Why do you want Clements? It isn't that I am against him, but don't know why I should be for him. Yes, he seems to have done a great job developing Rodgers, and deserves credit for that. But he didn't actually run the offense, did he? Does he even have experience in that area?

 

The reality is, whoever our OC is will essentially be a HC #2. We need someone who has broad experience running an offense. Not just developing a QB, but experience over all positions, game planning, playcalling, etc. Is that Clements?

 

 

Just, curious, but if I might, I'd like to hear from you as to whom you would like for the two coordinator positions?

Just, curious, but if I might, I'd like to hear from you as to whom you would like for the two coordinator positions?

I personally want Feweel for DC and I did want Bates but since he is going to Seattle, I want Clements.

Are you asking me?

 

Let me first say that my comments are based on the reality of the situation. If we cleaned out, my choices me be different, but w/ Lovie as the HC....

 

DC - Fewell - Frankly, I like this pick quite a bit. He knows Lovie's system, which will bring some continuity, but at the same time, knows more than just the Lovie Two. He has a relationship w/ Lovie, and therefor Lovie may give a bit more leeway to him. I think he has done a good job in Buffalo. Frankly, while I often feel like we play below the level of our talent, I have often felt Buffalo's D has played above theirs. That is a credit to the coach. He seems to have done a good job developing some young players, and I think has done a better job of adjusting and compensating for injuries and losses. I especially like the reports of his personality. I have always said that if you have a mild mannered HC, you need an assistant w/ fire. Like having a calm captain but a drill sargent to get in the men's faces. He supposedly holds players accountable, and I like that.

 

OC - Honestly, I have not heard many names that excite me. My top choice has been Saunders, though outside the Trib article, I have seen nothing that mentions our actually being interested.

 

Saunders is a hell of an OC, IMHO. He didn't always have a loaded offenses in KC, but was able to develop players and fit players w/ a system. He has a pretty wide open system, and one that I think suits our players skills. He didn't do so well in Wash, or then in Stl, but if you take a moment to look at those teams, they were pretty dang bad. I know I have ripped Martz, who some may say saw a similar decline after great success w/ Stl, but I simply think the system Saunders runs is a better fit for our talent than Martz. Saunders would be my top choice.

 

Beyond him, I really don't know. Starting to read about Clements, but haven't really formed an opinion there yet. I do not like Martz at all. I think he would be horrible for the team. I wasn't high on Bates as I fear he wouldn't be experienced enough to run the entire offense. The guy from Minny may make for a good QB coach, but I don't really like him for OC. Just say not to Zorn.

 

I just don't know on offense. I like Saunders, but have not heard we are interested. I am luke warm on Clements at the moment, though I just don't know much about him. I am not in favor of most of the rest of the names I have read about.

 

Just, curious, but if I might, I'd like to hear from you as to whom you would like for the two coordinator positions?

 

Thank you. I had not realized that. Still no more than luke warm on him, but warmer than I was an hour ago.

 

An exert from his bio on the Packer's site:

 

I don't get the Lovie Lackey talk about Fewell. He has spent 12 years in NFL. 3 of those under Lovie. He has spent 4,5 years with Jauron (I'm not sure that it is a plus though ) and 2 years under Capers. Why should he feel that Lovie has contributed so much to his career that he should be a yes man without any independent thoughts on how to run a defense?

And yet they were in the bottom half of total yards given up. The Bills were bad this year and teams didn't need to throw on them. They were 3rd to last in rushing defense.

 

If there wasn't the connection to Lovie and the Bears would this guys name mentioned? Has anyone the last 4 years thought, damn that Bills team has a good defense.

It's more than a little misleading to say that "teams didn't need to throw on them." Opposing teams passed against the Bills 32.4 times per game, which ranks them right in the middle of the league - #13 overall. The team thrown on the least had 27.4 per game, and the team with the most had 37.8. The Bills are smack in the middle, so there's no real indication that teams playing them gave up on the pass. Also, if that's your worry, just look at what they did when teams DID throw against them: the Bills are #2 in yards allowed per pass (whereas the Bears were #15.) Only Darrelle Revis and the Jets allowed fewer yards per pass than Fewell's Bills.

