Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 12:02

another playoff loss blamed on Rodgers, worst WR room in the league gets a pass.

Who are you responding to? Haven't seen anyone say anything remotely close to this.

And are you really trying to argue we had the worst WR room in the league last year?

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022 21:11

If you expect 2016 Rodgers vs the Cowboys in every game you’re expectations are absurd.

It wasn't just Rodgers. I have pointed the finger at Rodgers plenty, but the brain trust of LaFleur/Hackett/Getsy were not good enough, either, against the 49ers. There were plenty of things they could have done to get Rodgers into more of a rhythm and get him out of tunnel vision mode. We have seen it plenty throughout the course of the regular seasons. Instead, they were stubborn and in stick to the game plan mode and it wasn't enough. There are plenty of examples over the past two years were the running game wasn't there, the OL was patched together, and the Packers offense made it look easy anyway. We didn't need a herculean Rodgers effort, we needed a functioning offense.

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 11:57

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 11:40

Funny how everyone just picks and chooses little aspects of the game, simply to support their preconcluded thoughts.

And the most extreme arguments too.

30,000 foot view...Yoho hit it on the head.

Yes. I expect our offense to put up more than 13 points. I honestly expect the offense to put up more than 21 points if they have a great defense. You need to do that to have a shot. I don't care how cold it is.

The offense put up 13 points. That is not winning football. Period.

The defense allowed little enough points to absolutely and unequivocally play winning football and even play winning football to compensate a possession loss by another unit of the team. But when you combine the offense playing 1 possession less where it needed to be and then the STs to play minus two possessions of where it needed to be, you end up losing a game you should have won by 17 points.

Yeah, little weird, some people are like 'We lost because of X, no one wants to admit it, it was so obvious'. Some are 'We lost because of Y, I said that earlier in the year and some people just couldn't handle it'.

Then you get a logical group of people who are like yes, we lost because of X and Y and also Z.

And all you get is, HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY PUT ALL THE BLAME ON Z FOR THIS LOSS.

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 12:17

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 11:57

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 11:40

Funny how everyone just picks and chooses little aspects of the game, simply to support their preconcluded thoughts.

And the most extreme arguments too.

30,000 foot view...Yoho hit it on the head.

Yes. I expect our offense to put up more than 13 points. I honestly expect the offense to put up more than 21 points if they have a great defense. You need to do that to have a shot. I don't care how cold it is.

The offense put up 13 points. That is not winning football. Period.

The defense allowed little enough points to absolutely and unequivocally play winning football and even play winning football to compensate a possession loss by another unit of the team. But when you combine the offense playing 1 possession less where it needed to be and then the STs to play minus two possessions of where it needed to be, you end up losing a game you should have won by 17 points.

Yeah, little weird, some people are like 'We lost because of X, no one wants to admit it, it was so obvious'. Some are 'We lost because of Y, I said that earlier in the year and some people just couldn't handle it'.

Then you get a logical group of people who are like yes, we lost because of X and Y and also Z.

And all you get is, HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY PUT ALL THE BLAME ON Z FOR THIS LOSS.

If the game's score was 41 to 38 rather than 13 to 10 but the STs still cost us a 10 point swing, I have a resounding suspicion that the camp who doesn't want to blame certain players would have absolutely zero issue on calling out the defense allowing 34 points being a large reason why we lost and it shouldn't have ever come down to STs to begin with.

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 12:17

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 11:57

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 11:40

Funny how everyone just picks and chooses little aspects of the game, simply to support their preconcluded thoughts.

And the most extreme arguments too.

30,000 foot view...Yoho hit it on the head.

Yes. I expect our offense to put up more than 13 points. I honestly expect the offense to put up more than 21 points if they have a great defense. You need to do that to have a shot. I don't care how cold it is.

The offense put up 13 points. That is not winning football. Period.

The defense allowed little enough points to absolutely and unequivocally play winning football and even play winning football to compensate a possession loss by another unit of the team. But when you combine the offense playing 1 possession less where it needed to be and then the STs to play minus two possessions of where it needed to be, you end up losing a game you should have won by 17 points.

Yeah, little weird, some people are like 'We lost because of X, no one wants to admit it, it was so obvious'. Some are 'We lost because of Y, I said that earlier in the year and some people just couldn't handle it'.

