General Packers News 2020

[Yoop]

Does going "all-in" really work? In the last 20 years, I can only think of the Peyton Manning era Broncos off hand, but that almost blew up in their faces with Manning going down hill so quickly. Then they (predictably) followed that championship up with years of losing - with no end in sight.

It's a risky move, I am not denying that, but it's a risk I would take under the present circumstances. Besides, the route we took also risks a similar nosedive scenario if it does not work out (i.e. the QBotF busts), so is it really appreciably riskier than what we did? Maybe somewhat, but not enough for me to not take a leap of faith for the Lombardi trophy.

Using a draft pick on a player who has a chance to participate is hardly going all in. Your draft picks are gambles. Once you've used them or traded them away. You're stuck with what you took. We've watched duh bares choosing players before the draft and spending crazy draft capital to aquire that specific player. They still suck. We usually let the draft come to us. Taking the best on the board or moving back.

If we used our #1 pick for another position, not even on an immediate need and saved the 4th for somebody else you'd still expect some contributions. You are still looking at these guys as long term players but they can help in the short term. I usually expect two picks out of the top four to contribute. Not necessarily start but be good enough to get on the field and show some potential. In case of injury or by years end be ready to help in the final push. We've only had one rookie with signifcant playing time Runyan, that is tough unless you've brought in some FAs to fill the gap. Hopefully our recent pick ups will step up.

Picking Bulaga in the 1st rnd. of 2010 wasn't going all in. You're filling a long term need. But when Tauscher went down after four games we needed him. He played like the rookie he was until the playoffs, and then he was lights out. He's the kind of unexpected contributor that can put you over the top. We got a lot of work out of Rs in 2010. We don't win without Sam Shields a FA rookie. We are not getting that boost from the Rookie class.

AR has been the anti-Favre throughout his career. He puts a lot more stock in this franchise, and his legacy, than Favre did. He wants to be Bart Starr when this is all over for him sometime in his 40's. Considering the crap he took, none of it his fault during the transition, we are lucky he is still here. He is not threatening to leave anytime soon, but if it happens I'm sure he'll do it graciously. Unlike Favre who held a gun to the head of the organization for years with the, will I or won't I retire act. A guy who left a franchise that made it to the AFC Championship game with Butt-Fumble for our rival, trying to stick it to the franchise and his adoring fans. There was really no immediate or even long term, (3 years in the league now) to jump on a QB. Now that we have Love I hope he works out in some fashion for us but he is not going to do anything short term.

whatever, Favre did the retirement act trying to force the FO to get him offensive talent, Rodgers didn't so that makes him What, Gracious? my whole point is QB's shouldn't have to threaten a GM to bring in better talent, specially first ballot HOF QB's, Wolfs comment that he wishes he had brought in better receivers for Favre rings true, if ya got no bullets the gun don't shoot, and what has went on here for the last 5 years is tragic, 1 decent, mostly ready to play receiver drafted 6 years ago don't cut it, I don't know how anyone can defend this, and Rodgers has made plenty of snide remarks concerning it, to not give a top 5 QB of all time a first round WR this past draft and take Love is insulting.

[BF004]

[Cdragon]

Hey Yoop have somebody pull the batteries out of your shock collar for a day or two. You'll feel better.
The point is there were a lot better reasons to grab a guy who a lot of people thought was the #1 guy in the draft when he fell to us and we didn't even move up. There was a lot less reason to go for Love and throw another pick into the bargain. But it is done so I hope we can find what we need when we need it.

[RingoCStarrQB]

It's a risky move, I am not denying that, but it's a risk I would take under the present circumstances. Besides, the route we took also risks a similar nosedive scenario if it does not work out (i.e. the QBotF busts), so is it really appreciably riskier than what we did? Maybe somewhat, but not enough for me to not take a leap of faith for the Lombardi trophy.

Using a draft pick on a player who has a chance to participate is hardly going all in. Your draft picks are gambles. Once you've used them or traded them away. You're stuck with what you took. We've watched duh bares choosing players before the draft and spending crazy draft capital to aquire that specific player. They still suck. We usually let the draft come to us. Taking the best on the board or moving back.

