OTA's 2022

[YoHoChecko]

This is where you and GPG are wrong. Around here, as soon as the Packers lay waste to the NFCN and compete for a top seed every year, it becomes blasphemy to point out team faults. Yoop gets stabbed for saying we need another WR as people pull out stats for performances against the Lions.

The Prophets saying the STs would cost us were slandered and reminded “every team has faults”.

It’s the same story every year. At some point, due to reg season success, it becomes blasphemy to point out red flags. Just the way it is.

It's not blasphemy to point out flaws. It's not like you noticed the STs and others didn't. It's not like Yoop noticed the WR separation/depth issues and no one else did. It's blasphemy to make an easy, weak prediction such as "we won't win the Super Bowl," which is true 90% of the time.... and then to attribute such a weak, easy prediction to some special cause or insight you have correctly seen while the rest of us didn't.

Maybe it's that no team with bad STs wins the Super Bowl. But there are a million other things that no team wins with Super Bowl with, such as a bloated QB contract. The blasphemy comes in when you seem to conclude that our team's specific flaws, more than any other team's flaws, precludes us from winning; when other teams' flaws are not acknowledged or taken as seriously as our own for the sake of pessimism.

Yes, 9 time out of ten, you will be "right" because we won't win the Super Bowl. That is the easiest take available. But you then attribute the reason we didn't win to the reason you suggested. It's like if I flipped a coin, got heads and then explained that I predicted that would happen because of the way the coin spins in the air, rather than attributing it to chance, luck, or any other host of factors.

I, and others, believe that winning the Super Bowl is not about having the best roster or the most complete team, but instead it is about having a team that plays their best football in the most important moments. That the GM and the roster and the coaching needs to hit a certain minimum threshold of talent and ability and success, which our team has reached, and from that point on, it's about the players executing and getting hot and making plays at the right time of year.

We didn't lose in the playoffs any of the past three years because we don't have a good enough roster. We lost because we didn't play well enough in the biggest games. It's anticlimactic because there's no clear solution. There's no "hole to fill," per se. But that's my strong believe and I think a host of data and intuition and eye tests would bear it out.

[Pckfn23]

This is where you and GPG are wrong. Around here, as soon as the Packers lay waste to the NFCN and compete for a top seed every year, it becomes blasphemy to point out team faults. Yoop gets stabbed for saying we need another WR as people pull out stats for performances against the Lions.

The Prophets saying the STs would cost us were slandered and reminded “every team has faults”.

It’s the same story every year. At some point, due to reg season success, it becomes blasphemy to point out red flags. Just the way it is.

It's not blasphemy to point out flaws. It's not like you noticed the STs and others didn't. It's not like Yoop noticed the WR separation/depth issues and no one else did. It's blasphemy to make an easy, weak prediction such as "we won't win the Super Bowl," which is true 90% of the time.... and then to attribute such a weak, easy prediction to some special cause or insight you have correctly seen while the rest of us didn't.

Maybe it's that no team with bad STs wins the Super Bowl. But there are a million other things that no team wins with Super Bowl with, such as a bloated QB contract. The blasphemy comes in when you seem to conclude that our team's specific flaws, more than any other team's flaws, precludes us from winning; when other teams' flaws are not acknowledged or taken as seriously as our own for the sake of pessimism.

Yes, 9 time out of ten, you will be "right" because we won't win the Super Bowl. That is the easiest take available. But you then attribute the reason we didn't win to the reason you suggested. It's like if I flipped a coin, got heads and then explained that I predicted that would happen because of the way the coin spins in the air, rather than attributing it to chance, luck, or any other host of factors.

I, and others, believe that winning the Super Bowl is not about having the best roster or the most complete team, but instead it is about having a team that plays their best football in the most important moments. That the GM and the roster and the coaching needs to hit a certain minimum threshold of talent and ability and success, which our team has reached, and from that point on, it's about the players executing and getting hot and making plays at the right time of year.

We didn't lose in the playoffs any of the past three years because we don't have a good enough roster. We lost because we didn't play well enough in the biggest games. It's anticlimactic because there's no clear solution. There's no "hole to fill," per se. But that's my strong believe and I think a host of data and intuition and eye tests would bear it out.

