Patriots v. Packers Joint Practice 8-17

[NCF]

Having seen these for a few years now, I am convinced these practices should replace preseason games and one day is plenty. Replace all three preseason games with these controlled practices, televise them, and it solves a lot of problems for the NFL.

ehhh, I'm not sure.

I think real game vibes aren't really replicable for players and coaching preparation. Practices are still practices. I think all the talk about preseason is polarized because the players have a union advocating for fewer injuries, the owners have power and a pedestal advocating for more money and the dialogue stays completely between those points.

But the coaches/GMs don't have any mechanism to get their message out. Coaches and GMs from what I've seen have never expressed any interest in eliminating or reducing the preseason. It's a hugely important tool for them. I bet they would all keep preseason games if they had to choose between that and joint practices. But obviously I'm just speculating based on indirect commentary they've give. I haven't heard anyone given that precise hypothetical.

From a fan's perspective, which is obviously where I sit, is that I would rather spend $100 on a hot August night to watch my favorite football team if I know there is a good chance I get to see the top guys play a little bit. Maybe my hypothetical is too extreme, but getting fans to go to these preseason games when the top 25 players don't even dress is a broken model, IMO.

[Labrev]

This team needs to learn how to win bar brawl type games. We beat them the first day because when it's a clean game, we have more great athletes on this team than most teams. Yet there is a reason we keep losing to SanFran. When the other team changes it from a clean game to a slog fest, we lose.

We have a habit of fixating on roster holes (if only Gutey plugged X or Y or Z hole with more playmakers). No, our roster is often just as good as, often better then, the team that beats us. And even on the occasion it's not better, that's not usually the reason why we lose. We lose to the team we do because they out-physical us.

Saleh said it publicly last year, just lean on this team and eventually they will wear down. The secret is out. He didn't even worry about sharing the secret to beating us because he knew, there's nothing we can do about it.

[TheSkeptic]

This team needs to learn how to win bar brawl type games. We beat them the first day because when it's a clean game, we have more great athletes on this team than most teams. Yet there is a reason we keep losing to SanFran. When the other team changes it from a clean game to a slog fest, we lose.

We have a habit of fixating on roster holes (if only Gutey plugged X or Y or Z hole with more playmakers). No, our roster is often just as good as, often better then, the team that beats us. And even on the occasion it's not better, that's not usually the reason why we lose. We lose to the team we do because they out-physical us.

Saleh said it publicly last year, just lean on this team and eventually they will wear down. The secret is out. He didn't even worry about sharing the secret to beating us because he knew, there's nothing we can do about it.

Uh, Da Bears have always been a physical team yet the Packers have dominated them for decades.

The Packers have plenty of players who have been tough in tough situations. I see no one on the D that could be called soft. Well, maybe Savage, though he may have regained that edge when he got benched last season.

If I look at this year's O, well maybe Myers. He is a big powerful dude but he seems to lack the mean streak. Maybe that is Nijman's problem too and why someone with such extreme physical skills still is not a starter in his 5th year. But who else? I mean with the exception of you know who, the one who is not relevant any more in GB.

[Labrev]

This team needs to learn how to win bar brawl type games. We beat them the first day because when it's a clean game, we have more great athletes on this team than most teams. Yet there is a reason we keep losing to SanFran. When the other team changes it from a clean game to a slog fest, we lose.

We have a habit of fixating on roster holes (if only Gutey plugged X or Y or Z hole with more playmakers). No, our roster is often just as good as, often better then, the team that beats us. And even on the occasion it's not better, that's not usually the reason why we lose. We lose to the team we do because they out-physical us.

Saleh said it publicly last year, just lean on this team and eventually they will wear down. The secret is out. He didn't even worry about sharing the secret to beating us because he knew, there's nothing we can do about it.

Uh, Da Bears have always been a physical team yet the Packers have dominated them for decades.

The Packers have plenty of players who have been tough in tough situations. I see no one on the D that could be called soft. Well, maybe Savage, though he may have regained that edge when he got benched last season.

If I look at this year's O, well maybe Myers. He is a big powerful dude but he seems to lack the mean streak. Maybe that is Nijman's problem too and why someone with such extreme physical skills still is not a starter in his 5th year. But who else? I mean with the exception of you know who, the one who is not relevant any more in GB.

I'm not talking about teams that are too talent deficient to be a real challenge. Bares haven't had offenses that can score points in that span. And even their defense hasn't been overly intimidating since Fangio left over five years ago.

If we are going to look to a team in the division right now that is truly hard-nosed, it's Detroit, hands down. And most recently, they swept us.

I am talking about teams that are close in talent to us. I think Jabril Peppers said it best, sadly: we are -fake- tough. We have lots of guys who look big, strong, and puff their chests... but the real test is how you respond when they get punched in the mouth.