If we used our #1 pick for another position, not even on an immediate need and saved the 4th for somebody else you'd still expect some contributions. You are still looking at these guys as long term players but they can help in the short term. I usually expect two picks out of the top four to contribute. Not necessarily start but be good enough to get on the field and show some potential. In case of injury or by years end be ready to help in the final push. We've only had one rookie with signifcant playing time Runyan, that is tough unless you've brought in some FAs to fill the gap. Hopefully our recent pick ups will step up.

Picking Bulaga in the 1st rnd. of 2010 wasn't going all in. You're filling a long term need. But when Tauscher went down after four games we needed him. He played like the rookie he was until the playoffs, and then he was lights out. He's the kind of unexpected contributor that can put you over the top. We got a lot of work out of Rs in 2010. We don't win without Sam Shields a FA rookie. We are not getting that boost from the Rookie class.

AR has been the anti-Favre throughout his career. He puts a lot more stock in this franchise, and his legacy, than Favre did. He wants to be Bart Starr when this is all over for him sometime in his 40's. Considering the crap he took, none of it his fault during the transition, we are lucky he is still here. He is not threatening to leave anytime soon, but if it happens I'm sure he'll do it graciously. Unlike Favre who held a gun to the head of the organization for years with the, will I or won't I retire act. A guy who left a franchise that made it to the AFC Championship game with Butt-Fumble for our rival, trying to stick it to the franchise and his adoring fans. There was really no immediate or even long term, (3 years in the league now) to jump on a QB. Now that we have Love I hope he works out in some fashion for us but he is not going to do anything short term.

whatever, Favre did the retirement act trying to force the FO to get him offensive talent, Rodgers didn't so that makes him What, Gracious? my whole point is QB's shouldn't have to threaten a GM to bring in better talent, specially first ballot HOF QB's, Wolfs comment that he wishes he had brought in better receivers for Favre rings true, if ya got no bullets the gun don't shoot, and what has went on here for the last 5 years is tragic, 1 decent, mostly ready to play receiver drafted 6 years ago don't cut it, I don't know how anyone can defend this, and Rodgers has made plenty of snide remarks concerning it, to not give a top 5 QB of all time a first round WR this past draft and take Love is insulting.

And .............. And when I read this news this morning .....

".... just the third player since the merger with 1,000-plus receiving yards and 13-plus receiving touchdowns through 10 games, joining Jerry Rice (1989) and Randy Moss (2007)"

"Six quarterbacks in NFL history had thrown 400 touchdown passes before Aaron Rodgers reached that milestone Sunday against the Philadelphia Eagles. None of them did it as quickly as Rodgers"

"Davante Adams now has a TD catch in 7 straight games, tying Don Hutson’s franchise record (streaks in 1941-42 & 1943-44)"

..... I thought about Dickey (Lofton and Jefferson), and Majik (only Sharpe), and Favre (Sharpe, Brooks, Freeman, Driver). Montana had Rice and John Taylor. Bradshaw had Stallworth and Swann.

then thougth we should be grateful that Tonyan, Jones and Williams can catch balls. I am still hoping that getting anything out of MVS or EQ will be more of a "bonus" rather than a "must have" as we go into the 4th quarter of this uniquely COVID rattled season.

GO PACKERS!

[NCF]

[Christo]

how does moving up a bit more for a player likely to help the team as a rookie versus a bench warmer for 3 or 4 years translate to going all in, what it says to me is the FO recognizes short comings that could hinder a deep play off run and fixed it.

2 years ago Gutey traded up to slot 21 to take Savage, this year he wouldn't move up for a blue chip receiver to help Rodgers, instead he moved up for his replacement, if this offense struggles to out score opponents in the play offs Guty will be to blame.

and my comments have nothing to do with Love as a person, simply our use of our #1 pick.

Not quite sure I understand what you're saying. If the offense that's averaging 30 points a game struggles in the playoffs, it's because they didn't draft a wide receiver?
Right now, the biggest problem this team has is special teams. And that has nothing to do with drafting a WR in the first round.