Please say this all again, louder!

[bud fox]

This is where you and GPG are wrong. Around here, as soon as the Packers lay waste to the NFCN and compete for a top seed every year, it becomes blasphemy to point out team faults. Yoop gets stabbed for saying we need another WR as people pull out stats for performances against the Lions.

The Prophets saying the STs would cost us were slandered and reminded “every team has faults”.

It’s the same story every year. At some point, due to reg season success, it becomes blasphemy to point out red flags. Just the way it is.

It's not blasphemy to point out flaws. It's not like you noticed the STs and others didn't. It's not like Yoop noticed the WR separation/depth issues and no one else did. It's blasphemy to make an easy, weak prediction such as "we won't win the Super Bowl," which is true 90% of the time.... and then to attribute such a weak, easy prediction to some special cause or insight you have correctly seen while the rest of us didn't.

Maybe it's that no team with bad STs wins the Super Bowl. But there are a million other things that no team wins with Super Bowl with, such as a bloated QB contract. The blasphemy comes in when you seem to conclude that our team's specific flaws, more than any other team's flaws, precludes us from winning; when other teams' flaws are not acknowledged or taken as seriously as our own for the sake of pessimism.

Yes, 9 time out of ten, you will be "right" because we won't win the Super Bowl. That is the easiest take available. But you then attribute the reason we didn't win to the reason you suggested. It's like if I flipped a coin, got heads and then explained that I predicted that would happen because of the way the coin spins in the air, rather than attributing it to chance, luck, or any other host of factors.

I, and others, believe that winning the Super Bowl is not about having the best roster or the most complete team, but instead it is about having a team that plays their best football in the most important moments. That the GM and the roster and the coaching needs to hit a certain minimum threshold of talent and ability and success, which our team has reached, and from that point on, it's about the players executing and getting hot and making plays at the right time of year.

We didn't lose in the playoffs any of the past three years because we don't have a good enough roster. We lost because we didn't play well enough in the biggest games. It's anticlimactic because there's no clear solution. There's no "hole to fill," per se. But that's my strong believe and I think a host of data and intuition and eye tests would bear it out.

Agree and disagree. Agree need to play your best when it is most needed.

Disagree on no holes etc. Our special teams was a clear problem. We did nothing to fix it and it cost us the game.

[Yoop]

We didn't lose in the playoffs any of the past three years because we don't have a good enough roster. We lost because we didn't play well enough in the biggest games. It's anticlimactic because there's no clear solution. There's no "hole to fill," per se. But that's my strong believe and I think a host of data and intuition and eye tests would bear it out.

we lost to SF last year because we lacked skill position players, Adams was smothered, the run came up short, and minus Jones and SF would have ran away with a easy win, our ST's sealed the loss, but our offense came up short because we lacked WR's.

and look at the SB winners, there star players don't win those games, there over all team balance does, there better at stuff that we've basically over looked, and WR is but one facet, there defense, ST's are solid, and they have more then just one quality receiver.

yes stars need to be stars, but Rodgers, Adams, Jones have all played well enough, our problem is no one else has stepped up.

mostly it seems Rodgers gets the blame, he didn't hit a open Lazard, as though Lazard is always open, but it's Rodgers fault for not noticing no one covered him on that specific play.

I was hoping we'd of traded Rodgers, that way I wouldn't have to listen to you and GPG blame every loss on him, most football people know without a doubt that minus Rodgers and we'd resemble the Jacksonville Jags, with Packer fans he's just a scape goat.

Adams left for greener pastures, ya might say he new he would never get a SB ring with us, turned down relatively the same money and went to Denver, now he may not get one there either, but imo he went in pursuit of that goal.

SF had a top tier defense, we had a make shift OL that struggled in pass pro and run blocking, one quality receiver and a receiving RB, just maybe our stars would have shinned more if we had more of em, easy for a defense to shut down two receivers.

