Ray Rhodes' one-year-stand in GB ('99); why?

[74_75_78_79_]

Yes, after GB being such a perennial contender all through the Holmgren Era up through the year prior, you still think the organization would have 'forgiven' the 8-8 output in '99 with the understanding that Ray was a new HC. Yes, Mike Sherman (four straight playoff appearances albeit significant eliminations by lower-seeds) may have been the better choice after all between he and Ray, but who yet would have known? I'd think RR's previous experience in Philly would have been just enough to warrant just one more season - immediately bringing 'Birds back to the playoffs in '95 (destroying Barry's Lions in a memorable playoff romp) and following it up with yet another berth the following year.

[rhickok1109]

A big issue was clock management. The Packers MIGHT have won two more games if Rhodes had listened to the loud appeals of Favre and other players to call time out in the closing minutes of narrow defeats.

[Ronfitch]

Yes, after GB being such a perennial contender all through the Holmgren Era up through the year prior, you still think the organization would have 'forgiven' the 8-8 output in '99 with the understanding that Ray was a new HC. Yes, Mike Sherman (four straight playoff appearances albeit significant eliminations by lower-seeds) may have been the better choice after all between he and Ray, but who yet would have known? I'd think RR's previous experience in Philly would have been just enough to warrant just one more season - immediately bringing 'Birds back to the playoffs in '95 (destroying Barry's Lions in a memorable playoff romp) and following it up with yet another berth the following year.

Rhodes himself said that the team was in worse shape than most realized when he took over and he was the "fall guy." (http://journaltimes.com/rhodes-packers- ... 2e53f.html).

As a Packer fan since the early '70s - even though I know it was under different management in a different era - I remember being surprised at a one-year shot. At the time, I recall talk of him being too close with the players, too friendly with them and not "leading" the team, resulting in players were not playing up to expectations.

Given that it was a one-and-fired, I always wondered if there was a lot more to it than Wolf was willing to discuss.

[rhickok1109]

Yes, after GB being such a perennial contender all through the Holmgren Era up through the year prior, you still think the organization would have 'forgiven' the 8-8 output in '99 with the understanding that Ray was a new HC. Yes, Mike Sherman (four straight playoff appearances albeit significant eliminations by lower-seeds) may have been the better choice after all between he and Ray, but who yet would have known? I'd think RR's previous experience in Philly would have been just enough to warrant just one more season - immediately bringing 'Birds back to the playoffs in '95 (destroying Barry's Lions in a memorable playoff romp) and following it up with yet another berth the following year.

Rhodes himself said that the team was in worse shape than most realized when he took over and he was the "fall guy." (http://journaltimes.com/rhodes-packers- ... 2e53f.html).

As a Packer fan since the early '70s - even though I know it was under different management in a different era - I remember being surprised at a one-year shot. At the time, I recall talk of him being too close with the players, too friendly with them and not "leading" the team, resulting in players were not playing up to expectations.

Given that it was a one-and-fired, I always wondered if there was a lot more to it than Wolf was willing to discuss.

Frankly, the hiring was a shock to me and to many other Packer fans. For one thing, it seemed to happen much too fast, as if it had been given very little thought. For another, Rhodes was coming off a disastrous 3-13 season in Philadelphia.

I think Wolf simply realized that he had made a very poor decision in haste. The Packers had gone 11-5-0 the previous year and they went 9-7-0 and 12-4-0 in the two following years, so I don't see how they could have been in such bad shape when Rhodes took over.

[Jay Z]

Over the years the report was that Rhodes was simply too lax, a Scooter McLean type. He was a veteran coach, did have the two playoff appearances with the Eagles before things fell apart there. The team started having discipline problems with Favre when Rhodes came in.

Observationally, the other thing with the Rhodes team was the team was very inconsistent from week to week. Not a good sign with a veteran team.

Sherman didn't do any better disciplining Favre, but his teams were very consistent from week to week. Sherman didn't do well in the playoffs, but he was a good regular season coach. Kind of surprised he never landed another job.

Holmgren left in the first place because he wanted to be a coach/GM and the Packers had Ron Wolf. The coach/GM model had failed for the Packers several times after Lombardi. So Holmgren leaves, then Wolf retires and makes Sherman the coach/GM! Sherman was not a good GM. Of course, neither was Holmgren really.

The Thompson/McCarthy team did make moves to rein in Favre, which Favre bristled at, eventually leading to the messy breakup in 2008.

[CSKreager]

A big issue was clock management. The Packers MIGHT have won two more games if Rhodes had listened to the loud appeals of Favre and other players to call time out in the closing minutes of narrow defeats.

They had a horrible loss to Carolina when Beurelein called a draw on the last play. It was Green Bay's first ever December loss in the Favre era