Packers Huddle

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 10:38

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 10:11

more elite then Purdy, Mahomes, like Rodgers, like Brady,

Purdy did not turn the ball over; Mahomes did. Mahomes only scored 1 TD in regulation (to MVS). He struggled in the red-zone to punch it in until the end of OT.

SuperBowl LVIII was an ugly, low-scoring (tied 19-19 before OT) affair. Ugly low-scoring games happen when both teams' defenses play well.

Definitely not proof-positive of the "offense wins championships" theory.

like most SB winning QB's main goal is to play mistake free, again mistakes decide most PO games, so the offense that makes the least mistakes, WINS, everything else is just noise.

Offenses do not just "make mistakes" in a vacuum, mistakes require the opposing defense to make the play.

Even a totally unforced error by a QB, like Purdy throwing the ball directly to Darnell Savage, requires Savage to catch that ball.

That is the hole in your argument.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 10:27

you act as though KC had no game changers, they have a solid RB, great TE, Hardeman, Ayuik, Rice, SF has a great defense, yet failed to stop that crew when the game was on the line, I'am not going to go down the road on this Rodgers thing with you again, it's so insane to defend the idiotic nonsense that what we had at receiver the last 6 or 7 years here was good.

My only reason for not responding is because the autistic kids will come in and complain that, in a thread where they would not have otherwise posted at all, there's a conversation taking place that they do not want to have. Sorry, no discussion allowed on a discussion forum.

only a fool would look at our receiver room years back and think it was in any way sufficient, ya just watched sufficient this last season and still refuse to acknowledge the difference it made.

your condescending remark is noted, and it's not autism you smart aleck punk, it's simply old age, can't wait till you get there.

There were no great teams this year. The media tried to make the Ravens the one. They were beatable just like the Niners or the Chiefs. The Chiefs just felt like Lombardi's last championship Packer team. They are getting old and turning over the team but still are savvy enough to pull out the championship. We can hang with any of these teams. Bring on an aggressive D and a few players and let's hoist the

packman114 wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 10:43

My thoughts on the game.

• Kyle Shanahan taught MLF well. They both give up on the run way too early. Andy Reid kept running Pacheco even though it wasn't gaining much. You need to keep good defenses guessing.
  
  Can't just be good, also need to get the breaks. Punt off the Niners foot was the key play of the game IMHO.
  
  Losing Greenlaw on a freak injury really hurt SF. Not sure Kelce has all those catches if Greenlaw stay healthy.

Kudos to KC and Mahomes. He made the plays when needed the most.

Agreed. We like to get really philoshpical about high level team builduing, coaching, etc.

If we are being honest withourselves, the Chiefs got some huge breaks that bounced their way. It was a close game with both teams being evenly matched. Both teams deserved to win and both deserved to lose though I think overall SF played the better game.

A freak punt fumble and missed PAT for SF...sadly we know all too well what losing on freak STs plays can do in the playoffs. Ruined three SB Packers seasons.

Mahommes is just starting to pile them up.

APB wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 08:28

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 08:10

The bad news is SF's window remains open during the same span as ours is open: their QB is still dirt cheap for two more seasons, so they can and likely will keep going after top talent, and even when he gets paid, the roster losses probably won't be too bad for the first few years. We cannot rely on them imploding; we need to find a way to beat these guys, or to get lucky and avoid facing them in the playoffs somehow.

We kinda need to go into the offseason with that mentality: beat SF, make the SB.

I think we're the better team already. Had them beat in their house after they had a week's rest, just couldn't close the deal.

They will be our main competition these next few years (along w/Detroit) but I feel very good about the direction this rivalry is likely headed.

Purdy ain't it, Love is. Bring it.

Bring it and The Fiasco to Lambeau again for the 2024 Niners vs. Packers game! BF004.........start resting up for another pre-game at The Bar. Bogey will be waiting in Fan Assistance

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:16

your condescending remark is noted, and it's not autism you smart aleck punk, it's simply old age, can't wait till you get there.

I wasn't talking about you.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:16

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 10:38

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 10:11

more elite then Purdy, Mahomes, like Rodgers, like Brady,

Purdy did not turn the ball over; Mahomes did. Mahomes only scored 1 TD in regulation (to MVS). He struggled in the red-zone to punch it in until the end of OT.

SuperBowl LVIII was an ugly, low-scoring (tied 19-19 before OT) affair. Ugly low-scoring games happen when both teams' defenses play well.

Definitely not proof-positive of the "offense wins championships" theory.

like most SB winning QB's main goal is to play mistake free, again mistakes decide most PO games, so the offense that makes the least mistakes, WINS, everything else is just noise.

