Packers hire Mike Pettine, defensive coordinator

[Pokerbrat2000]

I do think looking at what the Vikings have done with their defense in the last 5 or so years is a fair comparison to what the Packers have/haven't done. Both teams seem to set their eyes on improving their defenses with big investments via the draft and Free agents. But I wouldn't say the Vikings defense is a lot better than the Packers just because of their draft position, but more on the success of their draft picks, free agency acquisitions and coaching.

Fortunately, the Vikings have mixed in some failed high picks on offense over that same time period. Had they hit on those and didn't have the injuries at QB, who knows how good they would be.

 

[OldSchool101]

Besides the #9 pick (Anthony Barr), there isn't a tremendous difference. The "5th pick" you list, I can't figure out who it is, since the Vikings haven't had a #5 pick in a long time. They had a #4 but that was spent on T Matt Kalil who is now a Panther.

A few starters and backups on the Vikings aren't original draft picks. I would just say they do it better....draft and coaching, when it comes to their defense.

Good question. Terrance Newman is the 5th overall, although he was drafted by Dallas.

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/...erences-hit-rate-success-high-nfl-draft-picks

 

[OldSchool101]

Good question. Terrance Newman is the 5th overall, although he was drafted by Dallas.

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/...erences-hit-rate-success-high-nfl-draft-picks

I'm partly discussing this not to make excuses, but what are we doing differently than our primary foe who is very successful. Sorry, I just realized I answered myself. That's a first!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Good question. Terrance Newman is the 5th overall, although he was drafted by Dallas.

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/...erences-hit-rate-success-high-nfl-draft-picks

Newmann is probably who the #5 represents. At one point the Packers had a #2 (Julius Peppers) on a defense that was still struggling. That goes back to not just draft picks, but FA's. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to look at the Vikings defense across the board and say "they have done better with player acquisition and development".

Vikings 1st and 2nd round Picks

29 Harrison Smith
23 Sharrif Floyd
25 Xavier Rhodes
9 Anthony Barr
11 Trae Waynes
45 Eric Kendricks
54 Mackensie Alexander

Packers 1st and 2nd round Picks

26 Clay Matthews III
28 Nick Perry
26 Datone Jones
21 Ha Ha Clinton-Dix
30 Damarious Randall
27 Kenny Clark
56 Mike Neal
51 Jerel Worthy
62 Quinten Rollins
33 Kevin King
61 Josh Jones

 

[Mondio]

They have done better, for now. They h ave a good shot to win it all because of it.

It let's not forget they've only been close once before almost 10 years ago. Have sustained nothing and haven't had to deal with success. I want to see their superior player acquisition skills after they lose Smith to a career ending neck injury. I want to see Rhodes get a monster contract and miss a good chunk of 2 seasons before calling it quits because of concussions while eating cap. I want to see Griffin decide to hang it up when he should be hitting his prime.

Let's not pretend we're comparing similar situations in team strengths here. Every year there's a new team GB should be more like.

I actually don't hope any of the above happens, just illustrating how different the situations are.

 

[OldSchool101]

I guess I'm picking on the author because he's comparing "top end" talent of both teams playing today (yes, players drafted by other teams also, his comparison not mine)
Green Bay has had to deal with picks routinely at the end of the round and does not possess a top 20 pick.

Comparing the talent of the top 3 guys drafted at #5,#9 and #11 (Vikings) with #21,#26 and #27 doesn't bode well with me. While we know there are no guarantees with any draft pick and there are also exceptions to the rule, it is a proven fact that while the draft position slips, the level of players even left in the league slip with it. Especially when we get out of the 1st round. It makes sense then that picking 16 or 17 picks later 1st day draft has a profound impact on talent level, not just with GB or MN but with every team in this league.

I just don't think it's a fair comparison, switch our 1st round draft pick order over the next 5-7 years with draft order in these examples and I'm very confident the performance difference would be very noticeable even with the same coaching staff.