[TheSkeptic]

We didn't lose in the playoffs any of the past three years because we don't have a good enough roster. We lost because we didn't play well enough in the biggest games. It's anticlimactic because there's no clear solution. There's no "hole to fill," per se. But that's my strong believe and I think a host of data and intuition and eye tests would bear it out.

we lost to SF last year because we lacked skill position players, Adams was smothered, the run came up short, and minus Jones and SF would have ran away with a easy win, our ST's sealed the loss, but our offense came up short because we lacked WR's.

and look at the SB winners, there star players don't win those games, there over all team balance does, there better at stuff that we've basically over looked, and WR is but one facet, there defense, ST's are solid, and they have more then just one quality receiver.

yes stars need to be stars, but Rodgers, Adams, Jones have all played well enough, our problem is no one else has stepped up.

mostly it seems Rodgers gets the blame, he didn't hit a open Lazard, as though Lazard is always open, but it's Rodgers fault for not noticing no one covered him on that specific play.

I was hoping we'd of traded Rodgers, that way I wouldn't have to listen to you and GPG blame every loss on him, most football people know without a doubt that minus Rodgers and we'd resemble the Jacksonville Jags, with Packer fans he's just a scape goat.

Adams left for greener pastures, ya might say he new he would never get a SB ring with us, turned down relatively the same money and went to Denver, now he may not get one there either, but imo he went in pursuit of that goal.

SF had a top tier defense, we had a make shift OL that struggled in pass pro and run blocking, one quality receiver and a receiving RB, just maybe our stars would have shinned more if we had more of em, easy for a defense to shut down two receivers.

Yes, this more than anything is why the Packers got embarrassed in the playoff game: The makeshift Oline

At LT Bakh wasn't back. Problem #1. The Packers 2nd or 3rd best player on O could not play.

Jenkins was out for the season with an ACL. The Packers 4th best player on O was out.

Myers was still rusty from his injury.

At LT, Turner started. Unfortunately Turner cannot play LT at even marginal ability. He has proven this over and over and over, not only on the Packers but before the Packers. Starting him over Nijman was the biggest screw up of the game. After the season the Packers correctly cut him, an average at best RT did not justify his salary.

Newman was a rookie in his first playoff game. He over-achieved for a mid-round-drafted rookie but he was still a rookie.

Kelly is a below average RT and had the worst game of his career.

The only above average lineman at his position in this game was JRJ. 1 of 5 lineman starting that game was 100% healthy and above average at his position.

There were other problems, Dillon getting hurt, ST's being a Packers ST unit with Packers ST coaching. Receivers getting shut down. But the basic problem was that Rodgers did not have time and Jones did not have adequate blocking. 10 points by the O was inexcusable and 3/4 of the problem was the Oline.

Of course what could be the weakest position in that game could be the strongest to start the coming season. Bakh might be back. JRJ could continue to improve. Myers probably will improve big time over an injury plagued rookie season. Newman will not be a rookie. And the Packers will have an All-Pro at RT, Jenkins. Even if Bakh isn't back, Nijman has been a very promising LT.

[NCF]

we lost to SF last year because we lacked skill position players, Adams was smothered, the run came up short, and minus Jones and SF would have ran away with a easy win, our ST's sealed the loss, but our offense came up short because we lacked WR's.

Did we lack WR's when we marched right down the field and scored a TD on the opening drive? Did we lack skill position players when we were moving the ball into SF territory on the second drive before the Marcedes Lewis fumble? Did we lack WR's when Allen Lazard uncovered and became wide open for what could have been a game clinching drive?

[NCF]

Yeah. 100% with calling your takes, owning your wings, and touting your rights.

But 100% with GPG that “we won’t win a super bowl” is a weak take that historically has been right over 90% of the time, leaves you patting yourself on the back when your favorite team loses, and doesn’t deserve much of any kudos. It’s like betting a 17-point favorite on moneyline and then claiming you were right because of some great insight you had.

So if you dont think ur favorite team has a chance to win the superbowl based on moves made by management Is a weak take? How do you feel about the fans that think year after year their favorite team is going to win the superbowl? Its not about patting ones self on the back. Its the reality of the situation the packers are in.

