From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
First of all, no matter who the Rams play, I'm never going to say they are going to lose...As far as this game is concerned, I have said this multiple times on the forum. The Packers have had a lollipop schedule all season long and out of 13 wins only two of those teams they beat ended the season with a winning record...the Saints and the Titans. So 11 of there 13 wins were over teams that finish the regular season 500 or less. But ironically the 3 losses they had were by teams with winning records. To me that isnt a coincidence. They beat bad teams and padded there stats, but lose to good teams with winning records. Additionally, I didnt even mention the teams the Packers beat but struggled mightily (Jaguars, Panthers, and Lions).
I know these are just examples and they still have to play the game Saturday, but take a close look at the teams the Rams played this year and the teams the Packers played and it's like apples and oranges, it wasnt even close. Rams have a number one defense that Rodgers and the Packers have not faced all year long and I feel this game alone will send a message to the playoff world that the Rams are for real and defense does win championships. Rams will win this game and in the eyes of the media it will be an upset, but to me, it's a game they should have won because the Rams are the overall better team that have played and beat excellent teams throughout the season.
Rams. 30
Packers. 17
I count at least 6 of the Rams wins against teams that had losing records too. And an additional win over an 8-8 team. So, that makes 3 wins over teams above .500. Also, 4 of the 6 losses came from teams that didn't make the playoffs. Might not be the best example for sure
The Rams went 4-0 against the NFC East, who were a combined 11-29 against anyone but each other.
In their own division, they were 3-3, beating Cardinals twice, losing to 49ers twice, splitting with the Seahawks.
Against the AFC East, they were 1-3 with losses to the Bills, Solphins and Jets. (!)
And that just leaves themighty Bears and Patriots, both of whom they beat.
And guess what - in matches against teams over .500, they were 2-3. (2 wins against an 8-8 team, the Cardinals.)
First of all, no matter who the Rams play, I'm never going to say they are going to lose...As far as this game is concerned, I have said this multiple times on the forum. The Packers have had a lollipop schedule all season long and out of 13 wins only two of those teams they beat ended the season with a winning record...the Saints and the Titans. So 11 of there 13 wins were over teams that finish the regular season 500 or less. But ironically the 3 losses they had were by teams with winning records. To me that isnt a coincidence. They beat bad teams and padded there stats, but lose to good teams with winning records. Additionally, I didnt even mention the teams the Packers beat but struggled mightily (Jaguars, Panthers, and Lions).
I know these are just examples and they still have to play the game Saturday, but take a close look at the teams the Rams played this year and the teams the Packers played and it's like apples and oranges, it wasnt even close. Rams have a number one defense that Rodgers and the Packers have not faced all year long and I feel this game alone will send a message to the playoff world that the Rams are for real and defense does win championships. Rams will win this game and in the eyes of the media it will be an upset, but to me, it's a game they should have won because the Rams are the overall better team that have played and beat excellent teams throughout the season.
Rams. 30
Packers. 17
I count at least 6 of the Rams wins against teams that had losing records too. And an additional win over an 8-8 team. So, that makes 3 wins over teams above .500. Also, 4 of the 6 losses came from teams that didn't make the playoffs. Might not be the best example for sure
The Rams went 4-0 against the NFC East, who were a combined 11-29 against anyone but each other.
In their own division, they were 3-3, beating Cardinals twice, losing to 49ers twice, splitting with the Seahawks.
Against the AFC East, they were 1-3 with losses to the Bills, Solphins and Jets. (!)
And that just leaves themighty Bears and Patriots, both of whom they beat.
And guess what - in matches against teams over .500, they were 2-3. (2 wins against an 8-8 team, the Cardinals.)
Give the Rams credit for the Cardinals wins. Because the Cards were 8-6 when they weren't playing the Rams just as the Bears were 8-6 when they weren't playing the Packers.
The problem about "Strength of Schedule" and we lost to "good teams" or they only beat "bad teams" is teams with good records will inherently have a "weaker" schedule when looking backwards because they beat the teams they played making their opponents have a worse record.
I see some posters talking down LaFleur (with some praise from others), pointing out that McVay and LaFleur would "argue" when they were on the same coaching staff. I have no idea where that came from, but it's been said a couple of times.
They did, like brothers. See Silverstein's pierce in MJS and Albert Breer's on SI.com.
They are best friends and like brothers and they knew each other well enough to feel completely free to challenge each other. So it's a very good thing not a bad thing.
The Packers lunatic fringe is more visible because of sheer numbers. The Packers have one of the largest fan bases in all of sports. If the fringe percentage is the same as with other teams, then we end up with larger volumes of nut jobs. - JustJeff
I see some posters talking down LaFleur (with some praise from others), pointing out that McVay and LaFleur would "argue" when they were on the same coaching staff. I have no idea where that came from, but it's been said a couple of times.
