Packers Huddle

Posted: **31 Dec 2024 14:45**

williewasgreat wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:30

Yoop wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:12

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 13:51

Wow, this entire paragraph is just dead wrong.
no it is not , while it is true, some routes work better against zone versus man, Lafleur didn't have our receivers running those routes specifically, Lafleur isn't some idiot as some bloggers suggest and he sure as heck knows what Flores is doing, again the routes don't drastically change dependent on coverage.

and they don't change one iota at the level you coach.
Yoop, a major tenant of the west coast offense is that receivers will very often determine what pattern they run on a play based on the defense they see on that play. This is one of the learning issues that can impact how quickly receivers learn the nuances of the offense.

all true,I understand that, but again the route tree doesn't change, so when that receiver see's zone his break point changes, but the route is still the same, again Lafleur, Vrable, would be wise to this and speaking to our receivers concerning it.

I read something about this on Yahoo yesterday, and can't find the article now, didn't make sense then or now either, these kids had all of college and there NFL time to recognize zone and man coverage, and even if they didn't learn it our coaches do and these kids watch film of up coming opponents, with the coaches telling them what they see, now I would agree they may get it wrong on a play or two, but not all game, that's a reach for me Willie

Posted: **31 Dec 2024 14:54**

Yoop wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:12

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 13:51

Yoop wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 11:50

Lafleur new Flores would play mostly man coverage, that was in the news all week, (as though that even makes sense) who told you that our receivers run different routes in zone versus man, that is such over blown hype it's beyond my comprehension, the routes don't change dependent on coverage schemes as much as some of these social media bloggers want people to believe like this Pete Buttkoski guy

Wow, this entire paragraph is just dead wrong.
no it is not , while it is true, some routes work better against zone versus man, Lafleur didn't have our receivers running those routes specifically, Lafleur isn't some idiot as some bloggers suggest and he sure as heck knows what Flores is doing, again the routes don't drastically change dependent on coverage.

and they don't change one iota at the level you coach.

First, it was widely published that Lafleur did not expect as much man as the Vikings threw at us. It was absolutely not in the news all week that the Vikings were going to play more man coverage.

Second, routes and route combinations absolutely do change depending on if the defense is playing man or zone. Even within zone coverages routes and route combinations change. It is not overblown, it is 100% fact.

Posted: **31 Dec 2024 15:09**

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:54

Yoop wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:12

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 13:51

Wow, this entire paragraph is just dead wrong.
no it is not , while it is true, some routes work better against zone versus man, Lafleur didn't have our receivers running those routes specifically, Lafleur isn't some idiot as some bloggers suggest and he sure as heck knows what Flores is doing, again the routes don't drastically change dependent on coverage.

and they don't change one iota at the level you coach.
First, it was widely published that Lafleur did not expect as much man as the Vikings threw at us. It was absolutely not in the news all week that the Vikings were going to play more man coverage.

Second, routes and route combinations absolutely do change depending on if the defense is playing man or zone. Even within zone coverages routes and route combinations change. It is not overblown, it is 100% fact.

Who is the more credible source on what MLF was expecting and game planned for Flores to do?

Matt LeFluer or Yoop?

Clearly you can't take what Matt LeFluer said in his own press conference the day after the game. You need to trust yoop's shoddy memory of what he thought he heard 5 days ago.

Posted: **31 Dec 2024 15:35**

go pak go wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 15:09

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:54

Yoop wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:12

no it is not , while it is true, some routes work better against zone versus man, Lafleur didn't have our receivers running those routes specifically, Lafleur isn't some idiot as some bloggers suggest and he sure as heck knows what Flores is doing, again the routes don't drastically change dependent on coverage.

and they don't change one iota at the level you coach.
First, it was widely published that Lafleur did not expect as much man as the Vikings threw at us. It was absolutely not in the news all week that the Vikings were going to play more man coverage.

Second, routes and route combinations absolutely do change depending on if the defense is playing man or zone. Even within zone coverages routes and route combinations change. It is not overblown, it is 100% fact.
Who is the more credible source on what MLF was expecting and game planned for Flores to do?

Matt LeFluer or Yoop?

