Packers Huddle

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:53

For me, it was not that the offense would be better without Adams, it was that it could be different in a way that might be beneficial, if certain things happened (in no order):

1) More use of running backs
2) More use of tight ends (contingent on Tonyan)
3) Getting back to LaFleur's intended scheme (think 2019 style)
4) Rodgers playing within the above scheme
5) The defense being top 10 or better
6) OL plays up to their talent (contingent on Bakh and Jenkins)

Had some combination of those happened, there would have been less pressure on Rodgers, and this team would likely have a winning record. Additionally, a team with a strong running game and defense would, in theory, be better suited for the playoffs. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we've basically got a worst-case scenario going on.

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:57

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:45

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:37

easiest way to win is no top secret, a good defense, a good OL, a good QB and good receivers and you'll contend every year,

Of course!!! Because as we all know, NFL teams have unlimited money to pay for a good defenders, good O-Lineman, a good QB (definitely not an expensive position to pay for), and good plural-receiver receivers!

No wait, actually, those are all free! How silly of me.

Thanks, yoop. I was so blind to the need for great players in football!

you have Lupe syndrome, never said they all had to be all pro, we have had some very good teams over the last decade, who stopped us, stupid ego centric players doing stupid stuff, as I said GOOD players, not great at every position, stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:53

For me, it was not that the offense would be better without Adams, it was that it could be different in a way that might be beneficial, if certain things happened (in no order):

1) More use of running backs
2) More use of tight ends (contingent on Tonyan)
3) Getting back to LaFleur's intended scheme (think 2019 style)
4) Rodgers playing within the above scheme
5) The defense being top 10 or better
6) OL plays up to their talent (contingent on Bakh and Jenkins)

Had some combination of those happened, there would have been less pressure on Rodgers, and this team would likely have a winning record. Additionally, a team with a strong running game and defense would, in theory, be better suited for the playoffs. Unfortunately, things did not work out and we've basically got a worst-case scenario going on.

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 13:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:57

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:45

Of course!!! Because as we all know, NFL teams have unlimited money to pay for a good defenders, good O-Lineman, a good QB (definitely not an expensive position to pay for), and good plural-receiver receivers!

No wait, actually, those are all free! How silly of me.

Thanks, yoop. I was so blind to the need for great players in football!

you have Lupe syndrome, never said they all had to be all pro, we have had some very good teams over the last decade, who stopped us, stupid ego centric players doing stupid stuff, as I said GOOD players, not great at every position, stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

I never said all-pro either. I said "good." That's right, good players are also expensive, even if they're not all-pro.

You didn't think MVS was good enough to pair next to Adams. KC gave him $10m. Where are these "good" players you want that will not break the bank to field all at once? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer).

stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

Oh, we can just name a random teams as proof for our position? Cool. The Patriots won six SuperBowls, I rest my case.

Philly is starting a QB on a rookie deal for crying out loud. You don't think THAT makes life much easier for them to build a well-rounded roster, especially compared to a team like us where that one guy takes up like half our cap space??

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 13:42

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 13:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 12:57

you have Lupe syndrome, never said they all had to be all pro, we have had some very good teams over the last decade, who stopped us, stupid ego centric players doing stupid stuff, as I said GOOD players, not great at every position, stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

I never said all-pro either. I said "good." That's right, good players are also expensive, even if they're not all-pro.

You didn't think MVS was good enough to pair next to Adams. KC gave him $10m. Where are these "good" players you want that will not break the bank to field all at once? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer).

stars here and there along with more average players win freaking SB's every year, Philly is 9-0, I rest my case.

Oh, we can just name a random teams as proof for our position? Cool. The Patriots won six SuperBowls, I rest my case.

Philly is starting a QB on a rookie deal for crying out loud. You don't think THAT makes life much easier for them to build a well-rounded roster, especially compared to a team like us where that one guy takes up like half our cap space??