They did, like brothers. See Silverstein's pierce in MJS and Albert Breer's on SI.com.
They are best friends and like brothers and they knew each other well enough to feel completely free to challenge each other. So it's a very good thing not a bad thing.
I don't think McVay and LeFluer are anywhere close to the level of closeness that LeFluer and Kyle Shannahan and Robert Saleh are.
WHICH BY THE WAY. I am so very happy that Robert Saleh is now the head coach of the New York Jets. Gets him out of San Fran and keeps him out of Detroit.
I see some posters talking down LaFleur (with some praise from others), pointing out that McVay and LaFleur would "argue" when they were on the same coaching staff. I have no idea where that came from, but it's been said a couple of times.
They did, like brothers. See Silverstein's pierce in MJS and Albert Breer's on SI.com.
They are best friends and like brothers and they knew each other well enough to feel completely free to challenge each other. So it's a very good thing not a bad thing.
I don't think I saw that. I'll have to check it out for sure!
Tell me the last game we blew out a team with a top3 defense? This one will be competitive.
What HAVE been the results of the last (fill in the blank) games against top 3 defenses? And, while I'm never a fan of "a win is a win" during the season, I'd definitely take a win short of a blowout today.
I see some posters talking down LaFleur (with some praise from others), pointing out that McVay and LaFleur would "argue" when they were on the same coaching staff. I have no idea where that came from, but it's been said a couple of times.
They did, like brothers. See Silverstein's pierce in MJS and Albert Breer's on SI.com.
They are best friends and like brothers and they knew each other well enough to feel completely free to challenge each other. So it's a very good thing not a bad thing.
I don't think I saw that. I'll have to check it out for sure!
Yes, Breer’s piece is great reading.
The Packers lunatic fringe is more visible because of sheer numbers. The Packers have one of the largest fan bases in all of sports. If the fringe percentage is the same as with other teams, then we end up with larger volumes of nut jobs. - JustJeff
Tell me the last game we blew out a team with a top3 defense? This one will be competitive.
What HAVE been the results of the last (fill in the blank) games against top 3 defenses? And, while I'm never a fan of "a win is a win" during the season, I'd definitely take a win short of a blowout today.
First, what is considered a blow out? Double digit win?
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
Tell me the last game we blew out a team with a top3 defense? This one will be competitive.
It's been a hot minute I'd wager.
This one is going to come down to our O and the Rams D. Staley is going to throw a bunch of confusing looks for Rodgers. Expect a lot of stunts, pulling out of blitzes, and 4-5 man rushes that will work. Our defense will do it's job, as long as Rodgers can keep drives going - Goff will only have his way with this team if our defense is gassed. If we put our defense into position to make plays, I'm confident this team will come away with the W.
I see some posters talking down LaFleur (with some praise from others), pointing out that McVay and LaFleur would "argue" when they were on the same coaching staff. I have no idea where that came from, but it's been said a couple of times.
From every report I've heard McVay and MLF are good friends.
They're very good friends. AND they used to argue a lot. It's both. Great write-ups on these guys around the internet this week, after both had some similar comments in their pressers "like a brother;" "we got into it" things like that.
I don't think McVay and LeFluer are anywhere close to the level of closeness that LeFluer and Kyle Shannahan and Robert Saleh are.
WHICH BY THE WAY. I am so very happy that Robert Saleh is now the head coach of the New York Jets. Gets him out of San Fran and keeps him out of Detroit.
Saleh is definitely the closest to MLF, for sure; they go way back.
But I get the sense that Kyle and Sean are pretty similar. McVey lived across the street from the LaFleurs when they were all in Washington and they hung out all the time. McVey said he was frequently the third wheel.
Honestly, it's pretty cool that there is a tight friend group just dominating the NFL coaching ranks right now. It's an added dimension to the typical coaching trees in which they've all been neighbors, roommates, part of each other's weddings, etc.
Saleh makes 4 HCs in that group (no one has mentioned Zac Taylor, so I think he's more coaching tree than friend), and of the three that were HCs before this, all three have played in NFC Championships games within the past 2 years and one will be back this year. Wild.
First, what is considered a blow out? Double digit win?
Three possession game like 36:15. That'd be a blow-out for me. Of course in one game anything can happen - just rewatch the first quarter of the Steelers game - but I would expect a tighter game.
112 playoff games in the history of the NFL have ended with a 21+ point lead.
159 games have seen the Packers winning by 21+ in their history.
Blowing a team out doesn't happen often in the first place. It really doesn't mean a thing if or when the Packers last beat a rope defense by 21+ points.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
First, what is considered a blow out? Double digit win?
Three possession game like 36:15. That'd be a blow-out for me. Of course in one game anything can happen - just rewatch the first quarter of the Steelers game - but I would expect a tighter game.