Clearly you can't take what Matt LeFluer said in his own press conference the day after the game. You need to trust yoop's shoddy memory of what he thought he heard 5 days ago.

That's a no-brainer. I'll go with Yoop 99% of the time.

Posted: **31 Dec 2024 15:37**

lake shark wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 13:55

LombardiTime wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 09:12

lake shark wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 03:24
Watson has improved. Reed is Deebo 2.0, the coaches need to continue to figure out ways to get him involved. Doubs has improved on contested catches but has missed games and is kinda like a James Jones. Melton and Heath have been the same. The only regression is really Wicks. Keep in mind the offense is a bit different this year with a lot more running. Kraft is also commanding touches. Love was hurt and still has his accuracy issues with the deep ball. Probably only Reed and Watson have enough value to trade and I doubt they would bring equal value to their original draft slot.
I like Watson. But he has just 29 catches on the season and 2TDs. Watson had 41 catches and 7 TDs as a rookie 2 years ago. If folks want to argue he's shown improved maturity, toughness, and leadership, I agree when it comes to all of those intangibles. Unfortunately, he has also again had multiple injuries that have forced him to miss time. Three years in, not even Christian's dad could legitimately argue he is a #1WR and his stats show he has not progressed this season when it comes to on the field production.

I would have agreed with the notion that Reed was progressing in his second year halfway through the season, but he now has just 17 catches for 189 yards over his last 7 games. Those are not even close to WR1 (or even WR2) levels of production. His drops are now also officially a problem, but I am even more concerned by his seeming inability to get open against man coverage. Furthermore, where you see a Swiss-Army knife Deebo Samuel type player, I see a guy who has 91 TOTAL yards rushing over the last 14 games. I am more confused about his role than ever.

Doubs has 46 catches for 601 yards and 4 TDs this season. He had 59 catches for 674 yards and 8 TDs last season. He has not progressed on the field and has definitely regressed off the field. Listening to Packer beat writers, podcasters, etc., Romeo apparently gives off a Jaire-like vibe. That ain't good. Many Packer fans were hopeful that after last season's suspension everything would be fine with Jaire in 2024 and we see how that turned out. Next season is a contract year for Doubs. I foresee further issues.

I did not think Melton or Heath were relevant to a discussion about #1WRs/WRs progressing this season, but since they were brought up, Melton had 16 catches for 281 yards last season and has just 8 for 91 yards this season. Heath had 15 receptions for 125 yards in 2023 and has 7 catches for a whopping 44 yards in 2024. The ideas of Bo Melton and Malik Heath as contributing WRs are much stronger in the minds of some Packer fans than the reality of their play.

Thus, while I definitely keep in mind that there is more running this season, I also know that Love specifically and the offense collectively was spinning its wheels during the first half of 2023 (Jordan's first year as a starter). Perhaps foolishly, I did expect progression at the WR position this season and, in my view, that did not happen.

My takes remain that there is no WR on the roster who, to date, resembles a #1 and that not one of the WRs meaningfully progressed this season.
Good points, I guess I wasn’t answering the thread topic exactly as just responding with the status of our WR progression this season. No one is a true No. 1 and that’s OK. Watson has been open a ton deep and Love hasn’t been able to hit him near enough. The Reed situation is on coaching. The other guys are good value for what they are doing on rookie contracts and there is some good redundancy as Doubs is not vastly superior to Melton or Heath. In 2023 the Packers were 22nd in team rushing attempts. In 2024 they are currently 6th.

Believe it or not, I agree with almost everything above. I think Watson is the best option to be the "lead" if not "#1" WR and I do believe he has shown some things this year that he did not previously. That is why I was so disappointed with him most recent injury. I also don't think he has quite the connection, for whatever reasons, with Jordan Love that he has had with Rodgers as a rookie (maybe just that there are more receiving options now).

As for Reed, I confess I have no clue. You say coaching and I cannot dispute it, but it could be an injury, it could be he has been figured out a bit, or it could be something else. I don't know. I do know he has slumped badly.

Your point on rushing attempts is also well taken.

As for Melton and Heath, I am with you as well, they look like decent receiving options but they just never see the field for whatever reason.