Offenses do not just "make mistakes" in a vacuum, mistakes require the opposing defense to make the play.

Even a totally unforced error by a QB, like Purdy throwing the ball directly to Darnell Savage, requires Savage to catch that ball.

That is the hole in your argument.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 10:27

you act as though KC had no game changers, they have a solid RB, great TE, Hardeman, Ayuik, Rice, SF has a great defense, yet failed to stop that crew when the game was on the line, I'am not going to go down the road on this Rodgers thing with you again, it's so insane to defend the idiotic nonsense that what we had at receiver the last 6 or 7 years here was good.

My only reason for not responding is because the autistic kids will come in and complain that, in a thread where they would not have otherwise posted at all, there's a conversation taking place that they do not want to have. Sorry, no discussion allowed on a discussion forum.

only a fool would look at our receiver room years back and think it was in any way sufficient, ya just watched sufficient this last season and still refuse to acknowledge the difference it made.

your condescending remark is noted, and it's not autism you smart aleck punk, it's simply old age, can't wait till you get there.

Our receiver room years back was just as sufficient as what Mahommes worked with last night.

Our 2020 and 2021 offense was significantly better than the Chiefs had in 2022 or 2023.

At the coin toss I noticed the Chiefs (AFC) wore their helmets and the Niners (NFC) did not wear their helmets.

In Super Bowl I and II, the NFL Packers wore their helmets, but the AFL Chiefs and Raiders did not.

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:31

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:16

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 10:38

Purdy did not turn the ball over; Mahomes did. Mahomes only scored 1 TD in regulation (to MVS). He struggled in the red-zone to punch it in until the end of OT.

SuperBowl LVIII was an ugly, low-scoring (tied 19-19 before OT) affair. Ugly low-scoring games happen when both teams' defenses play well.

Definitely not proof-positive of the "offense wins championships" theory.




Offenses do not just "make mistakes" in a vacuum, mistakes require the opposing defense to make the play.

Even a totally unforced error by a QB, like Purdy throwing the ball directly to Darnell Savage, requires Savage to catch that ball.

That is the hole in your argument.




My only reason for not responding is because the autistic kids will come in and complain that, in a thread where they would not have otherwise posted at all, there's a conversation taking place that they do not want to have. Sorry, no discussion allowed on a discussion forum.

only a fool would look at our receiver room years back and think it was in any way sufficient, ya just watched sufficient this last season and still refuse to acknowledge the difference it made.

your condescending remark is noted, and it's not autism you smart aleck punk, it's simply old age, can't wait till you get there.

Our receiver room years back was just as sufficient as what Mahommes worked with last night.

Our 2020 and 2021 offense was significantly better than the Chiefs had in 2022 or 2023.

KEEP DREAMING, your comparing in season stats, our receiver room never came close to what was on the field last night for KC or SF

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:28

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:16

your condescending remark is noted, and it's not autism you smart aleck punk, it's simply old age, can't wait till you get there.

I wasn't talking about you.

You tagged my comment, then said you couldn't say to me what you wanted to say to me because the autism police wouldn't like it.
I fail to see the difference?

I submit, they're both 2 of the best QB's i've seen play in almost a half century of watching NFL football. If you told me I had to take one of them and run a team for 20 years I'd gladly take either.

We can compare and contrast for days and sometimes it's fun, but I always get yelled at for not letting it go But then I'm usually only responding to someone who brought it up in the first place.

I'd say Mahomes' receivers were on par with what Rodgers had the past couple seasons outside of the TE of course. and instead of getting a punt blocked for a TD, his team recovered one in scoring position. and in true Mahomes fashion, when a play must be made, he seems to come thru every time.

I had very little doubt that he wouldn't make the plays on that last drive to tie it or to then win it. it's fun to watch.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:42

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:28

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:16

your condescending remark is noted, and it's not autism you smart aleck punk, it's simply old age, can't wait till you get there.

I wasn't talking about you.

sure sounded like it to me

I used the term "kids" so that makes no sense.

If it were about you I would have gone with something like Old Fart.

musclestang wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:49

I submit, they're both 2 of the best QB's i've seen play in almost a half century of watching NFL football. If you told me I had to take one of them and run a team for 20 years I'd gladly take either.

We can compare and contrast for days and sometimes it's fun, but I always get yelled at for not letting it go But then I'm usually only responding to someone who brought it up in the first place.