I think those fans should be prepared to be disappointed a lot. I also think there is a huge difference between thinking your team is going to be win the Super Bowl and believing they can win the Super Bowl. Once again this conversation is a Camp A vs Camp B discussion, but the true reality of the situation is that the Packers can win the Super Bowl. A number of things have to go right and a number of things need to be avoided and then our odds are as good as any other team in the NFL. I am perfectly content being in the mix because after that a lot of things are up to the flip of a coin and not due to fundamental failures of the organization as some would suggest.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Yeah. 100% with calling your takes, owning your wings, and touting your rights.

But 100% with GPG that “we won’t win a super bowl” is a weak take that historically has been right over 90% of the time, leaves you patting yourself on the back when your favorite team loses, and doesn’t deserve much of any kudos. It’s like betting a 17-point favorite on moneyline and then claiming you were right because of some great insight you had.

This is where you and GPG are wrong. Around here, as soon as the Packers lay waste to the NFCN and compete for a top seed every year, it becomes blasphemy to point out team faults. Yoop gets stabbed for saying we need another WR as people pull out stats for performances against the Lions.

The Prophets saying the STs would cost us were slandered and reminded “every team has faults”.

It’s the same story every year. At some point, due to reg season success, it becomes blasphemy to point out red flags. Just the way it is.

The one story that I continue to still cherish regardless of all of these disgusting playoff game disappointments (too many to want to remember anymore) ........ is the journey going 48 and 19 versus Da Bears in the Majik - Favre - Rodgers era .... so far. 48 and 19 versus Da Bears since the Majik to Sharpe AFTER FURTHER REVIEW touchdown strike shocked the world in 1989.

Please note the Sam Shields blitz on the famous DO THE RAJI play!

[Yoop]

we lost to SF last year because we lacked skill position players, Adams was smothered, the run came up short, and minus Jones and SF would have ran away with a easy win, our ST's sealed the loss, but our offense came up short because we lacked WR's.

Did we lack WR's when we marched right down the field and scored a TD on the opening drive? Did we lack skill position players when we were moving the ball into SF territory on the second drive before the Marcedes Lewis fumble? Did we lack WR's when Allen Lazard uncovered and became wide open for what could have been a game clinching drive?

we do that a lot, we are very good in the first quarter, mostly because we do things a defense isn't prepared to stop, once they adjust we are out maned, when ya lack players a defense has to design schemes to stop they can double up on the guys like Adams and Jones, which is what SF did, the reason Lazard got open is no one covered him, he ran free through a couple zones and no one picked him up, probably because he's not a threat as a open field runner, and is rarely open on schedule, under heavy pass rush Rodgers doesn't have time to keep looking to see if Lazard finally got open, when your number two receiver is targeted less then half as much as your #1 then your WR position is the problem, not the QB.

it is so easy for us to see a open receiver, not so when your behind center with a pass rush breathing down your neck trying to read through route progressions, SF was not going to allow Adams to beat us, and even though Jones had a great game it wasn't enough, Jones and Adams = 220 yrds receiving, Lazard 1 for 1 =6 yards, seriously NCF do you think Rodgers just refused to through to Lazard? of course you don't, I know you don't think that, but you would have to in order to defend Lazard, you saw what I just explained, most of the game Lazard was NOT open, and thats the biggest reason Rodgers forced the ball to Adams, the simplest explanation is most often the right one.

we have relied on Rodgers to make due with ONE quality receiver for 5 years with a sprinkling of very raw mid round and udfa's, I can't even get my mind around why a team would handicap a first ballot HOF QB as we have done, it just doesn't compute for me, if your going up against a top 5 defense, you have no room for error, ya can't afford to lose anyone, you can't have your TE fumble the ball, which killed us, Jones and Dillon had no where to run, and we had only Adams and Jones to carry the game, minus the best defensive game we've had in a decade and we would have gotten smoked big time, and your complaint is, Rodgers screwed up and lost this game because he didn't see Lazard completely uncovered, where the hell was Lazard for the other 59 minutes and 45 seconds, just maybe if he'd have gotten open even a few more times Rodgers would have looked his way more often.

I think people blame Rodgers simply because they don't know who else to blame.