They failed the test yesterday. Severely. I think it is a fixable issue, but we need to recognize the need to do so.

[Pckfn23]

Total overreaction just as saying Wednesday meant we are Super Bowl bound.

[Labrev]

Total overreaction just as saying Wednesday meant we are Super Bowl bound.

It's not, though. That's the problem.

[Pckfn23]

Total overreaction just as saying Wednesday meant we are Super Bowl bound.

It's not, though. That's the problem.

Because of 1 practice...

[Labrev]

Total overreaction just as saying Wednesday meant we are Super Bowl bound.

It's not, though. That's the problem.

Because of 1 practice...

Actually no, yesterday's practice was just part of a pattern where physical teams take our lunch. There's plenty of other evidence from not long ago to support it.

Also, my conclusion was not comparable to saying we are SuperBowl bound. That statement is final and hyperbolic in nature. Saying we need to be better against teams that play physical is not final or hyperbolic, e.g. this team will never go far because they are totally unable to beat physical teams.

[Pckfn23]

It's not, though. That's the problem.

Because of 1 practice...

Actually no, yesterday's practice was just part of a pattern where physical teams take our lunch. There's plenty of other evidence from not long ago to support it.

Also, my conclusion was not comparable to saying we are SuperBowl bound. That statement is final and hyperbolic in nature. Saying we need to be better against teams that play physical is not final or hyperbolic, e.g. this team will never go far because they are totally unable to beat physical teams.

It's a fun assumption, but one that just doesn't hold up when one looks closer. In reality, over the last decade, we just lose big games.

[Labrev]

It's a fun assumption, but one that just doesn't hold up when one looks closer. In reality, over the last decade, we just lose big games.

I find no fun in it, personally. Quite the opposite. I do not like seeing other teams get the better of us.

And it seems to hold up quite well, seeing as I am simply saying what has already been said by, among others, an NFL head coach (Saleh) when he explained how he strategized to beat this team. And the on-field play from that game matched what he said to a T, not solely in that they won, but that they won in the manner he planned.

[YoHoChecko]

I really sort of split the difference with Labrev and 23 here...

I completely agree that people are way overreacting to a PRACTICE session yesterday. They're projecting it onto the past and into the future. They're seeing in it all of their pre-conceived fears. In reality, it was one raucous practice by a young team.

But I'm open to the notion that we struggle with physicality. I'm not convinced of it in either direction. I'm curious about it. I don't think we're NOT a physical team, though. I think opponents are just as beat up after playing us as we are after playing them, physically.

But I could see a weird intersection of physicality and mentality where something isn't quite right. We don't struggle physically with getting punched in the face but maybe mentally with it. I'm also not sure that's true or if it's anecdotal. I remember thinking recently, maybe 2020 or 2021, that it was LESS true than it had previously been in maybe 2017 or 2018. But this is just passing thoughts and vague recollections


But if it IS true, I think we need to be more specific about it:
- Who are we talking about? Which of our players seem to shrink? Certainly not Jaire. I don't see it from Rashaan Gary.
- What can be done about it? Is this innate? Is it a drafting issue or a coaching issue? Are the likely solutions real valid or just a vague sense of old school machismo that doesn't necessarily translate?

I think it's silly to try to read into a practice exactly how this very young team will function moving forward. I also think it's silly to completely write off a general sense among some of our fans and opponents that we don't punch back well (figuratively; obviously punches get you ejected). But I don't think just saying it and accepting it as an issue has much usefulness.

[Pckfn23]

It's been no secret we haven't emphasized stopping the run for many years now. That doesn't equate to lack of toughness. Lack of brains, maybe.

What about those tough teams we did beat? Do they not count?

[Crazylegs Starks]

I don't have a comment; just wanted to post this:

[Drj820]

Funny answer but shows lack of mental toughness

[Scott4Pack]

It's not, though. That's the problem.

Because of 1 practice...

Actually no, yesterday's practice was just part of a pattern where physical teams take our lunch. There's plenty of other evidence from not long ago to support it.

Also, my conclusion was not comparable to saying we are SuperBowl bound. That statement is final and hyperbolic in nature. Saying we need to be better against teams that play physical is not final or hyperbolic, e.g. this team will never go far because they are totally unable to beat physical teams.

You could make the case that the Niners and Bucs the past couple of years have really handled us. Da Bears play a physical type of game as the Niners and Bucs, but they don’t have the talent level. We seem to handle da Bears fine. But a D with more talent, not so much.

[Yoop]

more so then toughness I think it's just mental motivation, we seem at times to lack the motivation to play inspired, this also can be mistaken for poor play design, which leads mis matches, which leads to our players getting there butts kicked because there thinking to much, thinking is not allowed once the ball is snapped

to think some player at the NFL level play like weaklings, are weaklings, sissy's, is so far fetched I think fans that say stuff like that should cleat up and go play some football, get your nose bloodied