I'd say Mahomes' receivers were on par with what Rodgers had the past couple seasons outside of the TE of course. and instead of getting a punt blocked for a TD, his team recovered one in scoring position. and in true Mahomes fashion, when a play must be made, he seems to come thru every time.

I had very little doubt that he wouldn't make the plays on that last drive to tie it or to then win it. it's fun to watch.

well all the topics I like to talk about are considered Yoop pet topics, I tend to disagree to much, for instance MS I have to disagree with you, in that KC may have only had one Adams type player with Hill a few years back, and while Adams was/is better then Kelce, Mahomes go to guy, Hardeman,Ayuik, Rice are better then any #2 type we had in MVS, Lazard, Cobb etc. these last few season.

this was a closely fought and pretty well played SB, I enjoyed the game, like you I expected Mahomes and the Chiefs to score on that last possession, mostly because they had the horses to accomplish it. great win for them

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:41

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:31

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:16

only a fool would look at our receiver room years back and think it was in any way sufficient, ya just watched sufficient this last season and still refuse to acknowledge the difference it made.

your condescending remark is noted, and it's not autism you smart aleck punk, it's simply old age, can't wait till you get there.

Our receiver room years back was just as sufficient as what Mahommes worked with last night.

Our 2020 and 2021 offense was significantly better than the Chiefs had in 2022 or 2023.

KEEP DREAMING, your comparing in season stats, our receiver room never came close to what was on the field last night for KC or SF

I didn't say anything about SF. That's moving the goalpost. I said SB Champs KC.

I can get behind SF having a higher volume of playmakers than our 2020 - 2021 teams. But SF wasn't included because they lost the SB. If offense truly won Championships....SF would be your champion yesterday.

But freak plays and Mahommes stepping to make the plays when they were there to be made and 9ers not doing it resulted in KC getting another ring.

KC winning it all with their very average, if not below average, offense behind Mahommes and Kelce is incredibly remarkable.

The Packers need a safety and an ILB and maybe a RB and swing OT. That is not a big job in a draft. This year's draft does not need to be as good as the 2023 draft but if it is good then the Packers are as good as any other team and only possible injuries stand in their way to bringing the Lombardi Trophy home.

There is nothing special about either the 49'ers of Chiefs. There could be about the 2024 Packers.

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 12:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:42

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:28

I wasn't talking about you.

sure sounded like it to me

I used the term "kids" so that makes no sense.

If it were about you I would have gone with something like Old Fart.

like I'am suppose to know what KIDS means, speak simple English, actually say what you mean

WE ALL KNOW that when it comes to the PO's the play book becomes exploited, the best play production during the season often becomes a PO game staple, combinations of plays are condensed to produce mis matches in the big games, often they are plays with very little in game exposure prior.

lets take it a step further, who do you think is more likely to grasp and perfect those rarely used plays or variants of them that have never even been used? obviously the quick witted ones or those with years of experience, as long as they posses the talent to make it work.

MVS made a great simple play, then showed why he isn't one of those types when he caught one then lost 10 yards do to lack of gray matter to simply not run backwards, Lazard can't even buy a suit up for the Jets, Cobbs had the gray matter, lacked the physical ability, Allison, Kumerow, I could go on till ice freezes hell solid, no one we had even comes close to Hardeman, let alone Ayuik or Rice.

some of you act like I'am making this stuff up, there aint a sports announcer alive that wouldn't echo what I just said.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 12:38

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 12:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:42

sure sounded like it to me

I used the term "kids" so that makes no sense.

If it were about you I would have gone with something like Old Fart.

like I'am suppose to know what KIDS means, speak simple English, actually say what you mean

WE ALL KNOW that when it comes to the PO's the play book becomes exploited, the best play production during the season often becomes a PO game staple, combinations of plays are condensed to produce mis matches in the big games, often they are plays with very little in game exposure prior.

lets take it a step further, who do you think is more likely to grasp and perfect those rarely used plays or variants of them that have never even been used? obviously the quick witted ones or those with years of experience, as long as they posses the talent to make it work.

MVS made a great simple play, then showed why he isn't one of those types when he caught one then lost 10 yards do to lack of gray matter to simply not run backwards, Lazard can't even buy a suit up for the Jets, Cobbs had the gray matter, lacked the physical ability, Allison, Kumerow, I could go on till ice freezes hell solid, no one we had even comes close to Hardeman, let alone Ayuik or Rice.

some of you act like I'am making this stuff up, there aint a sports announcer alive that wouldn't echo what I just said.

You do realize that Brandon Ayuik is a 49er right? This is like the 4th post you keep insinuating Ayuik as another knotch in your belt as to why KC has such a superior offense.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 12:38

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 12:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:42

sure sounded like it to me

I used the term "kids" so that makes no sense.