[Drj820]

we lost to SF last year because we lacked skill position players, Adams was smothered, the run came up short, and minus Jones and SF would have ran away with a easy win, our ST's sealed the loss, but our offense came up short because we lacked WR's.

Did we lack WR's when we marched right down the field and scored a TD on the opening drive? Did we lack skill position players when we were moving the ball into SF territory on the second drive before the Marcedes Lewis fumble? Did we lack WR's when Allen Lazard uncovered and became wide open for what could have been a game clinching drive?

we do that a lot, we are very good in the first quarter, mostly because we do things a defense isn't prepared to stop, once they adjust we are out maned, when ya lack players a defense has to design schemes to stop they can double up on the guys like Adams and Jones, which is what SF did, the reason Lazard got open is no one covered him, he ran free through a couple zones and no one picked him up, probably because he's not a threat as a open field runner, and is rarely open on schedule, under heavy pass rush Rodgers doesn't have time to keep looking to see if Lazard finally got open, when your number two receiver is targeted less then half as much as your #1 then your WR position is the problem, not the QB.

it is so easy for us to see a open receiver, not so when your behind center with a pass rush breathing down your neck trying to read through route progressions, SF was not going to allow Adams to beat us, and even though Jones had a great game it wasn't enough, Jones and Adams = 220 yrds receiving, Lazard 1 for 1 =6 yards, seriously NCF do you think Rodgers just refused to through to Lazard? of course you don't, I know you don't think that, but you would have to in order to defend Lazard, you saw what I just explained, most of the game Lazard was NOT open, and thats the biggest reason Rodgers forced the ball to Adams, the simplest explanation is most often the right one.

we have relied on Rodgers to make due with ONE quality receiver for 5 years with a sprinkling of very raw mid round and udfa's, I can't even get my mind around why a team would handicap a first ballot HOF QB as we have done, it just doesn't compute for me, if your going up against a top 5 defense, you have no room for error, ya can't afford to lose anyone, you can't have your TE fumble the ball, which killed us, Jones and Dillon had no where to run, and we had only Adams and Jones to carry the game, minus the best defensive game we've had in a decade and we would have gotten smoked big time, and your complaint is, Rodgers screwed up and lost this game because he didn't see Lazard completely uncovered, where the hell was Lazard for the other 59 minutes and 45 seconds, just maybe if he'd have gotten open even a few more times Rodgers would have looked his way more often.

I think people blame Rodgers simply because they don't know who else to blame.

This is what I was talking about. A simple observation of the WR lacking fire power to produce against Great playoff defenses always gets met with an example of when the offense did succeed. Even though it clearly hasn’t succeeded when it mattered most in these games. That kind of resistance makes Yoops take bold, because it’s always met with dismissal!

[YoHoChecko]

But that’s the point, right? That when the chips are down boop one has stepped up to make the plays. I mean, the Giants don’t win any Super Bowls if not for miraculous catch plays by David Tyree and Mario Manningham. The 96 Packers don’t win without journeyman Andre Rising stepping up. The 2010 Packers May not even reach the Super Bowl of backup James Starks doesn’t get going. Who was that speedy no name receiver who crushed the Packers’ momentum with that pre-halftime deep shot TD from Brady and the Bucs.

It’s not the roster. It’s not that teams don’t have weak links or questionable players filling out their depth charts. It’s that the team plays together and finds ways to win and make plays when it matters. I’m not blaming any one player or playmaker.

In some of our shortcomings, the games have been so close and/or so flukey that any explanation can fit, because any one or two plays could have made all the difference. Last year at San Fran, sure, the ST gaffes are to blame. The inability to get first downs on two straight 4th quarter possessions could indicate the WR position was too weak. The inability to get a crucial stop on D to force a longer field goal try and leave some time left, their alpha Deebo trucked our alpha Jaire and got the first down.

Any given play, any given player. Someone needs to step up. The fact that the roster has weak points, especially relatively minor ones, isn’t make or break. It’s whether weak points play their roles or the elites overcome those weaknesses. That’s the name of the game. No team is perfect; striving for perfection is simply disappointment incarnate. Striving for our high caliber rosters to overcome and step up at the right moments is all you can realistically want. That has recently also been disappointing, but that’s the game. One winner each year. 31 others.