 

[PackerDNA]

IMO, it's not much of a debate about who has the better/more talented defense, or defensive coaching, irregardless of draft order. The Vikings are superior to us on that side, and it's not even close.

 

[OldSchool101]

IMO, it's not much of a debate about who has the better/more talented defense, or defensive coaching, irregardless of draft order. The Vikings are superior to us on that side, and it's not even close.

Absolutely and precisely the point. We should analyze the factors on what makes them successful (or us unsuccessful) and make necessary changes to correct it. The draft order is the draft order and can be controlled only to a limited degree (through trades etc.. which end up being costly in many cases) The concept that GB performance is purely based on missing at top draft picks when we essentially have not had a "top 20" pick in 10 years is a micro analyzing and making the draft te scapegoat of a much, much grandeur problem. There are many factors including scheme, coaching, Free Agency activity, internal communication and contract resigning that all need to be addressed just to name a few.
Of course, this is common knowledge in the higher ranks or we wouldn't be seeing a new assistant coach being hired or let go every other day

 

[rmontro]

Here's a nice article talking about how Pettine's defenses have made quarterbacks perform below their usual level, instead of above their usual level like the Packers recent track record:

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/...ttine-track-record-against-top-qbs-dom-capers

 

[bigbubbatd]

I do think looking at what the Vikings have done with their defense in the last 5 or so years is a fair comparison to what the Packers have/haven't done. Both teams seem to set their eyes on improving their defenses with big investments via the draft and Free agents. But I wouldn't say the Vikings defense is a lot better than the Packers just because of their draft position, but more on the success of their draft picks, free agency acquisitions and coaching.

Fortunately, the Vikings have mixed in some failed high picks on offense over that same time period. Had they hit on those and didn't have the injuries at QB, who knows how good they would be.

The Vikings have drafted really well in the first two rounds, they have seen second or third contract guys continue to improve or not regress (Griffen, Robison) and have made really solid free agent signings. They are pretty much the anti Packers on defense. How many of our defenders would start there?

I would say it could be argued the injuries at qb were a blessing for the Vikings as keenum has been better than Bradford or Bridgewater. He is able to press the ball down field way better than Bridgewater and is so much more mobile than Bradford.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Is it weird that Pettine has only had a possibility of influencing the hire of 1 single coach on his defensive staff? Everyone else was around before in one role or another except this D Line coach they got from the Giants. I dont see how you can bring in a new DC and then give him virtually the same staff as Dom had. Don't you need some of your own guys to run your system?

 

[PackAttack12]

I do think looking at what the Vikings have done with their defense in the last 5 or so years is a fair comparison to what the Packers have/haven't done. Both teams seem to set their eyes on improving their defenses with big investments via the draft and Free agents. But I wouldn't say the Vikings defense is a lot better than the Packers just because of their draft position, but more on the success of their draft picks, free agency acquisitions and coaching.

Fortunately, the Vikings have mixed in some failed high picks on offense over that same time period. Had they hit on those and didn't have the injuries at QB, who knows how good they would be.

As I was reading that statement, I was afraid that you either had a stoke or suffered some type of serious brain injury, until I proceeded to finish the sentence.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Is it weird that Pettine has only had a possibility of influencing the hire of 1 single coach on his defensive staff? Everyone else was around before in one role or another except this D Line coach they got from the Giants. I dont see how you can bring in a new DC and then give him virtually the same staff as Dom had. Don't you need some of your own guys to run your system?

Could be a couple of reasons. First, maybe Pettine likes the current group and wants to work with them. I don't think the Packers would have interviewed Whitt and Perry for the DC job, if they didn't like them.

Or second and most likely IMO, this is just mirroring of what is happening elsewhere in the Packer organization. Mark Murphy and the FO (and perhaps TT and MM) feel that "big changes" aren't needed and they are trying to only surgically remove what they think was the "cancer".