 

As for the run, Fewell didn't have personnel control (Jauron did that) and he was working with one of the most undersized defensive fronts in the NFL. I mean, Aaron Schobel is the star of their d-line, and he's 6'4" 243 pounds. He's actually smaller than Aaron Maybin was at the Combine, and everyone was talking about how Maybin was too small to play DE. Then the Bills drafted him, too. Even the Colts' DEs are bigger than the Bills'. I can't think of another DE tandem in the league that weighs under 500 pounds put together...that's a recipe for giving up tons of running yards. The Bears' d-linemen aren't great against the run, but they're way better than the ones Fewell was working with in Buffalo.

Found this:

 

"Source says Fewell has no offer from either #Bears or #NYG + was to leave Chicago to mull his options at home. No wd if he left yet."

Are you asking me?

 

Let me first say that my comments are based on the reality of the situation. If we cleaned out, my choices me be different, but w/ Lovie as the HC....

 

DC - Fewell - Frankly, I like this pick quite a bit. He knows Lovie's system, which will bring some continuity, but at the same time, knows more than just the Lovie Two. He has a relationship w/ Lovie, and therefor Lovie may give a bit more leeway to him. I think he has done a good job in Buffalo. Frankly, while I often feel like we play below the level of our talent, I have often felt Buffalo's D has played above theirs. That is a credit to the coach. He seems to have done a good job developing some young players, and I think has done a better job of adjusting and compensating for injuries and losses. I especially like the reports of his personality. I have always said that if you have a mild mannered HC, you need an assistant w/ fire. Like having a calm captain but a drill sargent to get in the men's faces. He supposedly holds players accountable, and I like that.

 

OC - Honestly, I have not heard many names that excite me. My top choice has been Saunders, though outside the Trib article, I have seen nothing that mentions our actually being interested.

 

Saunders is a hell of an OC, IMHO. He didn't always have a loaded offenses in KC, but was able to develop players and fit players w/ a system. He has a pretty wide open system, and one that I think suits our players skills. He didn't do so well in Wash, or then in Stl, but if you take a moment to look at those teams, they were pretty dang bad. I know I have ripped Martz, who some may say saw a similar decline after great success w/ Stl, but I simply think the system Saunders runs is a better fit for our talent than Martz. Saunders would be my top choice.

 

Beyond him, I really don't know. Starting to read about Clements, but haven't really formed an opinion there yet. I do not like Martz at all. I think he would be horrible for the team. I wasn't high on Bates as I fear he wouldn't be experienced enough to run the entire offense. The guy from Minny may make for a good QB coach, but I don't really like him for OC. Just say not to Zorn.

 

I just don't know on offense. I like Saunders, but have not heard we are interested. I am luke warm on Clements at the moment, though I just don't know much about him. I am not in favor of most of the rest of the names I have read about.

 

 

Yes, I was asking you. I was curious where you stood on the two positions. Thanks for offering your opinion.

First, lackey is likely not the right term. What I think some fans have issue w/ is the idea that Lovie will only hire coahes who he has some sort of tie w/. The issue is not w/ Fewell, but w/ this attitude of Lovie.

 

Second, as for his being a "yes" man, I think that again has more to do w/ Lovie than w/ Fewell. If during the press conference, Angelo seemed to take the lead w/ regard to hiring a new coach, and the discussion seemed to move toward considering any scheme, then there might be a belief that Angelo was taking over a bit more. But as Lovie was up there talking Cover two this and that, and seemed to be the key person w/ regard to new coaches, the belief is that Lovie will continue to force whoever we hire to be DC to run his scheme, and his way. Thus, whoever we hire will be deemed (to some extent) as a yes man, even if that is not totally accurate.

 

Personally, I think the better the relationship w/ Lovie, the more potential to free lance a bit. If Lovie trusts the DC, he may allow the DC to call plays he doesn't totally agree with. Further, so long as the DC doesn't try to totally scrap the cover two, he may have more freedom to mix it up.

 

I don't get the Lovie Lackey talk about Fewell. He has spent 12 years in NFL. 3 of those under Lovie. He has spent 4,5 years with Jauron (I'm not sure that it is a plus though ) and 2 years under Capers. Why should he feel that Lovie has contributed so much to his career that he should be a yes man without any independent thoughts on how to run a defense?