Again, no, the offense did not do enough. Gaslighting this will not happen.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 05 Feb 2022 21:58
by Drj820
The offense sucked. Lafleur didn’t grab his QB by the face mask and tell him to get his head in the game and lead the troops to victory. He also forgot to use any trick plays or motions to give a spark.
Again, no, the offense did not do enough. Gaslighting this will not happen.
Did the packers Off score more points than the 49ers Off?
If we say the packers off didn't do enough to overcome the horrible special teams, either did the def. The packers off was closer to their season average points per game than the 49ers Off. It is telling that both off's performed well below the season average points per game.
Ultimately the special teams lost the game. I would rather have Aaron Rodgers at his contract value than Jimmy G at his contract value.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 05 Feb 2022 23:34
by Pckfn23
Not sure about TikTok, not on the platform, but if one wants to watch girls crying on TikTok, who am I to judge. That doesn't hide the fact that there is an effort to try and manipulate the reality of the game. The offense was poor, it did not do enough to win the game.
That the Packers offense scored more than the 49ers offense is irrelevant. The Packers offense still only scored 10 points. 16 points off their season average.
No, the defense did plenty. They allowed 6 points in total. WELL below the season average for them as a defense and the 49ers offense. That the Packers were closer to their season average compared to the 49ers is not applicable. That does not mean either did enough to win.
No ONE has ever said the special teams did not lose us the game, that does not mean the offense did enough to win.
The contract value of Aaron Rodgers or Jimmy Garappolo is irrelevant to the conversation. The Packers offense did not do enough win the game. The Special teams ultimately lost us the game. The defense was excellent.
Not sure about TikTok, not on the platform, but if one wants to watch girls crying on TikTok, who am I to judge. That doesn't hide the fact that there is an effort to try and manipulate the reality of the game. The offense was poor, it did not do enough to win the game.
That the Packers offense scored more than the 49ers offense is irrelevant. The Packers offense still only scored 10 points. 16 points off their season average.
No, the defense did plenty. They allowed 6 points in total. WELL below the season average for them as a defense and the 49ers offense. That the Packers were closer to their season average compared to the 49ers is not applicable. That does not mean either did enough to win.
No ONE has ever said the special teams did not lose us the game, that does not mean the offense did enough to win.
The contract value of Aaron Rodgers or Jimmy Garappolo is irrelevant to the conversation. The Packers offense did not do enough win the game. The Special teams ultimately lost us the game. The defense was excellent.
49ers def was worse than our def.
49ers off was worse than our off.
49ers special teams was light years better than our special teams.
Points scored and allowed indicate the above.
*edit as I had better instead of worse for def.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 02:35
by salmar80
[mention]bud fox[/mention] your idea of O and D and STs not being part of a team, and instead of just having to beat the opposing team's counterparts performance is a novel one. Never seen it before.
Probably because it makes no sense. If the opposing team's O sucks, it's OK for ours to suck, too, as long as they don't suck quite as intensely?
I frankly don't care one bit that the 49ers O was even worse. For me, that means a golden opportunity to score a lot early and make it even harder for their struggling O. Our O failed at that miserably. You don't get stickers and gold stars on O for being slightly less bad than the opponent. Bad is still bad.
Scoring 10 points is only ever OK in conditions that make throwing the ball impossible. That wasn't the case.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 04:50
by Pugger
Had our ST not allow a blocked FG and given up a TD on a blocked punt we would have won 13-6 and this thread isn't a thing. Yes, our O wasn't its usual self but if our ST wasn't historically dreadful we wouldn't have needed more scoring. Like I said earlier nobody was wringing their hands after our poor offensive showing in Chicago in the NFCC game back in the 2010 season because on that day the other 2 units picked up the slack. In the postseason you can't have one your 3 units last in the league by a huge margin and expect to win in a close contest. Let's pray our STs get fixed this offseason.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 06:13
by go pak go
If Rodgers and the offense scored 26 points but the 49ers scored 31 points with 7 of those points comimg off a Packers fumble inside the 5 yardline that essentially gave the 49ers a TD, I don't think budfox would be arguing so hard that "the defense beat their defense"
I think instead budfox would be talking about how the defense can't allow that many points and expect to win a playoff game and how the Packers screwed Rodgers again.