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As I was reading that statement, I was afraid that you either had a stoke or suffered some type of serious brain injury, until I proceeded to finish the sentence.

LOL......stop acting like some of the media/fans and taking a portion of a quote and running with it

"Aaron Rodgers was seen in Cleveland today putting on a Browns uniform, the 78 year old retired circus clown has been a lifelong Browns fan"

 

[7thFloorRA]

Could be a couple of reasons. First, maybe Pettine likes the current group and wants to work with the. Or second and most likely IMO, this is just mirroring what is happening elsewhere in the Packer organization. Mark Murphy and the FO (and perhaps TT and MM) feel that "big changes" aren't needed and they are trying to only surgically remove what they think was the "cancer".

I get a terrible feeling that they put together a staff for a 1 year run and that there is a very good chance the entire house gets cleaned after next season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I get a terrible feeling that they put together a staff for a 1 year run and that there is a very good chance the entire house gets cleaned after next season.

While I believe the defense needed bigger changes than just firing Capers, people have to remember that this isn't the Cleveland Browns we are talking about. Yes, the injury to #12 exposed some other issues, but not enough to require a major reboot of the Packer organization IMO. Reassigning TT will hopefully address player acquisition and retention. Bringing back Philbin should help the offense and the hiring of Pettine and a few other defensive coaches will hopefully improve the defense.

The Packers will sink or swim based on what #12 can do over the next couple of years, but if Gute can acquire a few key pieces and Pettine can coach, I think the Packers will be in good shape.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think Philbin for one, would be coming back here if he didn't think he was being given a fair shot to do his thing. and if they were building a staff to get cleaned out at years end, why not just clear them out now? now if you feel the staff being put together stinks and will force their way out by sucking all year that's one thing. But why would the team put together a staff they're already planning on firing next year?

 

[bigbubbatd]

While I believe the defense needed bigger changes than just firing Capers, people have to remember that this isn't the Cleveland Browns we are talking about. Yes, the injury to #12 exposed some other issues, but not enough to require a major reboot of the Packer organization IMO. Reassigning TT will hopefully address player acquisition and retention. Bringing back Philbin should help the offense and the hiring of Pettine and a few other defensive coaches will hopefully improve the defense.

The Packers will sink or swim based on what #12 can do over the next couple of years, but if Gute can acquire a few key pieces and Pettine can coach, I think the Packers will be in good shape.

The Packers were in fine shape this year if 12 stayed healthy. They were a top nfc team before he went down. Now I am almost happy it happened because the defense needed an overhaul and now it can happen but this isn't some team that is a lot of pieces away. Honestly they are a better pass rush and one cb away from being right there with any team.

They also need to figure out if they just have injury prone guys, are unlucky or if there is some strength and conditioning stuff they are doing wrong. If you look at the Vikings I think they are playing with 19 of their 22 opening day starters or something. Qb, rb and a guard are out. And they did a great job having a backup QB who was as good if not better than what they had. Murray may have been the opening day starting but cook was better so I considered him a starter. Look at that compared to the Packers who didn't have an adequate qb to back up Rodgers and then were missing starters all over the place much of the year (cb had tons of injuries, rb, olb and ol did as well). I don't think it is just bad luck for the Packers and good luck for the vikibgs. I think we have more injury prone players. Could be because they have younger guys who are just better able to withstand the wear and tear, I don't know. Tha along with a team that had used free agency for better depth with keenum and Murray and there is a blue print in someways for the packers

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers were in fine shape this year if 12 stayed healthy. They were a top nfc team before he went down. Now I am almost happy it happened because the defense needed an overhaul and now it can happen but this isn't some team that is a lot of pieces away. Honestly they are a better pass rush and one cb away from being right there with any team.