Anyway, good points and Happy New Year.

Posted: **31 Dec 2024 17:34**

FWIW, I would remember that ALL of our WRs and TEs are still pretty young. Yeah, there are some guys in their positions that are busting out like crazy. But most of those guys follow a track like what we've noted for Devonte and others. Maybe they make a lot of splash plays the first year, fall back under expectations in year two, and then ascend in year three.

Watson, injuries aside, has actually improved this year. Can somebody figure Watson's stats for the year if he hadn't missed any time?

I don't know if he'll ever be a 90+ catch guy or not. But I would be fine with him as 60+ in a injury-free season, with more than half a dozen TDs and moving the chains lots of times. It's clear he makes defenses account for him. And that's never gonna show on the stat sheet.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 05:50**

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 15:35

go pak go wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 15:09

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:54

First, it was widely published that Lafleur did not expect as much man as the Vikings threw at us. It was absolutely not in the news all week that the Vikings were going to play more man coverage.

Second, routes and route combinations absolutely do change depending on if the defense is playing man or zone. Even within zone coverages routes and route combinations change. It is not overblown, it is 100% fact.
Who is the more credible source on what MLF was expecting and game planned for Flores to do?

Matt LeFluer or Yoop?

Clearly you can't take what Matt LeFluer said in his own press conference the day after the game. You need to trust yoop's shoddy memory of what he thought he heard 5 days ago.
That's a no-brainer. I'll go with Yoop 99% of the time.

I'am tired of the excuses, we start games as though we are in a comatose state, Love missing open receivers, wont take checkdowns, receivers dropping passes, then some blogger says Lafleur has our guys running zone routes when they should have been running man routes, no sale, it's all a bunch of convoluted insanity to defend the ineptitude we see so much of this year, I hate the excuses.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 07:14**

Yoop wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 05:50

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 15:35

go pak go wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 15:09

Who is the more credible source on what MLF was expecting and game planned for Flores to do?

Matt LeFluer or Yoop?

Clearly you can't take what Matt LeFluer said in his own press conference the day after the game. You need to trust yoop's shoddy memory of what he thought he heard 5 days ago.
That's a no-brainer. I'll go with Yoop 99% of the time.
I'am tired of the excuses, we start games as though we are in a comatose state, Love missing open receivers, wont take checkdowns, receivers dropping passes, then some blogger says Lafleur has our guys running zone routes when they should have been running man routes, no sale, it's all a bunch of convoluted insanity to defend the ineptitude we see so much of this year, I hate the excuses.

Matt LeFluer said it. Elaborated it in his own press conference on Monday.

It wasn't some blogger. It came directly from the mouth of the head coach of the Green Bay Packers. There are two other posts in this thread that say this. Once again you aren't reading posts before you respond to them.

Based on your language and tired of excuses, you are ready to move on from our coach, QB, and WRs because they are the problem. The excuse is them. They failed. And if that is your prerogative that is fine.

Me....I'm willing to stick it out with this crew.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 07:49**

go pak go wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 07:14

Yoop wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 05:50

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 15:35

That's a no-brainer. I'll go with Yoop 99% of the time.
I'am tired of the excuses, we start games as though we are in a comatose state, Love missing open receivers, wont take checkdowns, receivers dropping passes, then some blogger says Lafleur has our guys running zone routes when they should have been running man routes, no sale, it's all a bunch of convoluted insanity to defend the ineptitude we see so much of this year, I hate the excuses.
Matt LeFluer said it. Elaborated it in his own press conference on Monday.

It wasn't some blogger. It came directly from the mouth of the head coach of the Green Bay Packers. There are two other posts in this thread that say this. Once again you aren't reading posts before you respond to them.

Based on your language and tired of excuses, you are ready to move on from our coach, QB, and WRs because they are the problem. The excuse is them. They failed. And if that is your prerogative that is fine.