NE won 6 SB's mostly with Average talent, KC has a more expensive QB then Rodgers, yet replace receivers in a instint if one should leave with a ready to play vet, we draft raw not ready to play rookies and expect the same success, it's not about what you pay the QB as much as it is the focus point of the resources you have to spend, if almost every high draft pick goes to defense obviously the positions that score points will suffer.

I keep saying it to the point of redundancy yet it just doesn't get through to you, defense beyond simply top 15 or so is near impossible to sustain, ( what do you think I make this &%$@ up) talent in this FA era goes out the door faster then you can replace it, not to mention injury's or decline in play, and if you pay attention you will see QB's dissecting positional weakness game in game out, so when you put all your top resources into building a unit so good, the rest of the team suffers, what is it about that is so hard for people to understand, it's been on display right here all season, I get it it's so much easier to just blame the QB

go pak go wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 13:46

And yet every year, especially from 2011 - 2014, we had the most explosive and historic NFL offenses in the history of the game and it still won the same amount of trophies as the 2022 Packers will.

And those years it was "well it was a bad defense"

Your type of team has been had on the Packers. Many times. And it failed to win the trophy every year.

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:07

go pak go wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 13:46

And yet every year, especially from 2011 - 2014, we had the most explosive and historic NFL offenses in the history of the game and it still won the same amount of trophies as the 2022 Packers will.

And those years it was "well it was a bad defense"

Your type of team has been had on the Packers. Many times. And it failed to win the trophy every year.

2011 - giants scored 37 points
2012 - 49ers scored 45 points
2013 - kaep couldn't be stopped running.
2014 - seahawks scored special teams and B-o-s-t-ic-k


His name is banned on the forum lol

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:13

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:07

go pak go wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 13:46

And yet every year, especially from 2011 - 2014, we had the most explosive and historic NFL offenses in the history of the game and it still won the same amount of trophies as the 2022 Packers will.

And those years it was "well it was a bad defense"

Your type of team has been had on the Packers. Many times. And it failed to win the trophy every year.

2011 - giants scored 37 points
2012 - 49ers scored 45 points
2013 - kaep couldn't be stopped running.
2014 - seahawks scored special teams and B-o-s-t-ic-k


His name is banned on the forum lol

shame we couldnt at least make all sides of the ball "not a liability". Notice I didnt say we needed to make all sides great. We needed to not have the WORST STs in the league last year. We needed a defense who could hold a team under-lets say 30???? in the january weather. This year, we didnt need multiple HOFers at WR, but maybe something more than Watkins and the rookies.

Point being, for some weird reason this org has gone all in one of side of the ball while neglecting the others. Back in the day the O was loaded, then every good draft pick went to the D, then the STs was completely forgotten as we promoted from within on an awful unit. Its weird how we play whack a mole to fix something, while just completely ignoring other aspects.

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:33

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:13

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:07

2011 - giants scored 37 points
2012 - 49ers scored 45 points
2013 - kaep couldn't be stopped running.
2014 - seahawks scored special teams and B-o-s-t-ic-k


His name is banned on the forum lol

shame we couldnt at least make all sides of the ball "not a liability". Notice I didnt say we needed to make all sides great. We needed to not have the WORST STs in the league last year. We needed a defense who could hold a team under-lets say 30???? in the january weather. This year, we didnt need multiple HOFers at WR, but maybe something more than Watkins and the rookies.

Point being, for some weird reason this org has gone all in one of side of the ball while neglecting the others. Back in the day the O was loaded, then every good draft pick went to the D, then the STs was completely forgotten as we promoted from within on an awful unit. Its weird how we play whack a mole to fix something, while just completely ignoring other aspects.

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

I think the best teams do have blue chip playmakers, but perhaps more importantly, they don't suck in any facet of the game. Like those New England teams. Of course there were the Moss's and Gronks, etc. But they were consistent in all 3 phases. It's those guys that aren't the big names who just show up and "do their job" who make the difference.

The closest we came to that IMO was 2014. But one quarter of stupidity can ruin everything, as we learned firsthand. HAHA giving up the lob up in the endzone, Peppers telling the DB to slide after making the INT, and $%&#. That's a level of stupidity that really cannot be made up.