[Yoop]

But that’s the point, right? That when the chips are down boop one has stepped up to make the plays. I mean, the Giants don’t win any Super Bowls if not for miraculous catch plays by David Tyree and Mario Manningham. The 96 Packers don’t win without journeyman Andre Rising stepping up. The 2010 Packers May not even reach the Super Bowl of backup James Starks doesn’t get going. Who was that speedy no name receiver who crushed the Packers’ momentum with that pre-halftime deep shot TD from Brady and the Bucs.

It’s not the roster. It’s not that teams don’t have weak links or questionable players filling out their depth charts. It’s that the team plays together and finds ways to win and make plays when it matters. I’m not blaming any one player or playmaker.

In some of our shortcomings, the games have been so close and/or so flukey that any explanation can fit, because any one or two plays could have made all the difference. Last year at San Fran, sure, the ST gaffes are to blame. The inability to get first downs on two straight 4th quarter possessions could indicate the WR position was too weak. The inability to get a crucial stop on D to force a longer field goal try and leave some time left, their alpha Deebo trucked our alpha Jaire and got the first down.

Any given play, any given player. Someone needs to step up. The fact that the roster has weak points, especially relatively minor ones, isn’t make or break. It’s whether weak points play their roles or the elites overcome those weaknesses. That’s the name of the game. No team is perfect; striving for perfection is simply disappointment incarnate. Striving for our high caliber rosters to overcome and step up at the right moments is all you can realistically want. That has recently also been disappointing, but that’s the game. One winner each year. 31 others.

most close games come down to one or two plays deciding who wins, thing is we've been in to many close ones we've lost, at some point ya have to look past all the variables that tend to happen in every game and just look at talent, it's not enough to just have a top 10 defense, or even top 15 ST's, if you lack fire power on offense you will always be in close games.

for at least a half decade I've pointed out that having only one legit top shelf receiver like Adams isn't enough, in that time frame we've lost 4 PO games, and each loss came down to failure on offense to outscore the opposing team, forget all that other stuff for a moment,( poor ST and crap defense) the reality is that ya have to score more points then the other team to win, yet after every loss, Rodgers is blamed, and our receiver room is defended, same with the GM who created this situation.

I'am probably the only member here who wont cry if we never win another SB, I'd like to win another in my lifetime, but it's not the most important thing to me any more, what keeps bringing me back is great athletes giving everything they have in a concerted effort to win it, when ya handicap a great QB with a bunch of jag receivers as this FO has it defeats that purpose, that really pisses me off, everyone here can remember what this passing offense was like a decade ago, it was near unstoppable, but hell I hav't even asked for that good a group, simply a guy that could compliment Adams, I don't care how well Gute has done building the rest of this team, his failure to provide Rodgers with better receivers will be his epitaph, why is it our GM's tend to short change our QB's, it was the same story with Wolf and Favre, least Ron owned up to his short comings.

I had to cut this comment short yesterday, the secretary of internal affairs was on the hot line ( my Daughter )

just want to add that I was calling for a Greg Jennings replacement once his contract demands came up, and possibly the first here to bid farewell to Adams once we new he wanted to be the highest paid WR in the league, even though the two situations where vastly diff. when Jennings left we had Jones, Nelson, and Cobb, with Adams the position is void of proven talent.

so this goes a long way back for me, right to the Favre SB when Wolf brought Reed and Jackson aboard, it's always been my opinion that it takes a bunch of skill position players to win, and if ya have a QB that can max out there talent it's a shame to not give him those players, specially since we have depended so much on the pass to win.

[Labrev]

This is what I was talking about. A simple observation of the WR lacking fire power to produce against Great playoff defenses always gets met with an example of when the offense did succeed. Even though it clearly hasn’t succeeded when it mattered most in these games. That kind of resistance makes Yoops take bold, because it’s always met with dismissal!

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything "bold" there, sorry. It's met with dismissal from some fans here, yet several others generally always agree with that take, so it's not like it's being entirely dismissed outright.

