Why is Steve lazy? Because there is no simpler solution than advocating the firing of everyone. It doesn't require any analysis or critical thinking. It's like that South Park Episode (Free Hat!) where a newscaster mistakenly believe that the kids are in favor of killing babies:
Newscaster: Can you give me even one good thing about murdering babies?
Stan: It's easy?
Just because it's easy doesn't make it right. For instance, comparing Steve to a murderer of children was surprisingly easy, but that doesn't make it right.
Blaming the defensive coordinator is simply ludicrous. He has one run stopper who can't rush the passer (Jackson) one pass rusher who can't stop the run (KGB) one linebacker who is always, always, ALWAYS out of position, and on those rare moments when he is in position, fails to make the tackle as was the case on one of Westbrook's longest runs of he day (Barnett), and the walking pass interference penalty that is Ahmad Carroll (although he had an OK game on Sunday).
It's natural, when a team is so obviously bad, to try and come up with creative theories on why they are bad, but really bad teams don't require any creative theories. They are bad for obvious reasons.
For instance, the Packers are bad for the following reasons:
1. They have two offensive linemen who do not belong in the NFL. This is a serious downgrade from last year, when these positions were manned by pro-bowl players.
2. They have several wide receivers, who actually play in games, who do not belong in the NFL. While Javon Walker and Donald Driver are excellent, near pro-bowl caliber players, Turd Ferguson, Antonio Chatman, and Andrae "the human turnover" Thurman have no business on an NFL roster. Except for Turd, they don't even have any special teams value.
3. They do not have an NFL caliber RB. Sam Gado had good numbers on Sunday, and has even shown occasional flashes, but his big games are largely due to poor defenses, and his ypc will never be NFL caliber. He also fumbles more than Ahman Green. I mean, what are the odds of having two RBs on your roster that refuse carry the ball in their right hands? Do we scout for this trait?
What do the Packers have? A good QB, a solid #2 receiver, one linebacker who is great when he's not hurt (Diggs) one good to great CB (Harris) and a promising interior lineman (Jenkins). Kampman is OK, (a good effort guy) and Jackson and KGB have their uses, but that's about it.
When you have these kinds of personnel problems it is impossible to tell if the coaches are having a significant effect. There is too much "noise" in the information at hand. However, it is safe to say that Bates is not the problem.
It's easy (like killing babies) to say that "if the defense had played a little better" that they might have won. Well, better than what? The way I see the Pack is that the defense is improved from last year even though the personnel is worse, and the offense is worse (meaning that they are often on a short field, and that they are out there for extended periods of time). If the defense improves when all personnel indicators say that they should be worse, then that defensive coordinator must be doing a good job. Q.E.D.
The offense cost that Packers the game on Sunday, as it has for the past several weeks, where they have given up 19, 20 (7 of these were scored by Devonte Edward), 25 (win), 20 (7 of these were scored by Polamalu), 21 (Favre threw 5 picks in this game), and 23 (in a game they lost on a 56 yard FG, and in which Longwell missed 2 short field goals).
If the defense has had a melt down, it was against the Vikings on October 23rd, but in that game they still did enough to win it, and the offense let them down.
Over that same stretch of games, the offense has put up 14, 17, 33 (win) 10, 14, and 20 points.
And you're going to sit there and blame the defense?
Diagnosing this team isn't as easy as simply calling for everyone to be fired (or killing babies) but it's still pretty easy.