Yes AR could have played better in these games, but come on people. Be honest here. He has had to deal with a WHOLE lot of stupid over the years.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:13

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

go pak go wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 13:46

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 13:42

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 13:16

I never said all-pro either. I said "good." That's right, good players are also expensive, even if they're not all-pro.

You didn't think MVS was good enough to pair next to Adams. KC gave him $10m. Where are these "good" players you want that will not break the bank to field all at once? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer).




Oh, we can just name a random teams as proof for our position? Cool. The Patriots won six SuperBowls, I rest my case.

Philly is starting a QB on a rookie deal for crying out loud. You don't think THAT makes life much easier for them to build a well-rounded roster, especially compared to a team like us where that one guy takes up like half our cap space??

NE won 6 SB's mostly with Average talent, KC has a more expensive QB then Rodgers, yet replace receivers in a instint if one should leave with a ready to play vet, we draft raw not ready to play rookies and expect the same success, it's not about what you pay the QB as much as it is the focus point of the resources you have to spend, if almost every high draft pick goes to defense obviously the positions that score points will suffer.

I keep saying it to the point of redundancy yet it just doesn't get through to you, defense beyond simply top 15 or so is near impossible to sustain, ( what do you think I make this &%$@ up) talent in this FA era goes out the door faster then you can replace it, not to mention injury's or decline in play, and if you pay attention you will see QB's dissecting positional weakness game in game out, so when you put all your top resources into building a unit so good, the rest of the team suffers, what is it about that is so hard for people to understand, it's been on display right here all season, I get it it's so much easier to just blame the QB

And yet every year, especially from 2011 - 2014, we had the most explosive and historic NFL offenses in the history of the game and it still won the same amount of trophies as the 2022 Packers will.

And those years it was "well it was a bad defense"

Your type of team has been had on the Packers. Many times. And it failed to win the trophy every year.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 00:21

Drj820 wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2022 22:54

If only Gutey had spent the resources he spent on Love for WR help or maybe even drafted a playmaker at 12 instead of busticles rashan Gary after pouring 100m into the position weeks before

The two biggest blunders IMO was not taking DK over Savage and then taking Love instead of Higgins or Pittman.

The DK one to me was obvious. I thought he was easily a top 10 talent. I wouldn’t have taken him 12 because I thought Jeff Simmons was a top 5 talent but to not take DK in the 20s for a team in desperate need of receivers is fireable. It inly makes it worse we took Savage who I thought was a major reach in the 20s. I felt he was a round 2 safety and certainly not the best in his class.

The Love pick to me is still the most fireable offense. Not only was the pick bad but the timing of it made zero sense.

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:33

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:13

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:07

2011 - giants scored 37 points
2012 - 49ers scored 45 points
2013 - kaep couldn't be stopped running.
2014 - seahawks scored special teams and B-o-s-t-ic-k


His name is banned on the forum lol

shame we couldnt at least make all sides of the ball "not a liability". Notice I didnt say we needed to make all sides great. We needed to not have the WORST STs in the league last year. We needed a defense who could hold a team under-lets say 30???? in the january weather. This year, we didnt need multiple HOFers at WR, but maybe something more than Watkins and the rookies.

Point being, for some weird reason this org has gone all in one of side of the ball while neglecting the others. Back in the day the O was loaded, then every good draft pick went to the D, then the STs was completely forgotten as we promoted from within on an awful unit. Its weird how we play whack a mole to fix something, while just completely ignoring other aspects.

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

I think the best teams do have blue chip playmakers, but perhaps more importantly, they don't suck in any facet of the game. Like those New England teams. Of course there were the Moss's and Gronks, etc. But they were consistent in all 3 phases. It's those guys that aren't the big names who just show up and "do their job" who make the difference.

The closest we came to that IMO was 2014. But one quarter of stupidity can ruin everything, as we learned firsthand. HAHA giving up the lob up in the endzone, Peppers telling the DB to slide after making the INT, and $%&#. That's a level of stupidity that really cannot be made up.

Yes AR could have played better in these games, but come on people. Be honest here. He has had to deal with a WHOLE lot of stupid over the years.

