Packers Huddle

APB wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2020 10:46

lulu wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2020 11:34

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

29 Oct 2020 07:17

Lazard will be back in a week or 3, if not this week. There is absolutely no reason to trade for a WR who is not better than Lazard. Remember, a big part of Lazard's job is to block for both the running game and other receivers. Bringing in a WR who can't or won't block because he is a marginally better receiver is still a net minus. The Packers should be playing a 2-TE offense most of the time and do not need 3 starting WR's.

But Watt is clearaly better than any Dlineman we have not named Clark. He is a major upgrade over Lowry, Lancaster, Adams or Keke. Assuming that the Packers can't afford 2 trades, they should take Watt over anyone else every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Make it happen, Gute.

I'm all in on a move like this, Watt or similar. Defense is and continues to be the weak link of this team. If we can shore up the D-line and/or get help at ILB I think we become a legit SB contender.

While I agree with your overall conclusion, I'm thinking more and more that the players on the roster are not the issue.

I was all aboard bringing Pettine in a few years ago with his success he had elsewhere. That optimism has since waned and I'm beginning to think that it is he who is the problem on defense, not the players. When I see CBs playing 8 yds off on 3rd and 2 and continued dime packages against run formations, it leads me to believe he either has waaay too much confidence in the ability of his dime defenders or he just isn't keeping up with the offensive packages.

That, or he's an idiot. I prefer to think he's not an idiot.

The defensive roster has talent. I am leaning more and more toward the idea we just aren't getting enough out of that talent.

paco wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2020 11:30

Cdragon wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2020 19:26

Simplified the D so guys can come in and pick it up quick but the more talent he's got, the less aggressive he's become.

Cdragon wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2020 15:05

I'd rather send 5 or 6 guys and have the QB making the quick call or dump it.

Cdragon wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2020 20:00

paco wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2020 11:30

Another great gone.

BSA wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2020 15:53

Cdragon wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2020 15:05

I'd rather send 5 or 6 guys and have the QB making the quick call or dump it.

That's more fun to watch, that's for sure

But what are you willing to trade off to have those 5-6 guys rushing ?
Its a zero sum game. If they are rushing, you're leaving yourself vulnerable elsewhere - and good QBs will make you pay
You need both pressure & coverage to be a top D and right now we only have the personnel to do one or the other well, but not both.
.

Christo wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2020 20:54

BSA wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2020 15:53

Cdragon wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2020 15:05

I'd rather send 5 or 6 guys and have the QB making the quick call or dump it.

That's more fun to watch, that's for sure

But what are you willing to trade off to have those 5-6 guys rushing ?
Its a zero sum game. If they are rushing, you're leaving yourself vulnerable elsewhere - and good QBs will make you pay
You need both pressure & coverage to be a top D and right now we only have the personnel to do one or the other well, but not both.
.

I vaguely remember the Packers doing this with Bob Slowik back in the last years under Sherman, it was a disaster.
He blitzed almost every down and nobody seemed to ever get to the QB. And of course, every team moved the ball at will.
So, I'll pass on the sending 5 or 6 guys. An occasional blitz from different positions will do the job.

BSA wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2020 14:18

Cdragon wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2020 19:26

Simplified the D so guys can come in and pick it up quick but the more talent he's got, the less aggressive he's become.

I'm not so sure about that. Same with the idea that GB has all the required talent - but Pettine isn't getting it out of them.
Back in 2010, when the Packers had the great fortune of having Tramon Williams make the leap and Sam Shields balling out - it allowed Capers to be more aggressive, move his chess pieces around and take chances. Turnovers resulted. He could trust them on an island and that was the key

Fast forward to 2020, Pettine has Josh Jackson matched up on the outside - Pettine really can't afford to be too aggressive,quite the opposite. He has to babysit. Even when King is in the lineup - he too has his limitations and that limits what Pettine can do.

In my view,the Packers defense does not currently have all of the personnel needed to be a Top 10 defense. They have many of the pieces and parts, but the holes that have been discussed at great length here ( CB depth, DL, ILB) limit what a coach can scheme up and how aggressive he can be. We've also had a revolving door at ILB, the QB of the defense. 6 weeks into 2020, Ty Summers has played more snaps on defense than Kirksey. That's not good.

We're also in an unprecedented season in terms of offensive production across the league. Packers offense lit up Zimmer, Patricia, Dennis Allen, Quinn and Crennel. All of those guys are considered talented defensive minds and they all gave up big points to GB.
Did everybody forget how to coach defense or is 2020 just a weird season ?
.

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 06:51

It absolutely pisses me off that the players association cares more about the money that goes into their paychecks, especially at the high end, then taking care of the players who freaking built this game.

Like the fact that Patrick Mahomes gets a $500 million contract and these former players have to fight for health insurance is so selfish and ridiculous. Take care of the players who built this game to what it is today.