Me....I'm willing to stick it out with this crew.

if you want to believe what a coach says in a after game press conference, fine, I don't, They say whatever will satisfy the press, and there had been talk the previous week that Flores liked playing man, common sense says that would be the case, why play zone against our depleted WR group, common freaking sense says he would use man coverage, and single high safety a lot, our only field stretcher was hurt again, use your head GPG, seriously, would Hafley use zone coverage if we had more Jaire Alexanders or against a team minus a deep threat, DC use zone because they lack quality corners, or they're up against a team with quality receivers,and that's the main reason Lafleur new Flores would play mostly man, how could he not know?

don't put words in my mouth, I can be disgusted with what I've seen, and still support most of what Lafleur has accomplished, we went 3/4 of game not being able to pass the ball, where are the short to intermediate routes, why does it take most of the game to realize they are playing man and you need to adjust the break points of the routes, sorry none of what I've heard makes sense.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 08:11**

Yoop wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:45

williewasgreat wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:30

Yoop wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 14:12

no it is not , while it is true, some routes work better against zone versus man, Lafleur didn't have our receivers running those routes specifically, Lafleur isn't some idiot as some bloggers suggest and he sure as heck knows what Flores is doing, again the routes don't drastically change dependent on coverage.

and they don't change one iota at the level you coach.
Yoop, a major tenant of the west coast offense is that receivers will very often determine what pattern they run on a play based on the defense they see on that play. This is one of the learning issues that can impact how quickly receivers learn the nuances of the offense.
all true,I understand that, but again the route tree doesn't change, so when that receiver see's zone his break point changes, but the route is still the same, again Lafleur, Vrable, would be wise to this and speaking to our receivers concerning it.

I read something about this on Yahoo yesterday, and can't find the article now, didn't make sense then or now either, these kids had all of college and there NFL time to recognize zone and man coverage, and even if they didn't learn it our coaches do and these kids watch film of up coming opponents, with the coaches telling them what they see, now I would agree they may get it wrong on a play or two, but not all game, that's a reach for me Willie

There is ABSOLUTELY a big difference between playing passing O versus man and versus zone. That's why some route combos are called "man-beaters" and some are "zone-beaters".

Yes, the route tree for an individual receiver is always pretty much the same. Route tree is just all the ways one WR can run. What you may not understand is that there are no individual man- or zone beating routes. It's not a league where you play only one receiver.

Saying the route tree doesn't change between man or zone is like saying the alphabet doesn't change between words. Putting those alphabets in different orders creates different words and sentences that mean different things and work for different functions. Like a combo of letters "abbghhmmuu" can be used to create "a bum GM hub" or "bah humbug".

It's the combinations of routes and how they are timed that makes a passing play a man- or zone beater, and there are MAJOR differences there. That's why it's so important to use things like motion to recognize which coverage it is, and then if you don't get the coverage you want, call a "pan pan" to change to a different pre-determined route combo or use signals to change the play at the line.

Man-beaters tend to take an advantage of the fact the secondary players will run with their...man. That enables things like a route combo that creates a natural pick play, forces a CB to run through traffic to follow his guy, gets a WR matched up vs a LB, or a combo that creates isolated space for a pure 1-1 if you feel like your guy is gonna beat their guy mano a mano.

Zone-beaters take an advantage of the fact there are areas between the zones, and if a WR gets there at the right time, there will be a void. For example in cover-2 you tend to have an opening between the safeties and either behind or in front of the LBs, depending on how deep the LB drops. You can also run decoy routes to pull defenders one way to clear space in a zone, or to overload a zone which forces one defender to choose which WR to cover.

Now, if you run a zone-beater vs man coverage, there's still a chance a WR gets open, especially on extended plays. It's just a lesser chance.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 08:25**

Yoop wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 04:58
Rodgers focused on tae like he did because the drop to the next receivers was such a steep dropoff, MVS rarely caught 50% of targeted throws, Lazard would stumble or otherwise blow the timing of routes.

Enough with the revisionist crap. Rodgers force-fed Tae because he ALWAYS over targets his go-to WR, and it absolutely did not matter how good or bad the other WRs were.

In '09 he had numerous good WRs but would force-feed Finley because he was infatuated with his receiving ability.