They also need to figure out if they just have injury prone guys, are unlucky or if there is some strength and conditioning stuff they are doing wrong. If you look at the Vikings I think they are playing with 19 of their 22 opening day starters or something. Qb, rb and a guard are out. And they did a great job having a backup QB who was as good if not better than what they had. Murray may have been the opening day starting but cook was better so I considered him a starter. Look at that compared to the Packers who didn't have an adequate qb to back up Rodgers and then were missing starters all over the place much of the year (cb had tons of injuries, rb, olb and ol did as well). I don't think it is just bad luck for the Packers and good luck for the vikibgs. I think we have more injury prone players. Could be because they have younger guys who are just better able to withstand the wear and tear, I don't know. Tha along with a team that had used free agency for better depth with keenum and Murray and there is a blue print in someways for the packers

Goes back to what I have feared the most about the draft and development philosophy, if you can dodge injuries, you will be ok. But once you have too many injuries, especially at one position or a key position, you are expecting your young guys to be ready to step in and play at a higher level than they are probably ready to play at. Not saying you have to or can have Pro Bowl caliber backups, but when guys who have seen zero or limited snaps in the NFL are having to play, there is most likely going to be a be big drop off in quality.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Could be a couple of reasons. First, maybe Pettine likes the current group and wants to work with them. I don't think the Packers would have interviewed Whitt and Perry for the DC job, if they didn't like them.

Or second and most likely IMO, this is just mirroring of what is happening elsewhere in the Packer organization. Mark Murphy and the FO (and perhaps TT and MM) feel that "big changes" aren't needed and they are trying to only surgically remove what they think was the "cancer".

I would have preferred the Packers to hire a completely new staff on the defensive side of the ball as the coaches they held on to weren't able to coach up players over the past several years.

In addition the front office not seeing the need for significant change for the team to return to a championship level would be a mistake.

While I believe the defense needed bigger changes than just firing Capers, people have to remember that this isn't the Cleveland Browns we are talking about.

The Packers are definitely a good team as long as Rodgers is performing at an elite level. While the rest of the roster is better than the Browns last season proved it lacks overall talent and needs significant improvement.

Could be because they have younger guys who are just better able to withstand the wear and tear, I don't know.

The Packers are consistently one of the youngest teams in the league.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers are definitely a good team as long as Rodgers is performing at an elite level. While the rest of the roster is better than the Browns last season proved it lacks overall talent and needs significant improvement.

I agree and that improvement won't happen overnight or in one season. It will be Gute's job to identify the positions of greatest need, possibly target those needs with FA's and then go after better depth and future starters in the draft. He has plenty of draft picks to work with, this first draft might set the stage for his future success. I think Gute's biggest obstacle will be the current lack of quality depth on this roster.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree and that improvement won't happen overnight or in one season.

Agreed, it will definitely take some time to improve the overall quality of the roster. Fortunately with Rodgers at quarterback small steps in the right direction might be good enough to contend for another Super Bowl.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If Rodgers stays healthy, just improving the quality of the defense is a big step. But I do think TE and WR (depending on Jordy and Cobb) are big needs on offense and those will need to be addressed ASAP. If the starting WR's are Adams, Nelson and Cobb for 2018 we should be fine, but the depth beyond the big 3 is questionable at best.

 

[bigbubbatd]

The Packers are consistently one of the youngest teams in the league.

I feel like that is true if depth players but our starters this year included a lot of older guys - rodgers, Evans, bulaga, Nelson, Cobb, Bennett, clay, Burnett are all older. I know not all are really old but all are nearing the end of their second NFL contract or past that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I feel like that is true if depth players but our starters this year included a lot of older guys - rodgers, Evans, bulaga, Nelson, Cobb, Bennett, clay, Burnett are all older. I know not all are really old but all are nearing the end of their second NFL contract or past that.

It's been too long since I took classes in Statistics, but I think there is a better term (mean, median, etc.) that could be used to show a rosters "average" age better. I think the "average" age of players on the Packer roster was higher than "normal" this past season, but as you pointed out, some of the "old timers" will pull that number up artificially. I would add Crosby (33) to your list.