Then you get a logical group of people who are like yes, we lost because of X and Y and also Z.

And all you get is, HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY PUT ALL THE BLAME ON Z FOR THIS LOSS.

lol

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 12:22

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 12:17

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 11:57

And the most extreme arguments too.

30,000 foot view...Yoho hit it on the head.

Yes. I expect our offense to put up more than 13 points. I honestly expect the offense to put up more than 21 points if they have a great defense. You need to do that to have a shot. I don't care how cold it is.

The offense put up 13 points. That is not winning football. Period.

The defense allowed little enough points to absolutely and unequivocally play winning football and even play winning football to compensate a possession loss by another unit of the team. But when you combine the offense playing 1 possession less where it needed to be and then the STs to play minus two possessions of where it needed to be, you end up losing a game you should have won by 17 points.

Yeah, little weird, some people are like 'We lost because of X, no one wants to admit it, it was so obvious'. Some are 'We lost because of Y, I said that earlier in the year and some people just couldn't handle it'.

Then you get a logical group of people who are like yes, we lost because of X and Y and also Z.

And all you get is, HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY PUT ALL THE BLAME ON Z FOR THIS LOSS.

If the game's score was 41 to 38 rather than 13 to 10 but the STs still cost us a 10 point swing, I have a resounding suspicion that the camp who doesn't want to blame certain players would have absolutely zero issue on calling out the defense allowing 34 points being a large reason why we lost and it shouldn't have ever come down to STs to begin with.

the thing people have a hard time grasping is that when you play in January in GB against a playoff caliber defense, and you dont have your two best linemen, or cobb, MVS, and you lose your bulldozer back....you cant expect the offense to hum like it does in a dome against the Falcons in October.

The production against playoff level defenses is always going to be down. Then add in the injuries, and its obvious the margin for error will be tiny. It should be expected.

The margin for error was too small for the worst STs in football history at any level from NFL, to College, to High school, Middle School, pop warner, flag, intramural...there has never been a unit so god awful.

It was just too much to overcome.

But lets blame Rodgers lol

I am feeling deja vu here. Didn't we hash over the why we lost to the niners crap months ago? Yes, the special team sucked just as they did all year. The defense played quite well, I don't think anyone can argue this point. The OL did not play a great game either, but the niners front 7 had something to do with that. I am having difficulty understanding why there are some who can't admit Rodgers played a poor game too. It was pretty obvious to me that Rodgers decision-making left a great deal to be desired. The blinders he too often wore with Adams being the only receiver he could see was poor decision-making that no professional QB should ever do.

while i do blame the STs and think they were bound to sabotage the 2021 GBPs, as well as I think that was obvious while many believed their s***dom could be overcome, ive mostly just been trolling (maybe thats too harsh), but egging on the convo, because there is no news and Ive been a little bored at work.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 12:32

the thing people have a hard time grasping is that when you play in January in GB against a playoff caliber defense, and you dont have your two best linemen, or cobb, MVS, and you lose your bulldozer back....you cant expect the offense to hum like it does in a dome against the Falcons in October.

You’re just so committed to arguing against a straw man that you can’t even read the exact things we are clearly stating. WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HUMMING? We said 10 points is unacceptably low. No one even asked for our average (26 points). I even listed specific offensive series where the outcomes weren’t just “not good enough” but worst case scenarios. -9 and -6 yards on our final two possessions? Two botched red zone possessions leading to FG attempts. A fumble from a usually reliable player. A fumble from the star QB. These aren’t just “to be expected” because playoff defenses are good. They’re worst case outcomes of possessions when we needed to do better.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 12:32

The margin for error was too small for the worst STs in football history at any level from NFL, to College, to High school, Middle School, pop warner, flag, intramural...there has never been a unit so god awful.

It was just too much to overcome.

But lets blame Rodgers lol

[mention]BF004[/mention] literally spelled out the illogic of this statement. You are talking to a group of people who have widely pointed out coaching, blocking, injury, and special teams issues in addition to some poor plays or decisions by Rodgers, as well as other individuals on the offense. And yet you just can’t let a bad word be said about the QB who took 5 sacks, fumbled, and got 75 of his 225 yards on a single catch and run play, leaving him with only 150 yards the entire rest of the game.