For that matter, it's a pretty mainstream position among the Packers fanbase more broadly -- maybe not to the degree yoop believes it, but not that far off. This forum just happens to reflect that less than most other Packer fan spaces.

Also, a lot of us don't disagree with the idea of adding more talent at WR. So again, not outright dismissal, we just disagree with categorically chalking up losses to the notion that if Rodgers had better receivers, we'd have won that game. It's conjecture, nothing more; nobody can know that. Frankly, Rodgers' own playoff history basically debunks that at this point.

[RingoCStarrQB]

we lost to SF last year because we lacked skill position players, Adams was smothered, the run came up short, and minus Jones and SF would have ran away with a easy win, our ST's sealed the loss, but our offense came up short because we lacked WR's.

Did we lack WR's when we marched right down the field and scored a TD on the opening drive? Did we lack skill position players when we were moving the ball into SF territory on the second drive before the Marcedes Lewis fumble? Did we lack WR's when Allen Lazard uncovered and became wide open for what could have been a game clinching drive?

we do that a lot, we are very good in the first quarter, mostly because we do things a defense isn't prepared to stop, once they adjust we are out maned, when ya lack players a defense has to design schemes to stop they can double up on the guys like Adams and Jones, which is what SF did, the reason Lazard got open is no one covered him, he ran free through a couple zones and no one picked him up, probably because he's not a threat as a open field runner, and is rarely open on schedule, under heavy pass rush Rodgers doesn't have time to keep looking to see if Lazard finally got open, when your number two receiver is targeted less then half as much as your #1 then your WR position is the problem, not the QB.

it is so easy for us to see a open receiver, not so when your behind center with a pass rush breathing down your neck trying to read through route progressions, SF was not going to allow Adams to beat us, and even though Jones had a great game it wasn't enough, Jones and Adams = 220 yrds receiving, Lazard 1 for 1 =6 yards, seriously NCF do you think Rodgers just refused to through to Lazard? of course you don't, I know you don't think that, but you would have to in order to defend Lazard, you saw what I just explained, most of the game Lazard was NOT open, and thats the biggest reason Rodgers forced the ball to Adams, the simplest explanation is most often the right one.

we have relied on Rodgers to make due with ONE quality receiver for 5 years with a sprinkling of very raw mid round and udfa's, I can't even get my mind around why a team would handicap a first ballot HOF QB as we have done, it just doesn't compute for me, if your going up against a top 5 defense, you have no room for error, ya can't afford to lose anyone, you can't have your TE fumble the ball, which killed us, Jones and Dillon had no where to run, and we had only Adams and Jones to carry the game, minus the best defensive game we've had in a decade and we would have gotten smoked big time, and your complaint is, Rodgers screwed up and lost this game because he didn't see Lazard completely uncovered, where the hell was Lazard for the other 59 minutes and 45 seconds, just maybe if he'd have gotten open even a few more times Rodgers would have looked his way more often.

I think people blame Rodgers simply because they don't know who else to blame.

LaCoach's game preparation needs to be stepped up as well. Can someone please remind me when we've seen a successful safety blitz or corner blitz in a LaCoach era playoff game.

[bud fox]

But that’s the point, right? That when the chips are down boop one has stepped up to make the plays. I mean, the Giants don’t win any Super Bowls if not for miraculous catch plays by David Tyree and Mario Manningham. The 96 Packers don’t win without journeyman Andre Rising stepping up. The 2010 Packers May not even reach the Super Bowl of backup James Starks doesn’t get going. Who was that speedy no name receiver who crushed the Packers’ momentum with that pre-halftime deep shot TD from Brady and the Bucs.

It’s not the roster. It’s not that teams don’t have weak links or questionable players filling out their depth charts. It’s that the team plays together and finds ways to win and make plays when it matters. I’m not blaming any one player or playmaker.

In some of our shortcomings, the games have been so close and/or so flukey that any explanation can fit, because any one or two plays could have made all the difference. Last year at San Fran, sure, the ST gaffes are to blame. The inability to get first downs on two straight 4th quarter possessions could indicate the WR position was too weak. The inability to get a crucial stop on D to force a longer field goal try and leave some time left, their alpha Deebo trucked our alpha Jaire and got the first down.