In '16 and '17 he had Adams getting open on just about every play but he kept forcing it to Jordy, who was no longer even the most explosive playmaker at WR anymore after the ACL injury. Gute finally had to surprise cut Jordy for Rodgers to finally start targeting Adams enough, and then of course he did the same thing with Adams as he does everyone else.

Now he has Garrett Wilson, who won OROY with Zach Wilson as his QB, but the Jets bought into the same nonsense you like to promote that you need two star WRs to truly "unlock" Rodgers, and traded for Adams. Does he spread the ball around now? No!! He force feeds Adams and neglects Wilson, who now does not even want to play with him.

Now you tried to argue that Rodgers was as good as Brady and Mahomes but just lacked the supporting cast

give us a break. Rodgers was as talented as those two, sure, arguably more. But no, he was not better, not at putting together winning playoff performances. Why? Because the other two spread the ball around when the opposing defense took their WR1 away, whereas Rodgers refused to do so and would stupidly keep trying to force it to WR1, fail to get completions, then we would lose because our offense couldn't move the ball (and then idiot fans would blame the defense for not holding playoffs offenses to single-digit scores rather than the offense for not scoring).

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 08:25**

wow Salmar, it's no wonder our receivers and Love take 3 quarters of games to finally give up on that stuff, and revert to the two minute plan, push the side line with stop and go, and get out of bounds routes.

thanks for all your investigating though, and have a Happy New year

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 08:49**

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 17:34
FWIW, I would remember that ALL of our WRs and TEs are still pretty young. Yeah, there are some guys in their positions that are busting out like crazy. But most of those guys follow a track like what we've noted for Devonte and others. Maybe they make a lot of splash plays the first year, fall back under expectations in year two, and then ascend in year three.

Watson, injuries aside, has actually improved this year. Can somebody figure Watson's stats for the year if he hadn't missed any time?

I don't know if he'll ever be a 90+ catch guy or not. But I would be fine with him as 60+ in a injury-free season, with more than half a dozen TDs and moving the chains lots of times. It's clear he makes defenses account for him. And that's never gonna show on the stat sheet.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 09:09**

Fantastic post @salmar80

Thank you for posting. The primary concern I have with our offense is how long it takes MLF and our QB, WR to adjust when they get the primary plan wrong.

Tom Brady also mentioned the lack of detail on intermediate routes after the game.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 09:16**

Yoop wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 08:25
wow Salmar, it's no wonder our receivers and Love take 3 quarters of games to finally give up on that stuff, and revert to the two minute plan, push the side line with stop and go, and get out of bounds routes.

thanks for all your investigating though, and have a Happy New year

You're welcome.

Of course, a D can try to disguise their coverage. Maybe Minny did just that, and LaFleur got bamboozled expecting more zone. Good on them, good to know for the playoffs. I think too much is made of it.

I honestly don't think we gave up on anything. When we commit an unforced penalty, our QB just misses, or our receiver drops a pass, it doesn't matter whether it was a perfectly called play or route combo. And boy did we dominate the unforced errors stat, and didn't make the difficult plays that Minny did... Bad game until the burst at the end.

BTW, I'm surprised there's no "unforced errors" stat in the NFL, not even an unofficial one. I love it as a tennis stat, very telling if a player is having an off day and has trouble concentrating. Can be overcome by winning the tough points, but obviously leaves you at a disadvantage.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 10:04**

go pak go wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 09:09
Fantastic post @salmar80

Thank you for posting. The primary concern I have with our offense is how long it takes MLF and our QB, WR to adjust when they get the primary plan wrong.

Tom Brady also mentioned the lack of detail on intermediate routes after the game.

yet you act like I'am a fool for bringing it up, and I've been bringing it up for quite a while, our intermediate pass routes are not getting anyone open, it's most likely why LOve is forced to wait and throw deep, and all this talk of we didn't know what Flores was doing, or going to do is just clouding the reality of this situation.

when I say we gave up on those interior routes, it's because we started moving the ball down the field when we started throwing mostly to the boundary, side line routes designed to get first downs and save the clock, it worked, we scored points doing that.

imho that's the reality of our loss to the Vikings, we depend so much on the run, and when it's not enough, about all we have to fall back on are go routes, or what can only be described as easily covered intermediate routes, that to often are not easily caught passes, or do you just want to blame every drop on a receiver? I can't because I see rocket type 7 yrd passes even justin Jefferson would struggle to handle, or there well off-target, we need some accountability rather than some lame ass excuses.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 10:14**

salmar80 wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 09:16

Yoop wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 08:25
wow Salmar, it's no wonder our receivers and Love take 3 quarters of games to finally give up on that stuff, and revert to the two minute plan, push the side line with stop and go, and get out of bounds routes.

thanks for all your investigating though, and have a Happy New year
You're welcome.