IIRC, the hot name being talked about last year was Denzel Mims. Who has played a whopping 4 games for the Jets this season.
Now I understand, maybe he doesn't get injured if he's picked by the Pack. But then again, maybe he does.
If the Packers had picked him and he gets hurt, everybody is crying because he's the next Justin Harrell.

[paco]

Where is the dislike button?

[YoHoChecko]

According to Football Outsiders, the Packers have the 4th highest odds of winning the Super Bowl, behind the Saints, Chiefs, and Steelers; just ahead of the Rams, who are then followed by the Bucs, Bills, and Colts.

They have us with about a 30% chance of getting the 1-seed and a 35% chance of getting each of the 2 and 3 seeds. Less than a percent chance that we lose the division and 0 chance of getting the 4-seed reserved for the NFC East champ.

[go pak go]

They have us with about a 30% chance of getting the 1-seed and a 35% chance of getting each of the 2 and 3 seeds. Less than a percent chance that we lose the division and 0 chance of getting the 4-seed reserved for the NFC East champ.

I mean how can you get more of a duh probability.

We win the division we are guaranteed a top 3 seed. We win 2 of our final 4 remaining games and we win the division. We are winning our division.

[YoHoChecko]

I mean how can you get more of a duh probability.

We win the division we are guaranteed a top 3 seed. We win 2 of our final 4 remaining games and we win the division. We are winning our division.

Just putting it all out there! I probably didn't need to specify the 0.4% chance or so that we manage to lose the division.

[go pak go]

I mean how can you get more of a duh probability.

We win the division we are guaranteed a top 3 seed. We win 2 of our final 4 remaining games and we win the division. We are winning our division.

Just putting it all out there! I probably didn't need to specify the 0.4% chance or so that we manage to lose the division.

No it's all good. I just thought the even third split of #1, #2, #3 seed was funny because that is exactly where we are at. We honestly do have about as even a probability of getting any of those seedings.

I think the Packers likely have the best shot between the Saints and Rams/Seahawks at this point. But we all essentially have 1 hard game left and whoever can win their last remaining hard game likely takes the #1 seed. The Saints at this point has the best shot of losing their remaining hard game and still winning the #1 seed. The Hawks/Rams have the lowest chance of winning their last remaining hard game not getting #1 seed.

[NCF]

After watching what Cleveland did yesterday, do we really even have a hard game left? Players and coaches will say they are all hard games, but really, we should finish 4-0, yes?

[go pak go]

After watching what Cleveland did yesterday, do we really even have a hard game left? Players and coaches will say they are all hard games, but really, we should finish 4-0, yes?

We absolutely have a hard game left.

Just 2 weeks ago we said that both the Titans and Colts are good. Colts beat the Titans. Titans then cream the Colts. Browns beat the Titans.

There is just so much parity in this league in both conferences. I consider honestly any game vs an opponent in the top 8 of each conference to be a hard game.

Plus, the matchup is a tough and good matchup for us.

Yes. The Titans should be classified as a hard game. Not a brutal game. But a hard game for sure.

[NCF]

After watching what Cleveland did yesterday, do we really even have a hard game left? Players and coaches will say they are all hard games, but really, we should finish 4-0, yes?

We absolutely have a hard game left.

Just 2 weeks ago we said that both the Titans and Colts are good. Colts beat the Titans. Titans then cream the Colts. Browns beat the Titans.

There is just so much parity in this league in both conferences. I consider honestly any game vs an opponent in the top 8 of each conference to be a hard game.

Plus, the matchup is a tough and good matchup for us.

Yes. The Titans should be classified as a hard game. Not a brutal game. But a hard game for sure.

Why? What about the match-up don't you like? Because they are a run-first, run-heavy team? If our offense does what most think they can do against anyone and build any kind of lead at any point in the game, I don't see how they can avoid that match up playing right into our hands. Unless they get 50 MPH wind gusts like the Vikings got when we played them, I think this particular is a match-up we have built up too much in our heads. I will be furious if we lose that one.