If it were about you I would have gone with something like Old Fart.

like I'am suppose to know what KIDS means, speak simple English, actually say what you mean

WE ALL KNOW that when it comes to the PO's the play book becomes exploited, the best play production during the season often becomes a PO game staple, combinations of plays are condensed to produce mis matches in the big games, often they are plays with very little in game exposure prior.

lets take it a step further, who do you think is more likely to grasp and perfect those rarely used plays or variants of them that have never even been used? obviously the quick witted ones or those with years of experience, as long as they posses the talent to make it work.

MVS made a great simple play, then showed why he isn't one of those types when he caught one then lost 10 yards do to lack of gray matter to simply not run backwards, Lazard can't even buy a suit up for the Jets, Cobbs had the gray matter, lacked the physical ability, Allison, Kumerow, I could go on till ice freezes hell solid, no one we had even comes close to Hardeman, let alone Ayuik or Rice.

some of you act like I'am making this stuff up, there aint a sports announcer alive that wouldn't echo what I just said.

No one we had comes even close?

We had MVS, seems like a fair comparison to MVS.
We had Lazard, struggled for snaps but still played over Hardman as Hardman was released.
We had Cobb, struggled for snaps but still played over Hardman as Hardman was released.

Rice is pretty good for a rookie. We had this guy called Davante Adams, I heard he was pretty good.

Brandon Aiyuk isn’t on their team.

Our WR’s 2019-2021 were without a shout of a doubt better than the ‘23 Chiefs receivers, by every metric, our QB won 3 MVP’s during that. I know you have some weird agenda you feel the need to hammer, but you can find plenty of examples that make sense without pointing to an awful example.

So, I don’t think you’d find single a sports announcer who would echo it, because it’s so ridiculous.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 12:38

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 12:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 11:42

sure sounded like it to me

I used the term "kids" so that makes no sense.

If it were about you I would have gone with something like Old Fart.

like I'am suppose to know what KIDS means, speak simple English, actually say what you mean

"Kids" is very simple English. Saying what I actually mean is not an option; that would mean specifying the users who annoyingly complain when we have this discussion, and they might have complained it was a personal attack against the rules.

But since you have succeeded in getting others to have this convo, I will join in....

no one we had even comes close to Hardeman, let alone Ayuik or Rice.

Hardman?? He had 0 catches, 0 yards, 0 TDs in the Championship Game, the hump that Rodgers could never get over. How is he proof of a great receiver that would have gotten us over that hump?

In the regular season, he had 124 yards, less than half the yards Lazard had for the Jets this season. Lazard was a healthy scratch, but Hardman was shipped out by the same team. Hardman's receiving production has been going DOWN since 2021 because he's clearly a WR5, not a starter.

Meanwhile you refuse to give credit to MVS, which makes no sense given he contributed more catches, yards, and points than Hardman, but it does make sense given your AGENDA. You would probably shower him with praise if he was never a Packer and the kind of receiver we needed to help Rodgers. Too bad for you, he was, and whereas you used him as a scapegoat for our failure, KC paid him a lot of money to catch passes for them and he turned in key big performances in the playoffs in both seasons. And they kept him over Juju, one of the guys you said was a WR2 upgrade we needed over MVS, and were proven right to let him walk.

Ayuik is a 9er, not a Chief. Rice was good as a rookie. Big whoop, Rodgers was given Watson and Doubs. Watson single-handedly saved 2022 after Rodgers started throwing to him.

We also had Jones at RB, which you also like to leave out, who opens things up for the offense by making the defense fear the run. Having him is like having Christian McCafferey, who helped his own team reach a SuperBowl. KC has Pacheco, who is a decent back but not elite.

So clearly weapons is not the difference between Mahomes and Rodgers's success.

What is... is Mahomes stays focused, spreads the ball around (even to lesser WRs), keeps moving down the field methodically rather than passing on the gimmes to chase the big play, and eliminates drive-killing negative plays (and does not get himself injured taking needless sacks).

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Feb 2024 13:06

So clearly weapons is not the difference between Mahomes and Rodgers's success.

What is... is Mahomes stays focused, spreads the ball around (even to lesser WRs), keeps moving down the field methodically rather than passing on the gimmes to chase the big play, and eliminates drive-killing negative plays (and does not get himself injured taking needless sacks).

Nope. The defense is. But don't look at that. Given the same team other than the QB, I'd take Rodgers in his prime over Mahomes any day of the week.