There’s enough blame to go around. Saying the offense shouldn’t be expected to play better than it did is outright laughable. It holds no water. No amount of “playoff defenses are tighter” excuses the play of the offense. No amount of atrocious, back-breaking special teams plays should soften the blow of the offensive ineptitude.

Five 3 & outs in a single game. Only 14 first downs. Only 10 points on the scoreboard. It’s in no way anti-Rodgers to say the offense of any playoff team needs to produce better than that.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 12:44

while i do blame the STs and think they were bound to sabotage the 2021 GBPs, as well as I think that was obvious while many believed their s***dom could be overcome, ive mostly just been trolling (maybe thats too harsh), but egging on the convo, because there is no news and Ive been a little bored at work.

There is a gray line in there somewhere. First, I don't think anyone is absolving our ST from anything. But, at the same time, it is wrong and would be wrong to absolve any QB/Offense for scoring 10 points in a playoff game. Maybe we got what we deserved, though. If Rodgers leads one more TD drive and we win that game and the ST lived to fight another week we had been proven over and over again not to expect a different result. It's harder to fully blame that one unit, though, when there was such an imbalance between offensive and defensive production that day.

Realist wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022 15:14

The special teams excuse has gone way beyond lame. Pathetic.

lmao... Rodgers Defense Force does not even have THIS guy, whose whole shtick is being anti-homer, on their side!

Labrev wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 13:06

Realist wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2022 15:14

The special teams excuse has gone way beyond lame. Pathetic.

lmao... Rodgers Defense Force does not even have THIS guy, whose whole shtick is being anti-homer, on their side!

Luv that guy's shtick. Homers are the worst.

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 12:17

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 11:57

BF004 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 11:40

Funny how everyone just picks and chooses little aspects of the game, simply to support their preconcluded thoughts.

And the most extreme arguments too.

30,000 foot view...Yoho hit it on the head.

Yes. I expect our offense to put up more than 13 points. I honestly expect the offense to put up more than 21 points if they have a great defense. You need to do that to have a shot. I don't care how cold it is.

The offense put up 13 points. That is not winning football. Period.

The defense allowed little enough points to absolutely and unequivocally play winning football and even play winning football to compensate a possession loss by another unit of the team. But when you combine the offense playing 1 possession less where it needed to be and then the STs to play minus two possessions of where it needed to be, you end up losing a game you should have won by 17 points.

Yeah, little weird, some people are like 'We lost because of X, no one wants to admit it, it was so obvious'. Some are 'We lost because of Y, I said that earlier in the year and some people just couldn't handle it'.

Then you get a logical group of people who are like yes, we lost because of X and Y and also Z.

And all you get is, HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY PUT ALL THE BLAME ON Z FOR THIS LOSS.

who are the illogical people? everyone has commented about every issue, ST's, OL, Lewis fumble, Dillon injury, and lack of offensive skill position players, which mostly can be attributed to me, and the other 99.9% of Packer fans who've screamed for improvement at the position the last 5 years, bottom line is that Rodgers for most of the game had only a couple players open to throw to, everything else is nit picking excuses to lay the loss on him, which I suppose is normal, We win and there a god, We lose and he did something inexcusably stupid no QB should ever do when trying desperately to pull victory from the jaws of defeat

Imo we failed to over come the loss of Bahk and Jenkins, and Myers had just gotten back from his injury, both the run and pass blocking where poor, add in the injury to Dillon and everything became harder to do, we couldn't run, Niners new it, and focused on coverage, not sure there is a QB in the league that would have made a diff. specially when ST's gives up 13 points.

Against Tampa Bay;

LaFleur didn’t run AJDillon in the second half while Rodgers is getting massacred. Even though Dillon had some success in the 1st half.

LaFleur made the decision to not go for it on 4th and 8 when the Packers needed a TD. A head scratcher.


Against the Niners;

La Fleur went along with Stenavich’s decision and didn’t start Yosh (who had success against the Niners previously). Instead having Turner play a position he hadn’t played all year. A head scratcher.

In addition, the special teams had been a problem all year. La Fleur should have fixed this problem long before the championship game. Holmgren would have.

While La Fleur is an exciting young coach, he is/was inexperienced and that may have cost himself and the Packers 2 SBs.