Of course, a D can try to disguise their coverage. Maybe Minny did just that, and LaFleur got bamboozled expecting more zone. Good on them, good to know for the playoffs. I think too much is made of it.

I honestly don't think we gave up on anything. When we commit an unforced penalty, our QB just misses, or our receiver drops a pass, it doesn't matter whether it was a perfectly called play or route combo. And boy did we dominate the unforced errors stat, and didn't make the difficult plays that Minny did... Bad game until the burst at the end.

BTW, I'm surprised there's no "unforced errors" stat in the NFL, not even an unofficial one. I love it as a tennis stat, very telling if a player is having an off day and has trouble concentrating. Can be overcome by winning the tough points, but obviously leaves you at a disadvantage.

I recorded the game, but with the holidays have not had time to re-watch, but hope to later Salmar, anyway my memory says we did our best reverting to the sideline stop and go, and the comeback routes, as Brady said the easiest place to pass is over the middle, but unless your receivers get open it's also the easiest place for interceptions, what bothers me is this game against the Vikings is just the last time we've had these issues, it's been going on all season, we don't notice as much because we run the ball well and face poor defenses, our reliance on deep strikes to Watson as basically last resort plays speaks volumes to our inability to attack mid level zones, jmo.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 10:33**

Labrev wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 08:25

Yoop wrote: ↑
31 Dec 2024 04:58
Rodgers focused on tae like he did because the drop to the next receivers was such a steep dropoff, MVS rarely caught 50% of targeted throws, Lazard would stumble or otherwise blow the timing of routes.
Enough with the revisionist crap. Rodgers force-fed Tae because he ALWAYS over targets his go-to WR, and it absolutely did not matter how good or bad the other WRs were.

In '09 he had numerous good WRs but would force-feed Finley because he was infatuated with his receiving ability.

In '16 and '17 he had Adams getting open on just about every play but he kept forcing it to Jordy, who was no longer even the most explosive playmaker at WR anymore after the ACL injury. Gute finally had to surprise cut Jordy for Rodgers to finally start targeting Adams enough, and then of course he did the same thing with Adams as he does everyone else.

Now he has Garrett Wilson, who won OROY with Zach Wilson as his QB, but the Jets bought into the same nonsense you like to promote that you need two star WRs to truly "unlock" Rodgers, and traded for Adams. Does he spread the ball around now? No!! He force feeds Adams and neglects Wilson, who now does not even want to play with him.

Now you tried to argue that Rodgers was as good as Brady and Mahomes but just lacked the supporting cast give us a break. Rodgers was as talented as those two, sure, arguably more. But no, he was not better, not at putting together winning playoff performances. Why? Because the other two spread the ball around when the opposing defense took their WR1 away, whereas Rodgers refused to do so and would stupidly keep trying to force it to WR1, fail to get completions, then we would lose because our offense couldn't move the ball (and then idiot fans would blame the defense for not holding playoffs offenses to single-digit scores rather than the offense for not scoring).

wait, you said enough with revisionist history, then bombard me with revisionist history

, come on man it's New Years day for crying out loud

ok, the coach by his play calls decides who the #1 read is to start each play, sure the QB can change that, but why would you think Adams wouldn't be the #1 on most pass plays? that doesn't even make sense not to think he would get the most targets

and I believe Wilson was his #1 target most of this season, and everything is so disfunctional, OL can't block, Rodgers under pressure on every drop back, it's impossible most of the time for him to even read his second progression, in order to take advantage of a second alpha receiver ya have to first be able to do that.