[YoHoChecko]

The Titans also match up better against us than they do against the Browns. The Browns have a good Run D but a weak secondary. Derrick Henry could run for 225 against us. Not to mention AJ Brown could break 17 tackles in our secondary.

Also, that game was one of those games (like the Bucs game was for us) where a couple small things went the Browns' way early and then it just piled on. The 4th &1 stop of Derrick Henry was a) a bad call, and b) not something you'd expect or could count on. The Browns scored. Then Henry fumbles his next carry; the Browns scored again.

It went from a close game to 24-7 in a heartbeat. And the Titans' comeback effort was for real. They They got back to within 2 scores with plenty of time left before a red zone INT.

I guess this is a long way of saying that I don't think the Browns score or first half was reliably representative of the Titans.

The Titans have a bad secondary, so Rodgers should pick that apart, but I see this matchup a lot like the Vikings--a star RB that can embarrass us and a bad secondary that we can embarrass. We split those games.

[NCF]

The Titans have a bad secondary, so Rodgers should pick that apart, but I see this matchup a lot like the Vikings--a star RB that can embarrass us and a bad secondary that we can embarrass. We split those games.

I think the wind had more to do with splitting the games than the Vikings did, but whatever.

[YoHoChecko]

The Titans have a bad secondary, so Rodgers should pick that apart, but I see this matchup a lot like the Vikings--a star RB that can embarrass us and a bad secondary that we can embarrass. We split those games.

I think the wind had more to do with splitting the games than the Vikings did, but whatever.

That's good; that's the only game this season that I wasn't actively following and I have a mystery box in my mind as to how/why that went wrong

[go pak go]

The Titans have a bad secondary, so Rodgers should pick that apart, but I see this matchup a lot like the Vikings--a star RB that can embarrass us and a bad secondary that we can embarrass. We split those games.

I think the wind had more to do with splitting the games than the Vikings did, but whatever.

Right. If we beat the Titans, our hopes and theory will be affirmed.

If we don't beat the Titans, then the narrative can be wrriten that we lost to phsyical teams in the Bucs, Vikes, Colts, Titans and took the Jaguars to the wire.

I think we need to beat them for our psyche because we haven't beaten a team like that. I agree that their losses lately doesn't make them that 11-3 matchup vs 11-3 matchup we thought was possible a couple weeks ago.

But I run the track this year of "until we prove otherwise" this is the type of team and this is the type of matchup we can struggle against.

It will also be our first likely shot at beating a team with a record greater than .500 on this side of the bye.

[go pak go]

The Titans have a bad secondary, so Rodgers should pick that apart, but I see this matchup a lot like the Vikings--a star RB that can embarrass us and a bad secondary that we can embarrass. We split those games.

I think the wind had more to do with splitting the games than the Vikings did, but whatever.

That's good; that's the only game this season that I wasn't actively following and I have a mystery box in my mind as to how/why that went wrong

We primarily lost because we had about 3 plays that were there and Rodgers just MISSED. The refs also called a bullsh*t PI on us twice that led to a Vikes score and picked up a worse DPI on them vs Tonyan. In addition, the Refs missed a facemask penalty that would have put the ball at the 20 yardline and saved about 25 seconds.

Finally, MVS dropped a ball. EQ could have had at least two balls, we lost the turnover battle...you get the point.

[YoHoChecko]

If we don't beat the Titans, then the narrative can be wrriten that we lost to phsyical teams in the Bucs, Vikes, Colts, Titans and took the Jaguars to the wire.

How do we define a "physical team?" The Bears aren't? The week 1 easy win against the Vikings doesn't count but the loss does? The Saints' D and running game isn't physical?

It feels like a narrative looking for evidence more than evidence leading to a narrative.

I mean, we struggle against the run on defense. That's true. We do not seem to struggle against a specific defense. We struggle on offense when Rodgers throws pick 6s or the wind makes throwing impossible, I guess. But the Tampa game is the only one where they didn't score at least 22 points. We scored 31 against the "physical" Colts' D.