PDA

View Full Version : Packers players say, "It'll come in time."



Requiem / The Dagda
10-13-2007, 01:02 PM
I know a lot of people had questions regarding Bates' defense and how it faired with the Packers - considering I had referenced their struggles and how they improved as the season ended. Here are a few quotes from their guys on defense, re-iterating some of the things that have been said by myself and others. It's going to take time. . .

Broncos need more time than they have. (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_7160480)

TXBRONC
10-13-2007, 01:24 PM
While I appreciate the outlook for the future it makes it look like this year will be a long hard slog.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-13-2007, 01:25 PM
While I appreciate the outlook for the future it makes it look like this year will be a long hard slog.

Yeah, and even the outlook isn't even a given. It's just really frustrating having a defense this bad after everyone cried foul about Coyer and his follies and expected Bates to make an immediate turn around. This kind of struggle on the defensive side of the ball is something I'm not used to as a fan.

TXBRONC
10-13-2007, 01:35 PM
Yeah, and even the outlook isn't even a given. It's just really frustrating having a defense this bad after everyone cried foul about Coyer and his follies and expected Bates to make an immediate turn around. This kind of struggle on the defensive side of the ball is something I'm not used to as a fan.

I agree it's very frustrating. I do however believe Bates will get things turned around, he is one of the best in business, but it going to agonizing until to wait.

I'm not trying pat myself on the back but I defended Coyer last year until the end of season, and by that time it was a given he was goner.

Ultimately will bringing in Bates prove to an upgrade? I think so but it remains to be seen.

lex
10-13-2007, 01:36 PM
Im ok with having a down year if it means an improvement in the long run. The thing about Coyer is that they werent getting a pass rush. There will come a point in time when the offense will come around and we'll be more reliant on getting a pass rush. No pass rush leaves the door open for other teams coming from behind. In the meantime, being inept at stopping the run is extremely frustrating but its not like we were that great at stopping the run going down the stretch last year. We really need to turn over the roster though. Its not all on the new system.

TXBRONC
10-13-2007, 01:50 PM
Im ok with having a down year if it means an improvement in the long run. The thing about Coyer is that they werent getting a pass rush. There will come a point in time when the offense will come around and we'll be more reliant on getting a pass rush. No pass rush leaves the door open for other teams coming from behind. In the meantime, being inept at stopping the run is extremely frustrating but its not like we were that great at stopping the run going down the stretch last year. We really need to turn over the roster though. Its not all on the new system.

I would bet that you are right about there being more turnover of personel. Adams is a stop-gap and Amon Gordon doesn't look like anything special either.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-13-2007, 01:53 PM
I would bet that you are right about there being more turnover of personel. Adams is a stop-gap and Amon Gordon doesn't look like anything special either.

I think the best we can hope for is getting a guy like Randy Starks in Free Agency who is an above-average player and spending a pick or two in the draft. Starks has only played two games this year, I'm not sure if it's injury or being in the dog house. We could try and get Haynesworth too. I guess you can never rule out a trade, but I cannot even think about who would be available. A lot of people still say Jenkins, but who knows.

TXBRONC
10-13-2007, 01:56 PM
I think the best we can hope for is getting a guy like Randy Starks in Free Agency who is an above-average player and spending a pick or two in the draft. Starks has only played two games this year, I'm not sure if it's injury or being in the dog house. We could try and get Haynesworth too. I guess you can never rule out a trade, but I cannot even think about who would be available. A lot of people still say Jenkins, but who knows.

I wonder how they will cost.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-13-2007, 02:08 PM
I wonder how they will cost.

I can't imagine Starks getting much more than the contract that McKinley got this year (4 years, 8 million) and Haynesworth probably would much more than that. I wouldn't doubt a five year deal with around twenty-five for Haynesworth. He's probably a top ten defensive tackle in the league when he plays motivated, but that's his only problem.

TXBRONC
10-13-2007, 02:24 PM
I can't imagine Starks getting much more than the contract that McKinley got this year (4 years, 8 million) and Haynesworth probably would much more than that. I wouldn't doubt a five year deal with around twenty-five for Haynesworth. He's probably a top ten defensive tackle in the league when he plays motivated, but that's his only problem.

That's not suprising, I kind of figured that Haynesworth would come with a bigger price tag.

LoyalSoldier
10-13-2007, 08:35 PM
If anyone remembers when SD first changed to a 3-4 they were horrible. They slumped out to a 2-2 start in 2004, but when the defense got their act together they made the unit we see today. Changes always provide problems, but we will have to see if the problems persist or if they solve themselves.