How do I know this? I read post after post about it last off-season after last year's NFC Championship game.
The game of football has so many variables in the game it's really easy to defend someone if you want to.
Although I gotta admit. The effort to defend this last performance....that's a new one.
Again, no, the offense did not do enough. Gaslighting this will not happen.
Did the packers Off score more points than the 49ers Off?
If we say the packers off didn't do enough to overcome the horrible special teams, either did the def. The packers off was closer to their season average points per game than the 49ers Off. It is telling that both off's performed well below the season average points per game.
Ultimately the special teams lost the game. I would rather have Aaron Rodgers at his contract value than Jimmy G at his contract value.
I thought the Packers offense was playing against the San Francisco defense.
But you're right about the defense not doing enough. If you give the offense 13 points which ncludes the missed field goal, and the special teams minus 10 for their various foul-up, then the defense had to ensure they gave up no points at all and we would have won the game. On those lines, special teams and offense did enough to win and the defense did not.
Special teams are part of the team, defence is part of the team, offense is part of the team. The idea that special teams and defence are the units that have to win the game and all the offence needs do is the bare minimum? Nonsense. The offense should be going out to try and win the game, not just "manage" it for the special teams.
Anyway, it's all besides the point. Did Rodgers do enough to win a play-off game in which the opposition offense scored 6 points? Whether it's yes or no, the follow-up question is, Did Rodgers do enough to justify a $40m contract? The answer is obviously no.
Again, no, the offense did not do enough. Gaslighting this will not happen.
Did the packers Off score more points than the 49ers Off?
If we say the packers off didn't do enough to overcome the horrible special teams, either did the def. The packers off was closer to their season average points per game than the 49ers Off. It is telling that both off's performed well below the season average points per game.
Ultimately the special teams lost the game. I would rather have Aaron Rodgers at his contract value than Jimmy G at his contract value.
I thought the Packers offense was playing against the San Francisco defense.
But you're right about the defense not doing enough. If you give the offense 13 points which ncludes the missed field goal, and the special teams minus 10 for their various foul-up, then the defense had to ensure they gave up no points at all and we would have won the game. On those lines, special teams and offense did enough to win and the defense did not.
Special teams are part of the team, defence is part of the team, offense is part of the team. The idea that special teams and defence are the units that have to win the game and all the offence needs do is the bare minimum? Nonsense. The offense should be going out to try and win the game, not just "manage" it for the special teams.
Anyway, it's all besides the point. Did Rodgers do enough to win a play-off game in which the opposition offense scored 6 points? Whether it's yes or no, the follow-up question is, Did Rodgers do enough to justify a $40m contract? The answer is obviously no.
Next question would be did the coach do enough to justify his salary. I feel like you or I could generate 10 points of offense with the MVP at QB.
Did the packers Off score more points than the 49ers Off?
If we say the packers off didn't do enough to overcome the horrible special teams, either did the def. The packers off was closer to their season average points per game than the 49ers Off. It is telling that both off's performed well below the season average points per game.
Ultimately the special teams lost the game. I would rather have Aaron Rodgers at his contract value than Jimmy G at his contract value.
I thought the Packers offense was playing against the San Francisco defense.
But you're right about the defense not doing enough. If you give the offense 13 points which ncludes the missed field goal, and the special teams minus 10 for their various foul-up, then the defense had to ensure they gave up no points at all and we would have won the game. On those lines, special teams and offense did enough to win and the defense did not.
Special teams are part of the team, defence is part of the team, offense is part of the team. The idea that special teams and defence are the units that have to win the game and all the offence needs do is the bare minimum? Nonsense. The offense should be going out to try and win the game, not just "manage" it for the special teams.
Anyway, it's all besides the point. Did Rodgers do enough to win a play-off game in which the opposition offense scored 6 points? Whether it's yes or no, the follow-up question is, Did Rodgers do enough to justify a $40m contract? The answer is obviously no.
Next question would be did the coach do enough to justify his salary. I feel like you or I could generate 10 points of offense with the MVP at QB.
No to both great questions regarding justification of QB and Head Coach salaries. That's why the front office needs to look in the mirror at all levels ........... the front office paid the QB salary and the front office hired and paid the Head Coach. I'll brace myself for the expected onslaught of again.