Christo wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 09:28

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 06:51

It absolutely pisses me off that the players association cares more about the money that goes into their paychecks, especially at the high end, then taking care of the players who freaking built this game.

Like the fact that Patrick Mahomes gets a $500 million contract and these former players have to fight for health insurance is so selfish and ridiculous. Take care of the players who built this game to what it is today.

Unfortunately, this is probably never going to change. We live in a " I want it now world ". I understand wanting to make the most you can. In a game as violent as football, makes sense. You're always one play away from finished. But a lot of the problems that players like Majik incur stems from getting paid now, instead looking down the road. The players union seems to want big contracts and splashy headlines. Only recently have they been talking about long term care or treatment for retired players.
Perhaps something along the lines of 2 or 3 percent of they're contract should go into a health care account for future health issues. Maybe some already have this, maybe not?
I'm guessing it would be a tax write off too.
We see the NFL have rookie introduction get togethers and discuss what to do and how to behave as to not put the NFL in a bad light.
How about discussions on life after football. The injuries they might have or problems that come up after surgery's long past they're retirement.

Just a thought.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 13:31

Are you under the impression that retired players do not receive benefits?

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 13:27

Christo wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 09:28

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 06:51

It absolutely pisses me off that the players association cares more about the money that goes into their paychecks, especially at the high end, then taking care of the players who freaking built this game.

Like the fact that Patrick Mahomes gets a $500 million contract and these former players have to fight for health insurance is so selfish and ridiculous. Take care of the players who built this game to what it is today.

Unfortunately, this is probably never going to change. We live in a " I want it now world ". I understand wanting to make the most you can. In a game as violent as football, makes sense. You're always one play away from finished. But a lot of the problems that players like Majik incur stems from getting paid now, instead looking down the road. The players union seems to want big contracts and splashy headlines. Only recently have they been talking about long term care or treatment for retired players.
Perhaps something along the lines of 2 or 3 percent of they're contract should go into a health care account for future health issues. Maybe some already have this, maybe not?
I'm guessing it would be a tax write off too.
We see the NFL have rookie introduction get togethers and discuss what to do and how to behave as to not put the NFL in a bad light.
How about discussions on life after football. The injuries they might have or problems that come up after surgery's long past they're retirement.

Just a thought.

This misses the point.

It's not just about education for current players now. It's about the fact that the players in 70s - early 2000's built this game. They built the passionate fanbases and put the game on the map. Their sacrifice is why the players have the opportunities they have today.

The thing is, for that 30 year period, the game had a LOT less revenue then they do now. I don't care about players now and "putting enough away." I care about the NFLPA not being a bunch of selfish pricks and ensure in their CBA that they make concessions from their cut of the revenue to take care of the players who used to play this game build this game.

Come to the bargaining table and even say, "Hey owners...we will pay for half and you pay for half but we need to do the right thing and take care of the players who built this game."

There are just too many players who contribute and give everything they have and are left behind and it's absolute garbage. This is a distribution issue and I just feel for the families who have beg and scrape to get by because of all the expenses on their health decades later.

Christo wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 22:04

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 13:27

Christo wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2020 09:28

Unfortunately, this is probably never going to change. We live in a " I want it now world ". I understand wanting to make the most you can. In a game as violent as football, makes sense. You're always one play away from finished. But a lot of the problems that players like Majik incur stems from getting paid now, instead looking down the road. The players union seems to want big contracts and splashy headlines. Only recently have they been talking about long term care or treatment for retired players.
Perhaps something along the lines of 2 or 3 percent of they're contract should go into a health care account for future health issues. Maybe some already have this, maybe not?
I'm guessing it would be a tax write off too.
We see the NFL have rookie introduction get togethers and discuss what to do and how to behave as to not put the NFL in a bad light.
How about discussions on life after football. The injuries they might have or problems that come up after surgery's long past they're retirement.

Just a thought.

This misses the point.

It's not just about education for current players now. It's about the fact that the players in 70s - early 2000's built this game. They built the passionate fanbases and put the game on the map. Their sacrifice is why the players have the opportunities they have today.

The thing is, for that 30 year period, the game had a LOT less revenue then they do now. I don't care about players now and "putting enough away." I care about the NFLPA not being a bunch of selfish pricks and ensure in their CBA that they make concessions from their cut of the revenue to take care of the players who used to play this game build this game.

Come to the bargaining table and even say, "Hey owners...we will pay for half and you pay for half but we need to do the right thing and take care of the players who built this game."

There are just too many players who contribute and give everything they have and are left behind and it's absolute garbage. This is a distribution issue and I just feel for the families who have beg and scrape to get by because of all the expenses on their health decades later.

OK, your right, I'm an idiot. But why just go back to the 70s. The players before then don't count?
In my simple mind, I just suggested a change to the current players, I didn't realize I had the ability to time travel and change things in the past, what a dumb ass I am.