TXBRONC
10-13-2007, 11:35 PM
Honestly, a coach with Bates' track record deserves much more then the 5 games he got. Yeah it's painful to watch our run D, but it's not on Bates when guys like Webster blow their assignments and leave wide open cutback lanes for the opposing RB.

My level of patience is 3 years. It was the same for Coyer and it'll be the same for Bates. We just need some better freaking players.

Agreed a coach with Bates' resume deserves more latitude than just five games. It's just been incredibly painful to watch.

Watchthemiddle
10-13-2007, 11:46 PM
I think this team as a whole needs more latitude then just 5 games. With a new system in place on defense and young offensive talent on O....it might just take all 16 games to put it all together.

I am fine with that. Kind of sounds like rebuilding ... :confused:

broncosfanscott
10-14-2007, 12:19 AM
Honestly, a coach with Bates' track record deserves much more then the 5 games he got. Yeah it's painful to watch our run D, but it's not on Bates when guys like Webster blow their assignments and leave wide open cutback lanes for the opposing RB.

My level of patience is 3 years. It was the same for Coyer and it'll be the same for Bates. We just need some better freaking players.

Yeah, and hopefully we will draft better over the next couple of years to make things better. We sure need some depth.

Joel
10-14-2007, 04:59 AM
Honestly, a coach with Bates' track record deserves much more then the 5 games he got. Yeah it's painful to watch our run D, but it's not on Bates when guys like Webster blow their assignments and leave wide open cutback lanes for the opposing RB.

My level of patience is 3 years. It was the same for Coyer and it'll be the same for Bates. We just need some better freaking players.
For my part, I think it was a mistake to cut Warren and an arguably bigger one to trade one of next years picks for Kennedy just to cut him a month or two later despite the fact the only clogger we had was Adams, but done is done. With the exception of Adams, the DTs we have are pretty much all in the same mold as Warren and Kennedy, with the difference being they aren't 320+ lb. first round picks who CAN clog even if they PREFER to slip past guards and stomp QBs, and it's going to take time to find and implement folks to change that. Much the same is true of our LB corps, whose depth worried me last year and frightens me this year; we went from having three great starters with no backups to having one and a half great starters (I think D.J. is getting there at MIKE, but it will take more time... ) and a wretched SAM.

Point being it takes TIME for any coach to change a team, because he won't have the exact same goals as his predecessor, but he will have almost exactly the same team for the first few years. In that game patience is a virtue, because otherwise you never get out of the mold of a coach coming into someone elses team, starting to build a different one and then, just as he's starting to accomplish things and the "new" team begins to take shape--the fans/coaches/owners lose patience and fire him; back to square one, repeat ad futilum. If you want to see how well that works take a look at how the past thirty or forty years have treated teams like Arizona and Detroit, where there's epic celebration in the streets on the once a decade occasions they make the playoffs. They haven't been title contenders since Jim Brown was playing and the Cards were in Chicago. The rule of thumb I'd use varies with the scope of a coaches responsibilities, and the size of the roster under him:

5 years for a Head Coach,

3 years for a O/DC,

1 year for a position coach

That's at a minimum, and the sad fact of the matter is few fans or owners of inept teams are willing to give a head coach that much time, which is why for all the talk of parity the list of true contenders doesn't change much very often. And the really sad thing is that when coaches are allowed the time to find the 53 guys they need to play their style the results are often electric.

I think it can come in time, but I was totally blindsided by the release of Warren and Kennedy as well as the decimating injuries to the NINE (!) LBs we had in training camp, then saw my worst fears confirmed from the start of pre-season all the way through last week: The worst run D in the League "anchored" by DTs seemingly incapable of stopping anything within the first 4-5 yards, a MLB still adjusting to a role far more demanding than his previous ones at WLB and SLB and a backup MLB pressed into a SLB despite never yet showing any ability to start at either position. If Lepsis stays healthy and we concentrate on those two areas I think it can still come in time, and probably will; I don't think our pass protection is nearly as bad as some others do, and while losing Nalen and Hamilton is debilitating I think we have quality depth to come in for them, while we still have the Leagues best secondary. We just have to come to terms with the fact that, if you can do it, the best way to beat a team is with high percentage clock consuming runs, and until we have the personnel who fit the system to stop that it's all teams will do, and our only reasonable chance of victory will be to go out and put up a bucket of points on them from kickoff to final gun (something I think we WILL be doing in the next year or two as our offense matures).