Go Pack (Go coach the Pro Bowl and watch the Super Bowl on TV). Oh by the way ............ many thanks to Pugger reminding me that the offense was less than stellar during portions of the 2010 playoffs as well. Packers had a great defense and adequate Special Teams and coaching in 2010. Never forget BJ Raji's INT of a Bears 2nd string QB's pass in the NFCCG. It was magic without Majik.......awesome!
Did the packers Off score more points than the 49ers Off?
If we say the packers off didn't do enough to overcome the horrible special teams, either did the def. The packers off was closer to their season average points per game than the 49ers Off. It is telling that both off's performed well below the season average points per game.
Ultimately the special teams lost the game. I would rather have Aaron Rodgers at his contract value than Jimmy G at his contract value.
I thought the Packers offense was playing against the San Francisco defense.
But you're right about the defense not doing enough. If you give the offense 13 points which ncludes the missed field goal, and the special teams minus 10 for their various foul-up, then the defense had to ensure they gave up no points at all and we would have won the game. On those lines, special teams and offense did enough to win and the defense did not.
Special teams are part of the team, defence is part of the team, offense is part of the team. The idea that special teams and defence are the units that have to win the game and all the offence needs do is the bare minimum? Nonsense. The offense should be going out to try and win the game, not just "manage" it for the special teams.
Anyway, it's all besides the point. Did Rodgers do enough to win a play-off game in which the opposition offense scored 6 points? Whether it's yes or no, the follow-up question is, Did Rodgers do enough to justify a $40m contract? The answer is obviously no.
Next question would be did the coach do enough to justify his salary. I feel like you or I could generate 10 points of offense with the MVP at QB.
You could, if the QB did not change the play. What is MLF supposed to do about it, bench Rodgers in a playoff game????
I thought the Packers offense was playing against the San Francisco defense.
But you're right about the defense not doing enough. If you give the offense 13 points which ncludes the missed field goal, and the special teams minus 10 for their various foul-up, then the defense had to ensure they gave up no points at all and we would have won the game. On those lines, special teams and offense did enough to win and the defense did not.
Special teams are part of the team, defence is part of the team, offense is part of the team. The idea that special teams and defence are the units that have to win the game and all the offence needs do is the bare minimum? Nonsense. The offense should be going out to try and win the game, not just "manage" it for the special teams.
Anyway, it's all besides the point. Did Rodgers do enough to win a play-off game in which the opposition offense scored 6 points? Whether it's yes or no, the follow-up question is, Did Rodgers do enough to justify a $40m contract? The answer is obviously no.
Next question would be did the coach do enough to justify his salary. I feel like you or I could generate 10 points of offense with the MVP at QB.
You could, if the QB did not change the play. What is MLF supposed to do about it, bench Rodgers in a playoff game????
Sit him down like Holmgren did with Favre ............ "no more rocket passes!!" Actually, for a veteran (and complicated and arrogant) QB as Rodgers is ....... there isn't much the Head Coach can do besides log in and complain about it on Packers-Huddle.com. But then again LaCoach is on record wanting Rodgers back in 2022. This seems like a vicious cycle of chicken ......... could have a great ending this time next year (maybe ), or it could continue to implode / spiral down as it has the past 11 years or so. DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS and TURNOVERS WIN GAMES.
Next question would be did the coach do enough to justify his salary. I feel like you or I could generate 10 points of offense with the MVP at QB.
You could, if the QB did not change the play. What is MLF supposed to do about it, bench Rodgers in a playoff game????
I totally agree LaFleur deserves a lot of criticism for that game. After the O stalled, he couldn't find a way to restart the engine. Kinda felt like instead of trying different things, he got stuck just trying to turn the key and yelling "c'mon, c'mon, START you piece of &%$@!".
As an offensiver play caller, it's largely on him. While AR did miss on some plays, the OL was the bigger problem and there were possible moves to try. The sweep threat game was kinda forgotten. Heck, try some trick play, whatever.
I just don't think we should fire a HC with a historically great W-L record and whose O system has worked wonderfully for vast majority of his games. That would not be accountability, it would be tyranny of hurt emotions.
Next question would be did the coach do enough to justify his salary. I feel like you or I could generate 10 points of offense with the MVP at QB.
You could, if the QB did not change the play. What is MLF supposed to do about it, bench Rodgers in a playoff game????