LombardiTime wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 09:20

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:33

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2022 14:13

shame we couldnt at least make all sides of the ball "not a liability". Notice I didnt say we needed to make all sides great. We needed to not have the WORST STs in the league last year. We needed a defense who could hold a team under-lets say 30???? in the january weather. This year, we didnt need multiple HOFers at WR, but maybe something more than Watkins and the rookies.

Point being, for some weird reason this org has gone all in one of side of the ball while neglecting the others. Back in the day the O was loaded, then every good draft pick went to the D, then the STs was completely forgotten as we promoted from within on an awful unit. Its weird how we play whack a mole to fix something, while just completely ignoring other aspects.

I think a strategy of nothing great, but nothing awful...all while having the best QB in the league would be better than "amazing offense, terrible D"

I think the best teams do have blue chip playmakers, but perhaps more importantly, they don't suck in any facet of the game. Like those New England teams. Of course there were the Moss's and Gronks, etc. But they were consistent in all 3 phases. It's those guys that aren't the big names who just show up and "do their job" who make the difference.

The closest we came to that IMO was 2014. But one quarter of stupidity can ruin everything, as we learned firsthand. HAHA giving up the lob up in the endzone, Peppers telling the DB to slide after making the INT, and $%&#. That's a level of stupidity that really cannot be made up.

Yes AR could have played better in these games, but come on people. Be honest here. He has had to deal with a WHOLE lot of stupid over the years.

Could not agree more with your all 3 phases of the game statement and I never understood why, with Rodgers at QB, GB failed at Defense and Special Teams.

In 2014, we watched the worst Special Teams in the NFL coordinated by a guy who got fired after the year and never coached in the NFL again not only get fooled for a fake field goal touchdown but then botch an onside kick in one of the all time worst Special Teams playoff performances in NFL history. That awful performance against Seattle may have been surpassed in the latest playoff loss to SF last January.

For years, Green Bay inexplicably almost took pride in its disdain for Special Teams.

Meanwhile, over in New England, Bill Belichick never subscribed to the Packer approach to Special Teams and instead emphasized the contributions of guys like Larry Izzo, Nate Ebner, and especially Matthew Slater to the team's success.

When New England won the Super Bowl in 2014, the Patriots had the third ranked Special Teams in the NFL.

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/cowbo ... -rankings/

That the Patriots featured top 10 defenses year after year with Brady at QB while the Packers did not has been discussed ad nauseam.

Rodgers deserves criticism for the fact he never returned to a second Super Bowl in Green Bay.

Those responsible for the play of the Packers' defense and special teams since 2010 deserve even more.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 12:04

It seems to me that those who say that it was not the QB's fault when the ST had a beyond horrible game were saying that it was Love's fault when he had to start vs the Chiefs and the ST had a beyond horrible game. But all people remember is that the Packers lost and Love could not deal with the pressure of being put in horrible starting position behind in the score

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 12:04

It seems to me that those who say that it was not the QB's fault when the ST had a beyond horrible game were saying that it was Love's fault when he had to start vs the Chiefs and the ST had a beyond horrible game. But all people remember is that the Packers lost and Love could not deal with the pressure of being put in horrible starting position behind in the score

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 12:56

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2022 12:04

It seems to me that those who say that it was not the QB's fault when the ST had a beyond horrible game were saying that it was Love's fault when he had to start vs the Chiefs and the ST had a beyond horrible game. But all people remember is that the Packers lost and Love could not deal with the pressure of being put in horrible starting position behind in the score

Ok in theory we could bench Rodgers and play Love. What I believe would happen in that scenario is that Love's presence on the field would drag this team down into an abyss of suck, the depths of which we did not know were possible. And bringing it back to your post, no I would not blame Love in that situation. I would blame whomever decided to play him when we have a healthy Rodgers. Love is just doing the best that he can, which is all that can be asked of him. The thing is, we already know that he is bad. Inserting bad QB into bad roster w/dumb coaching is not going to result in improved level of play. It's common sense, come on man.