeared to be interested in what Favre was seeing on the field and asking for his input. I always found that ridiculous and arrogant. As well as the fact that #4 really did not have an audible package under MS...more of a series of checkdown throws that never exploited what the defense gave away. MS always seemed too concerned about "what ifs" than just letting his coaches/players do what they did best.

Favre should and will have input under MM, but I do not think Favre's aggressive, risk-taking mentality is conducive to calling plays with regularity.

Even at this stage of his career, he needs to be managed and coached...something that the MS staff never really seemed to grasp as they appeared too in awe of the guy to rankle his feathers.

The old DePack would take issue with you burying my man Mike.......the new DePack will let that slide.


AHHHH ****** :wink:

 

[IPBprez]

Number Two -- Holmgren let Favre call the pplays quite often - he held rein with a steady hand, I grant that - but still, he would "ask" Favre what he thought oughta happen next in a series of plays, then said - "go do it" -- I've seen the video of that process in action.. so have most of you, I would think.

If you definition of Favre calling the plays is that he has input into the play calling, then that seems just fine to me.

There's a big difference between asking Brett his opinion on playing calling versus the play calling that Peyton Manning does in Indy though. I thought that's what you were looking for MM to let Favre do.

So to your question, yes Favre should have input into the play calling throughout the game. Favre should not control the play calling though.

There may be a difference, but it is slightly subtle at best. Not even John Elway had complete leeway aside from the what Shanahan wanted done. If anyone thinks Elway just winged it out there, you'd be more than crazy.

I think Brett could handle it just fine - remember his book (FAVRE) on the DVD it discusses how he used to hate watching film, UNTIL Holmgren rubbed his nose in it -- after that, he started paying attention and the next thing you know, we were in 1995 and what a year that was, ending with Pittsburgh.

Let's just see if our McCarthy Era includes some of this tactic - they still have the ear-piece in the helmet, ya know.

Oh, and Timmons (?) - just because there's only footage included in the book, one time... doesn't mean it only happend...one time. Let's don't be nit-picky when the whole conversation is in generalizations.