broncosfanscott
10-14-2007, 11:48 PM
For my part, I think it was a mistake to cut Warren and an arguably bigger one to trade one of next years picks for Kennedy just to cut him a month or two later despite the fact the only clogger we had was Adams, but done is done. With the exception of Adams, the DTs we have are pretty much all in the same mold as Warren and Kennedy, with the difference being they aren't 320+ lb. first round picks who CAN clog even if they PREFER to slip past guards and stomp QBs, and it's going to take time to find and implement folks to change that. Much the same is true of our LB corps, whose depth worried me last year and frightens me this year; we went from having three great starters with no backups to having one and a half great starters (I think D.J. is getting there at MIKE, but it will take more time... ) and a wretched SAM.

Point being it takes TIME for any coach to change a team, because he won't have the exact same goals as his predecessor, but he will have almost exactly the same team for the first few years. In that game patience is a virtue, because otherwise you never get out of the mold of a coach coming into someone elses team, starting to build a different one and then, just as he's starting to accomplish things and the "new" team begins to take shape--the fans/coaches/owners lose patience and fire him; back to square one, repeat ad futilum. If you want to see how well that works take a look at how the past thirty or forty years have treated teams like Arizona and Detroit, where there's epic celebration in the streets on the once a decade occasions they make the playoffs. They haven't been title contenders since Jim Brown was playing and the Cards were in Chicago. The rule of thumb I'd use varies with the scope of a coaches responsibilities, and the size of the roster under him:

5 years for a Head Coach,

3 years for a O/DC,

1 year for a position coach

That's at a minimum, and the sad fact of the matter is few fans or owners of inept teams are willing to give a head coach that much time, which is why for all the talk of parity the list of true contenders doesn't change much very often. And the really sad thing is that when coaches are allowed the time to find the 53 guys they need to play their style the results are often electric.

I think it can come in time, but I was totally blindsided by the release of Warren and Kennedy as well as the decimating injuries to the NINE (!) LBs we had in training camp, then saw my worst fears confirmed from the start of pre-season all the way through last week: The worst run D in the League "anchored" by DTs seemingly incapable of stopping anything within the first 4-5 yards, a MLB still adjusting to a role far more demanding than his previous ones at WLB and SLB and a backup MLB pressed into a SLB despite never yet showing any ability to start at either position. If Lepsis stays healthy and we concentrate on those two areas I think it can still come in time, and probably will; I don't think our pass protection is nearly as bad as some others do, and while losing Nalen and Hamilton is debilitating I think we have quality depth to come in for them, while we still have the Leagues best secondary. We just have to come to terms with the fact that, if you can do it, the best way to beat a team is with high percentage clock consuming runs, and until we have the personnel who fit the system to stop that it's all teams will do, and our only reasonable chance of victory will be to go out and put up a bucket of points on them from kickoff to final gun (something I think we WILL be doing in the next year or two as our offense matures).

Good points. I totally agree with you on your view on coaches. New coaches need time to get their system implemented with the players they think can be successful. Rome wasn't built in a day.

omac
10-15-2007, 12:58 AM
For my part, I think it was a mistake to cut Warren and an arguably bigger one to trade one of next years picks for Kennedy just to cut him a month or two later despite the fact the only clogger we had was Adams, but done is done. With the exception of Adams, the DTs we have are pretty much all in the same mold as Warren and Kennedy, with the difference being they aren't 320+ lb. first round picks who CAN clog even if they PREFER to slip past guards and stomp QBs, and it's going to take time to find and implement folks to change that. Much the same is true of our LB corps, whose depth worried me last year and frightens me this year; we went from having three great starters with no backups to having one and a half great starters (I think D.J. is getting there at MIKE, but it will take more time... ) and a wretched SAM.

Point being it takes TIME for any coach to change a team, because he won't have the exact same goals as his predecessor, but he will have almost exactly the same team for the first few years. In that game patience is a virtue, because otherwise you never get out of the mold of a coach coming into someone elses team, starting to build a different one and then, just as he's starting to accomplish things and the "new" team begins to take shape--the fans/coaches/owners lose patience and fire him; back to square one, repeat ad futilum. If you want to see how well that works take a look at how the past thirty or forty years have treated teams like Arizona and Detroit, where there's epic celebration in the streets on the once a decade occasions they make the playoffs. They haven't been title contenders since Jim Brown was playing and the Cards were in Chicago. The rule of thumb I'd use varies with the scope of a coaches responsibilities, and the size of the roster under him:

5 years for a Head Coach,

3 years for a O/DC,

1 year for a position coach

That's at a minimum, and the sad fact of the matter is few fans or owners of inept teams are willing to give a head coach that much time, which is why for all the talk of parity the list of true contenders doesn't change much very often. And the really sad thing is that when coaches are allowed the time to find the 53 guys they need to play their style the results are often electric.