Any given play, any given player. Someone needs to step up. The fact that the roster has weak points, especially relatively minor ones, isn’t make or break. It’s whether weak points play their roles or the elites overcome those weaknesses. That’s the name of the game. No team is perfect; striving for perfection is simply disappointment incarnate. Striving for our high caliber rosters to overcome and step up at the right moments is all you can realistically want. That has recently also been disappointing, but that’s the game. One winner each year. 31 others.

Too wish washy ... cinematic.

There are skill gaps from player to player and team to team. Our special teams was bad all year and was bad at the end. Our oline was a mash up of players. Our wr group had a great player and then nothing really else. Our def had investment and was looking good and played good.

The reality is against some teams these deficiencies don't matter but against whoever is in rhe 2nd round onwards of the playoffs it does.

[lupedafiasco]

Saying our special teams was bad is doing a disservice to all the bad special teams unit out there.

That performance last season was the worst special teams in the history of the NFL. I’ve seen bad kickers. I’ve seen bad punters. I’ve seen bad holders, returners, long snappers, coverage teams. I’ve never seen a unit that was bad in every single phase of special teams.

Crosby had a bad year. I don’t think it was entirely on him but at the same time not being able to get the ball into the end zone on kick offs is entirely on him. Bojo was just as inconsistent as every other punter we’ve had here over the past decade and was an awful holder. Our long snappers both sucked. Our punt returner was uncomfortable, indecisive, and unreliable. Our coverage teams were a big play waiting to happen. Our protection units were bad on punts and field goals.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Saying our special teams was bad is doing a disservice to all the bad special teams unit out there.

That performance last season was the worst special teams in the history of the NFL. I’ve seen bad kickers. I’ve seen bad punters. I’ve seen bad holders, returners, long snappers, coverage teams. I’ve never seen a unit that was bad in every single phase of special teams.

Crosby had a bad year. I don’t think it was entirely on him but at the same time not being able to get the ball into the end zone on kick offs is entirely on him. Bojo was just as inconsistent as every other punter we’ve had here over the past decade and was an awful holder. Our long snappers both sucked. Our punt returner was uncomfortable, indecisive, and unreliable. Our coverage teams were a big play waiting to happen. Our protection units were bad on punts and field goals.

And look how long it took LaCoach to can the ST coach and hire a new one .....

[go pak go]

Hot take.

The 2022 Packers isn't a team that can win a SB.

The 2022 Packers is a team that WILL win the SB.

They are too close and continue to improve every year. This is finally our year.

[go pak go]

Saying our special teams was bad is doing a disservice to all the bad special teams unit out there.

That performance last season was the worst special teams in the history of the NFL. I’ve seen bad kickers. I’ve seen bad punters. I’ve seen bad holders, returners, long snappers, coverage teams. I’ve never seen a unit that was bad in every single phase of special teams.

Crosby had a bad year. I don’t think it was entirely on him but at the same time not being able to get the ball into the end zone on kick offs is entirely on him. Bojo was just as inconsistent as every other punter we’ve had here over the past decade and was an awful holder. Our long snappers both sucked. Our punt returner was uncomfortable, indecisive, and unreliable. Our coverage teams were a big play waiting to happen. Our protection units were bad on punts and field goals.

There is no question the level of bad was historically putrid. It is why everyone on this forum was wanting the ST's Coordinator's head. Even if we didn't have a great 2nd option, we all felt here you can't tolerate that type of performance.

It in my mind is the single largest gaffe MLF has made up too this point in his career. He absolutely needed to make a move on Drayton after the Bears game.

[go pak go]

The reason I still believed we could win a SB even with our poor STs was because our defense was so good and offense had playmakers.

STs is the one group where a bad unit can escape with no impact because it's the easiest to "just get by". It has the most safe alternatives by kicking in the endzone, booting punts high and you expect to be able to block your guy for 2 seconds.

It's just that our STs literally couldn't even do the bear minimum basics when it came to it.