I totally agree LaFleur deserves a lot of criticism for that game. After the O stalled, he couldn't find a way to restart the engine. Kinda felt like instead of trying different things, he got stuck just trying to turn the key and yelling "c'mon, c'mon, START you piece of &%$@!".
As an offensiver play caller, it's largely on him. While AR did miss on some plays, the OL was the bigger problem and there were possible moves to try. The sweep threat game was kinda forgotten. Heck, try some trick play, whatever.
I just don't think we should fire a HC with a historically great W-L record and whose O system has worked wonderfully for vast majority of his games. That would not be accountability, it would be tyranny of hurt emotions.
I agree with your post and also do not think Lafleur should be fired.
My point in redirecting attention to the coach is there was tons of things he could do in order to spark the O. Many of the things you mentioned, plus more [mention]RingoCStarrQB[/mention] is exactly right that the HC should be able to COACH his qb in a game, and if he can’t...the QB should not be being begged back.
Also, the videos going around that show what Rodgers missed are Just crap. After Rodgers missed a couple of options, the coach should either coach Rodgers about what he is missing, help him see the play better, OR call something different. Call something that can lead to success.
I can call for something perfect, but if my players aren’t executing that perfect play then it is not perfect, and I need to call something they can execute that day. Or at worst sit the player down and coach him through out the game on how to execute better. And, if that player is not open to that kind of coaching..you do bench him in order to win a game or you gladly ship him off.
Next question would be did the coach do enough to justify his salary. I feel like you or I could generate 10 points of offense with the MVP at QB.
You could, if the QB did not change the play. What is MLF supposed to do about it, bench Rodgers in a playoff game????
Sit him down like Holmgren did with Favre ............ "no more rocket passes!!" Actually, for a veteran (and complicated and arrogant) QB as Rodgers is ....... there isn't much the Head Coach can do besides log in and complain about it on Packers-Huddle.com. But then again LaCoach is on record wanting Rodgers back in 2022. This seems like a vicious cycle of chicken ......... could have a great ending this time next year (maybe ), or it could continue to implode / spiral down as it has the past 11 years or so. DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS and TURNOVERS WIN GAMES.
Even tho Holmgren told Favre "no more rocket passes" he never "sat him down" or pulled him from a game. And you are assuming Rodgers' HC didn't say anything to Rodgers during this last divisional playoff game and just let Aaron do whatever he pleased. I think both MLF and AR have a good working relationship and that will continue if Rodgers isn't traded. Rodgers wasn't great that day when we really needed him to be. The defense was great. They only yielded 6 points. That kind of a performance is championship caliber and our offense's subpar showing would have been enough had SF not got a gift TD via a blocked punt. You can win by one or one hundred, it doesn't matter as long as you get the W. C'est la vie.
Next question would be did the coach do enough to justify his salary. I feel like you or I could generate 10 points of offense with the MVP at QB.
You could, if the QB did not change the play. What is MLF supposed to do about it, bench Rodgers in a playoff game????
I totally agree LaFleur deserves a lot of criticism for that game. After the O stalled, he couldn't find a way to restart the engine. Kinda felt like instead of trying different things, he got stuck just trying to turn the key and yelling "c'mon, c'mon, START you piece of &%$@!".
As an offensiver play caller, it's largely on him. While AR did miss on some plays, the OL was the bigger problem and there were possible moves to try. The sweep threat game was kinda forgotten. Heck, try some trick play, whatever.
I just don't think we should fire a HC with a historically great W-L record and whose O system has worked wonderfully for vast majority of his games. That would not be accountability, it would be tyranny of hurt emotions.
IMO MLF really screwed up with the guys we had on the OL that day. Billy Turner is no LT and we might have been better off with Turner at RT and Yosh Nijman at L. That line configuration did Rodgers and the running game no favors.
Re: Rodgers future
Posted: 06 Feb 2022 09:45
by go pak go
The whole Billy Turner at LT thing is less of an issue for me.
Instead, as Mike Wahle put it, you don't put Dennis Kelly at RT when you are having a big guy go against a small, low to center speed and power rusher in Nick Bosa. Wahle said that was a terrible matchup for Kelly and Turner should have been the RT because of that.
again. 
), or it could continue to implode / spiral down as it has the past 11 years or so. DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS and TURNOVERS WIN GAMES.