I think it can come in time, but I was totally blindsided by the release of Warren and Kennedy as well as the decimating injuries to the NINE (!) LBs we had in training camp, then saw my worst fears confirmed from the start of pre-season all the way through last week: The worst run D in the League "anchored" by DTs seemingly incapable of stopping anything within the first 4-5 yards, a MLB still adjusting to a role far more demanding than his previous ones at WLB and SLB and a backup MLB pressed into a SLB despite never yet showing any ability to start at either position. If Lepsis stays healthy and we concentrate on those two areas I think it can still come in time, and probably will; I don't think our pass protection is nearly as bad as some others do, and while losing Nalen and Hamilton is debilitating I think we have quality depth to come in for them, while we still have the Leagues best secondary. We just have to come to terms with the fact that, if you can do it, the best way to beat a team is with high percentage clock consuming runs, and until we have the personnel who fit the system to stop that it's all teams will do, and our only reasonable chance of victory will be to go out and put up a bucket of points on them from kickoff to final gun (something I think we WILL be doing in the next year or two as our offense matures).

Great post, Morambar! :salute:

Good thing Bowlen allows the coaches time to develop a winning team, instead of firing them too early. And those injuries are ridiculous.

Besides trying to score like the Detroit Lions, we'll probably need to chance much more 4th downs as well as risk going for big plays, just to keep our defense off the field. Funny, instead of trying to keep the other teams offense off the field, I'm thinking of ways our defense stays off the field ... same, but different. :D With the inept run defense, field goals now actually hurt our offense. No more luxury for conservative, high percentage plays.

Lonestar
10-15-2007, 09:34 PM
Honestly, a coach with Bates' track record deserves much more then the 5 games he got. Yeah it's painful to watch our run D, but it's not on Bates when guys like Webster blow their assignments and leave wide open cutback lanes for the opposing RB.

My level of patience is 3 years. It was the same for Coyer and it'll be the same for Bates. We just need some better freaking players.

There is a huge difference in coyer at best a scut LB coach and Jim Bates. Bate is a proven winner, coyer was a tactician that had initially Zero DC experience someone who could plan with the best of them and not be able to change from the game plan when it went south like it did about the 8 minute into the second quarter every game..

TXBRONC
10-16-2007, 06:48 PM
There is a huge difference in coyer at best a scut LB coach and Jim Bates. Bate is a proven winner, coyer was a tactician that had initially Zero DC experience someone who could plan with the best of them and not be able to change from the game plan when it went south like it did about the 8 minute into the second quarter every game..

As a pro yes but Coyer did have experience at the college level as defensive coordinator. Also name me one coach that doesn't start off with Zero DC experience when they first become a DC?

anton...
10-16-2007, 07:41 PM
im sick of waiting!!

my patience is all dried up!!

im going to go for the pats!!

they know how to play in the nfl!!


























:huh:
________
DianaAngel live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/DianaAngel)

Stargazer
10-16-2007, 07:43 PM
We'll see what happens. It has only been 5 games, and it cannot get any worse.

Lonestar
10-16-2007, 10:30 PM
As a pro yes but Coyer did have experience at the college level as defensive coordinator. Also name me one coach that doesn't start off with Zero DC experience when they first become a DC?

Lets not discuss all DC's just coyer he was a LB coach to begin with a yes man to Mikey and therefore got the job when the last guy left.

Please do not make excuses for him as he was in over his head day one and never recovered.

Please remember I was one sticking up for him at last as last year. But I saw the hand writing on the wall when he was unable to make adjustments during the game.

Was he handicapped with not having a DL absolutely how much energy did he expend in forcing Mikey into getting/ drafting decent players we will never know.

Yet when Mikey hired a respected DC in Bates he almost fell all over himself in picking 3 in the draft and trading and signing several other FA's.

Guess that in its self says something about either Coyers total in ineptitude as a coach/planner or his yes man status in not getting the personnel everyone in Denver knew we needed.