Joe Whitt

[HardRightEdge]

Just wondered where you found info. regarding Perry staying with the Packers? I saw a report that he would interview with the Texans.

Thanks.

I did not say Perry is "staying with the Packers". I said he was "retained". He's still listed as under contract at Packers.com. He was not fired.

Rooney Rule or not, I don't think they would have interviewed Perry for the DC job if they did not like his work.

The point being, however bad the D-backfield play might have been, it would appear the brain trust does not believe it was Whitt's or Perry's fault.

 

[PikeBadger]

Whitt could have been handcuffed by Capers. There's also the team morale factor...guys might really enjoy playing for him and that goes a long way.

Agree with this and tend to lean in the direction that Whitt can indeed coach Cornerbacks well but that Hayward and Hyde weren’t used in a manner to maximize their skills. The fact that they both had a great deal of success immediately after leaving Green Bay answers a lot of my earlier suspicions about the Capers defensive scheme.

Now the only question remaining for me is, who’s idea was it to keep Capers as long as we did?

 

[PackerDNA]

I did not say Perry is "staying with the Packers". I said he was "retained". He's still listed as under contract at Packers.com. He was not fired.

Rooney Rule or not, I don't think they would have interviewed Perry for the DC job if they did not like his work.

The point being, however bad the D-backfield play might have been, it would appear the brain trust does not believe it was Whitt's or Perry's fault.

Doesn't the Rooney Rule only apply to HC and GM hirings?

 

[PikeBadger]

Just because a guy is highly respected doesn't necessarily mean he is a good coach or would make a good coordinator. When your defensive backfield is as bad as ours was it is a perfectly legitimate question to wonder why the coach of that unit is held in such high regard.

That said I'm perfectly willing to accept MMs decision to keep him around. If it was indeed all Capers' fault then perhaps he is what we all thought he was.

I agree but there were a significant number of posters here who thought Thompson was doing a lousy job of drafting defensive “talent”.

Imo, Thompson’s greatest strength was identifying NFL calibre talent. I also feel that his biggest weakness was his unwavering loyalty to his coaching staff. He is ultimately responsible for at least not forcing Capers to change his scheme to fit the players abilities, through McCarthy.

 

[Dantés]

I agree but there were a significant number of posters here who thought Thompson was doing a lousy job of drafting defensive “talent”.

Imo, Thompson’s greatest strength was identifying NFL calibre talent. I also feel that his biggest weakness was his unwavering loyalty to his coaching staff. He is ultimately responsible for at least not forcing Capers to change his scheme to fit the players abilities, through McCarthy.

But it's McCarthy that has control of the coaching staff. Usually when a GM starts trying to force a coach to do things that really should be up to a coach, that's when things get ugly and unsettled.

Personally, I think Thompson's biggest weakness was his unwillingness (most of the time) to use free agency to supplement the roster.

 

[HardRightEdge]

But it's McCarthy that has control of the coaching staff.

I don't know why people buy into these stories.

Imagine the following hypothetical conversation from two years ago:

McCarthy: I think it's time for a DC change.

Ball: Capers has $5 million guaranteed [or whatever the amount] left on his contract.

More conversation ensues.

 

[Dantés]

I don't know why people buy into these stories.

Imagine the following hypothetical conversation from two years ago:

McCarthy: I think it's time for a DC change.

Ball: Capers has $5 million guaranteed [or whatever the amount] left on his contract.

More conversation ensues.

Can you clarify your point? I'm not sure if you're saying that McCarthy could not have fired Capers if he wanted to, or if he could have and chose not to.

 

[rmontro]

McCarthy: I think it's time for a DC change.

Ball: Capers has $5 million guaranteed [or whatever the amount] left on his contract.

You're saying they hung onto Capers as long as they did for purely financial reasons? I hope that's not true but it does sound possible.