I definitely think there should be more criticism of LaFleur on these losses. I hate to say it, but he's honestly become like a mini McCarthy in how much he has become reliant on Rodgers and how his ability to call a game falls off a cliff without him. Also, yeah, that decision (Turner over Yosh at LT) was a huge blunder, one that may have singlehandedly changed the outcome of the game.

That Chiefs game Love started, no, he did not play well, but LaFleur objectively did not call a good game given the circumstances.

Good points I am always down to pound on Lafleur who has done nothing in this league that anyone else couldn’t do while having an MVP at QB 2 of the last 3 years.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 17:29

Good points I am always down to pound on Lafleur who has done nothing in this league that anyone else couldn’t do while having an MVP at QB 2 of the last 3 years.

I can certainly agree with some criticism for LaFleur (which I have included in some of my comments) for some of the playoff losses. The FG on 4th and 8 doesn't bother me because we still needed to get a defensive stop on the next possession regardless. The math on win percentage outcome even showed it to be like 45/55; not much different than a coin flip. It was fine. The defense didn't get the stop. Had the Packers tied the game and the defense failed to get a stop, we'd just watch TB kick the game-winning field goal as time expired. But there's plenty about the run game or Dillon or just general play design and sequencing that didn't work out, and the head coach/play caller has to be accountable for that stuff. So I'm fine with lumping him into the reasons why the team has not made it to a Super Bowl in his 3 years.

But this nonsense about just doing what anyone could do with Rodgers is so stupid I'm mad I'm even replying to it. Rodgers has had more victories in the past three years of his career than in any other 3-year stretch. Comparing Rodgers to HIMSELF, this is the best he's ever done as a team. The two MVPs in MLF's 3 years match the 2 MVPs Rodgers won in the previous 11 years. Even if you hand-picked the three best W/L records of Rodgers career, without them being sequential, over his 11 previous years as a starter, the team was 40-8 compared to 39-10 under MLF; Rodgers' best three non-MLF years were only 1.5 games better than his 3 MLF years. MLF has brought Rodgers to heights Rodgers has barely scraped in his career. Indisputably.

Absolute garbage statement.

Yoho: “The FG on 4th and 8 doesn't bother me because we still needed to get a defensive stop on the next possession regardless.”

Yes, but in your scenario the Packers would have needed a stop And score a TD before time ran out. Something the Packers still could have done if they failed the fourth down attempt.

Foosball wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 18:25

Yoho: “The FG on 4th and 8 doesn't bother me because we still needed to get a defensive stop on the next possession regardless.”

Yes, but in your scenario the Packers would have needed a stop And score a TD before time ran out. Something the Packers still could have done if they failed the fourth down attempt.

I mean I don't want to hash this all out but

Going for it on 4th and 8, you need:
1) a successful conversion for a TD on one play
2) a successful 2-point conversion to tie it
3) a defensive stop without giving up a FG to tie

OR if you fail at #1:
2) a (likely 3 & out; maybe 1 first down) defensive stop
3) a TD on a longer field after the punt
4) a successful 2-point conversion to tie

If you kick the field goal, you need:
1) a made FG
2) a (likely 3 & out; maybe 1 first down) defensive stop
3) a TD on a longer field after the punt to win.

Like I said, it's pretty much a coin flip. You needed a lot of things to go right either way.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 18:32

Foosball wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 18:25

Yoho: “The FG on 4th and 8 doesn't bother me because we still needed to get a defensive stop on the next possession regardless.”

Yes, but in your scenario the Packers would have needed a stop And score a TD before time ran out. Something the Packers still could have done if they failed the fourth down attempt.

I mean I don't want to hash this all out but

Going for it on 4th and 8, you need:
1) a successful conversion for a TD on one play
2) a successful 2-point conversion to tie it
3) a defensive stop without giving up a FG to tie

OR if you fail at #1:
2) a (likely 3 & out; maybe 1 first down) defensive stop
3) a TD on a longer field after the punt
4) a successful 2-point conversion to tie

If you kick the field goal, you need:
1) a made FG
2) a (likely 3 & out; maybe 1 first down) defensive stop
3) a TD on a longer field after the punt to win.

Like I said, it's pretty much a coin flip. You needed a lot of things to go right either way.

A coin flip implies the decision is 50/50

The fg was the dumbest of all options by far