Rodgers was just as accurate as any passer in the league, it sure as hell wasn't his fault we lost in 2011, 14, or even 20 or 21, you like to gloss over that our defense couldn't get off the field, or ST cause problems he couldn't over come, hate on that QB all you want, and defend having 1 worthy WR while all the other are either out of the game entirely or back burner on some team right now, while I'll keep saying ya need more than that to win it all.

revisionist history, I thought that's all we did here

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 11:40**

Yoop wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 05:50

I'am tired of the excuses, we start games as though we are in a comatose state, Love missing open receivers, wont take checkdowns, receivers dropping passes, then some blogger says Lafleur has our guys running zone routes when they should have been running man routes, no sale, it's all a bunch of convoluted insanity to defend the ineptitude we see so much of this year, I hate the excuses.

I think there is this notion that if it isn't my reasons, it can't be true.

Every poster on this board is fed up with our unforced errors. We know they are a big reason we lost. It also hasn't been a huge problem since about San Francisco, reared it's ugly head again on Sunday. Drops can be lumped into this as well and again had not been a big thing for about a month until Sunday when we had about 4.

Every poster sees that Jordan Love reverted to some bad habits on Sunday. Was he too tight? Trying to do too much? Maybe. He needs to be better in games where there is some big pressure to win.

Every poster know we did not start that game well on offense on Sunday. However, that is not the rule for this team, this season. It actually one of the better first quarter offenses in the league as far as scoring and scoring first.

It is not an excuse to believe LaFleur when he says that they didn't expect as much man and didn't adjust well. The Vikings were among the league leaders in playing zone coming into the game and playing something like 3/4 of the snaps in man. LaFleur absolutely needs to adjust better and the receivers need to get open.

There were a whole host of reasons we lost that game. However we have seen that we can put things together on offense. It has happened this season. Now we have to do it when all the cards are on the table. Can we? Absolutely. Will we? I do not know.

Posted: **01 Jan 2025 11:47**

Yoop wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 10:04

go pak go wrote: ↑
01 Jan 2025 09:09
Fantastic post @salmar80

Thank you for posting. The primary concern I have with our offense is how long it takes MLF and our QB, WR to adjust when they get the primary plan wrong.

Tom Brady also mentioned the lack of detail on intermediate routes after the game.
yet you act like I'am a fool for bringing it up, and I've been bringing it up for quite a while, our intermediate pass routes are not getting anyone open, it's most likely why LOve is forced to wait and throw deep, and all this talk of we didn't know what Flores was doing, or going to do is just clouding the reality of this situation.

when I say we gave up on those interior routes, it's because we started moving the ball down the field when we started throwing mostly to the boundary, side line routes designed to get first downs and save the clock, it worked, we scored points doing that.

imho that's the reality of our loss to the Vikings, we depend so much on the run, and when it's not enough, about all we have to fall back on are go routes, or what can only be described as easily covered intermediate routes, that to often are not easily caught passes, or do you just want to blame every drop on a receiver? I can't because I see rocket type 7 yrd passes even justin Jefferson would struggle to handle, or there well off-target, we need some accountability rather than some lame ass excuses.

Yoop I never know what your argument is. Your posts are likely in line with my main thoughts but are primarily filled with made up and false facts, tangents, and fighting for the sake of arguing.

I have placed accountability on the players not doing their basic job. Catch the damn ball.

I have also placed accountability on the coaching staff for not adjusting quickly enough to man coverage until deep into the game. Cripes sake it's man coverage. Shouldn't be hard to adjust even though they didn't practice or emphasize it during the week. Call some man beaters.

You interpret these as excuses when I am saying these are the reasons and people who are not performing up to task (literally definition of accountability). The QB, WR, and coaches are to blame here.

What else do you want? Just complaining or are you looking for a solution? (Coach change, QB change, WR change)

Me: I stand by and large with our team. I could see minor adjustments. Either plan on the crew getting more experience or look at a lower cost vet who can come in and be a leader of this squad. The FA would essentially battle with Wicks/Reed/Doubs for playing time. I'm not in love with spending big money on a guy like Adams as I think those dollars are better spent at CB.

Packers Huddle

Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR

Re: Who will be our #1 WR