 

[Mondio]

They hypothetical could easily have been after 14, what happened. Clay took himself out, some vets made some bad decisions within a game plan that kicked their ****ing ***** in the NFCCG for 55 of 60 minutes. Ok, HC needs to have more oversight of all operations, D schemes are fine. Then we had 15 and a defense that actually kept us in games while the offense sputtered all over the place, final assesment at years end, if we could have had the offense going all season, D would be fine. Then '16 and the enormous cluster in the back half a long with a lot of linebacker injury, assesment, well, it's hard to hold that against him as no coordinator is going to get **** out those guys with such little available to even practice with let alone play with. Then '17, defense was fairly healthy, at least enough to prevent the same problems plaguing us that have been plaguing for a long time, time to go.

I don't think they hung on to Capers for his contract. he counts nothing against the cap and the financials of the team itself are more the presidents responsibility, not Ball's or Ted's

 

[HardRightEdge]

Can you clarify your point? I'm not sure if you're saying that McCarthy could not have fired Capers if he wanted to, or if he could have and chose not to.

You're saying they hung onto Capers as long as they did for purely financial reasons? I hope that's not true but it does sound possible.

I didn't include Thompson in that conversation to illustrate one aspect of the decision making process: the financial issue. Thompson would have had an opinion on the matter from a football standpoint which might or might not agree with McCarthy's and perhaps a foot in the financial side to the extent he had budgetary control.

The point is this:

It is unreasonable to think McCarthy would have 100% decision making authority on his coordinators. It is unreasonable to think that even if he pounded the table, other more senior managers may have disagreed as to the extent of the problem or the cost/benefit.

Of course I have no idea if McCarthy might have tried to make the case for parting with Capers at some earlier point, but rest assured he could not have just walked into Thompson's office and said, "I just told Dom to pack his bags."

 

[HardRightEdge]

Doesn't the Rooney Rule only apply to HC and GM hirings?

It does, technically.

 

[Dantés]

I didn't include Thompson in that conversation to illustrate one aspect of the decision making process: the financial issue. Thompson would have had an opinion on the matter from a football standpoint which might or might not agree with McCarthy's and perhaps a foot in the financial side to the extent he had budgetary control.

The point is this:

It is unreasonable to think McCarthy would have 100% decision making authority on his coordinators. It is unreasonable to think that even if he pounded the table, other more senior managers may have disagreed as to the extent of the problem or the cost/benefit.

Of course I have no idea if McCarthy might have tried to make the case for parting with Capers at some earlier point, but rest assured he could not have just walked into Thompson's office and said, "I just told Dom to pack his bags."

I find it much more likely that keeping Capers for as long as they did had more to do with an institutional belief in continuity and the reality that the Packers have normally been finishing their season after the majority of coaching hiring/firings have already taken place.

But when everything that anyone reports is that the coaching staff is McCarthy's domain, is it really so strange to believe that that's true?

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't think they hung on to Capers for his contract. he counts nothing against the cap and the financials of the team itself are more the presidents responsibility, not Ball's or Ted's.

This is business wrapped around a football team.

Many are confused over the timing of the Adams and Linsley contracts because they always view these things through the cap lens and pending free agency period. What was the hurry, especially with the GM job up in the air? I'm pretty well convinced at this point that those contracts were signed on 12/30 with signing bonus checks cut in 2017 to save a couple million on federal income taxes. The conversations leading up to that decision probably included Baniel. Who's he? The VP or Finance, effectively the CFO.

To think the question, "how much do we owe Capers if we fire him?" would have never come up in the conversation is naive.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I find it much more likely that keeping Capers for as long as they did had more to do with an institutional belief in continuity and the reality that the Packers have normally been finishing their season after the majority of coaching hiring/firings have already taken place.

But when everything that anyone reports is that the coaching staff is McCarthy's domain, is it really so strange to believe that that's true?

While I agree with that, I also think that the Packers didn't fire Capers for a few other reasons. The first, using the excuse that injuries were his biggest problem in trying to field a good defense. The second might have been ultimately the one that got TT reassigned and Capers fired, not enough talent to work with or not bringing that talent up to a high enough level. Over the last 6 drafts, the Packers spent a vast majority of their resources on the defense. So either TT sucked at drafting or Capers wasn't capable of using the talent he was handed to field a solid defense.

The final catalyst to all the changes was Rodgers injury and all the losses that followed. This one event finally put a spot light directly on all the teams weaknesses, which could somewhat be masked with Rodgers great play and ignored in the past due to the team winning.

I think had Rodgers not been injured and the Packers won a playoff game or 2, we wouldn't be here discussing any changes.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I find it much more likely that keeping Capers for as long as they did had more to do with an institutional belief in continuity and the reality that the Packers have normally been finishing their season after the majority of coaching hiring/firings have already taken place.

I agree. That would be part of the organizational decision making process which belies the assumption that McCarthy would have 100% authority on such a decision.

However, a large guaranteed sum of money, if there was one, would color or reinforce that perspective. People like more than one reason to make a decision or non-decision.

 

[Mondio]

This is business wrapped around a football team.

Many are confused over the timing of the Adams and Linsley contracts because they always view these things through the cap lens and pending free agency period. What was the hurry, especially with the GM job up in the air? I'm pretty well convinced at this point that those contracts were signed on 12/30 with signing bonus checks cut in 2017 to save a couple million on federal income taxes. The conversations leading up to that decision probably included Baniel. Who's he? The VP or Finance, effectively the CFO.

To think the question, "how much do we owe Capers if we fire him?" would have never come up in the conversation is naive.

and to think they kept him for 5 million dollars owed is also naive. I never claimed money wasn't "A" factor. I just don't believe it was THE factor. Just like they kept Matthews and they kept Shields with a concussion history and they keep Cobb and they hang on to players they sign, because as an org, from top to bottom, they put in the work and make a decision. They don't cut bait and run at every turn or hint of adversity because they work damn hard and believe in the work they do and put into a decision.

It made sense to keep Capers to them, It's not like they fly by the seat of their pants and sign the guy to a 10 year contract for 100 million and decide after year 1 he's not worth it, but then hang on to him because they don't want to pay him 90 more million to do nothing. They believe in him, they believed in him and figured the circumstances had more to do with the failure than the coach himself. as far as things go, the 5 million was probably far down that list.

 

[HardRightEdge]

and to think they kept him for 5 million dollars owed is also naive. I never claimed money wasn't "A" factor. I just don't believe it was THE factor.

I agree. In my original scenario, some seemed to have overlooked the "conversations ensue" conclusion. These decisions are not binary.

I just sought to illustrate that money is not an inconsequential factor and certainly not a factor that would reside in McCarthy's hands alone.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Just like they kept...Cobb and they hang on to players they sign, because as an org, from top to bottom, they put in the work and make a decision. They don't cut bait and run at every turn or hint of adversity because they work damn hard and believe in the work they do and put into a decision.

To take that one example, Cobb had substantial dead cap up until this offseason. Last year the cap savings had he been released would have been about $5 million. So, a question that has to be asked is can his productivity be replaced for that money factoring in the "don't cut bait" at the first (or second) hint of underperformance.

Now, with the cap savings more substantial, is that given more weight? Surely.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To take that one example, Cobb had substantial dead cap up until this offseason. Last year the cap savings had he been released would have been about $5 million. So, a question that has to be asked is can his productivity be replaced for that money factoring in the "don't cut bait" at the first (or second) hint of underperformance.

Now, with the cap savings more substantial, is that given more weight? Surely.

Agreed and that logic should be applied with Matthews or any player for that matter. "What do you save by cutting the guy and can that savings net you another player with equal or better abilities?" Made no sense to cut Matthews or Cobb last year. Now if you have a player that is currently on the team and under contract, that can move up to the starting position, you have more leeway. TT had been too busy focusing on the secondary and DL and besides Biegel, invested very little in WR's and OLB via the draft and didn't provide the Packers with that second option.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

I think had Rodgers not been injured and the Packers won a playoff game or 2, we wouldn't be here discussing any changes.

Unfortunately I agree. All the weaknesses could not be explained away.

 

[Mondio]

My fingers are too fat to type on my phone

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My fingers are too fat to type on my phone

Sounds like you need this accessory?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Mondio]

I could have added those to my Christmas list

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I could have added those to my Christmas list

Think you have to visit the morgue? Although, if Santa had a couple of naughty elves....whack! whack!

 

[OldSchool101]

I could have added those to my Christmas list

Make good Stocking Stuffers.