Packers Huddle

I can probably get behind trading them Love for a top 10.

D-Will has legit talent, but he's a doofus. I rather have a JAG like Tra Carson out there.

If they were healthy, I would say it would be a closer game than last year but still give them the slight edge. But the way it is now with all of their injuries, we had better win easily.

texas wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:43

If they were healthy, I would say it would be a closer game than last year but still give them the slight edge. But the way it is now with all of their injuries, we had better win easily.

If they were healthy we would get dominated. Absolutely dominated.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:55

texas wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:43

If they were healthy, I would say it would be a closer game than last year but still give them the slight edge. But the way it is now with all of their injuries, we had better win easily.

If they were healthy we would get dominated. Absolutely dominated.

Always the optimist.

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:08

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:55

texas wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:43

If they were healthy, I would say it would be a closer game than last year but still give them the slight edge. But the way it is now with all of their injuries, we had better win easily.

If they were healthy we would get dominated. Absolutely dominated.

Always the optimist.

With our team in it's current state, it would be almost impossible to disagree.

Whatever. Dominate 4 games, beat the Saints, and had two bad games and suddenly we would get thrashed if a team was healthy. Do we match up well against the 9ers? I think we all can agree that we don't. But to act as if we wouldn't have a chance? I think that is a major overreaction.

The 9ers are a good football team, they are not great. The Packers are still a good football team overall (even though 90% of fans will tell you that the sky is falling).

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:08

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:55

texas wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:43

If they were healthy, I would say it would be a closer game than last year but still give them the slight edge. But the way it is now with all of their injuries, we had better win easily.

If they were healthy we would get dominated. Absolutely dominated.

Always the optimist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AEj3LA2vSo

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:16

Whatever. Dominate 4 games, beat the Saints, and had two bad games and suddenly we would get thrashed if a team was healthy. Do we match up well against the 9ers? I think we all can agree that we don't. But to act as if we wouldn't have a chance? I think that is a major overreaction.

The 9ers are a good football team, they are not great. The Packers are still a good football team overall (even though 90% of fans will tell you that the sky is falling).

I didn't say we weren't. That is why I used the "current state" descriptor. We are beat up. We are being impacted by COVID. We haven't quite found our way back and are 1-2 since the Bye. SF, full strength, would steam roll us. That is obviously a big hypothetical as they are not full strength. Very, very, very, very far from it.

Do you also think they would steamroll us if we were completely healthy as well?

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:25

Do you also think they would steamroll us if we were completely healthy as well?

Good question. No, emphatically.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:55

texas wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:43

If they were healthy, I would say it would be a closer game than last year but still give them the slight edge. But the way it is now with all of their injuries, we had better win easily.

If they were healthy we would get dominated. Absolutely dominated.

I'm not sold on that. They lost some key pieces from their 2019 team. And I was the most pessimistic of us all regarding that 2019 team.

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:25

Do you also think they would steamroll us if we were completely healthy as well?

We would score more points. We would probably score in the 27 to 38 point range so we could keep it close if our offense played well.

Would I have faith in our defense?

Honestly....no.

I was so excited to see our team matchup vs Dalvin Cook. Like I was hoping Cook would play to give our defense a shot at a good back. I thought MN was perfect too because we could still come away with a win. There is nothing this defense has shown since last January that it can slow down high impact RBs.

Then you add Kittle on top of that, another matchup weakness for us...oof. With our complete lack of presence from our front 7, no I do not think we could beat SF with them at full strength.

If Clark, the Smiths and Gary play to where we would hope they would, then we could absolutely beat them. And by multiple scores. The lack of performance from our expensive Front 7 has been that impactful.

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:08

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:55

texas wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 14:43

If they were healthy, I would say it would be a closer game than last year but still give them the slight edge. But the way it is now with all of their injuries, we had better win easily.

If they were healthy we would get dominated. Absolutely dominated.

Always the optimist.

Always the realist*

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:25

Do you also think they would steamroll us if we were completely healthy as well?

Both teams fully healthy I don’t think the Packers ever beat the 49ers current team. They’ve been bad and nailed their top picks on defense. They run the same scheme but better on offense. They’re just better.

go pak go wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:53

There is nothing this defense has shown since last January that it can slow down high impact RBs.

So they don't get credit for holding Cook to 50 yards in week 1?
Holding the Lions to 89 total rushing yards in week 2?
Holding Kamara to 58 rushing yards in week 3?
Gurley to 57 rushing yards in week 4?
David Johnson to 42 rushing yards in week 7?

We are only judged on Dalvin Cook shredding us one week?

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:58

go pak go wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:53

There is nothing this defense has shown since last January that it can slow down high impact RBs.

So they don't get credit for holding Cook to 50 yards in week 1?
Holding the Lions to 89 total rushing yards in week 2?
Holding Kamara to 58 rushing yards in week 3?
Gurley to 57 rushing yards in week 4?
David Johnson to 42 rushing yards in week 7?

We are only judged on Dalvin Cook shredding us one week?

A lot of those games I would argue we pulled ahead and forced teams to pass and also controlled TOP heavily. We’re the best in the league in TOP.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 16:01

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:58

go pak go wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:53

There is nothing this defense has shown since last January that it can slow down high impact RBs.

So they don't get credit for holding Cook to 50 yards in week 1?
Holding the Lions to 89 total rushing yards in week 2?
Holding Kamara to 58 rushing yards in week 3?
Gurley to 57 rushing yards in week 4?
David Johnson to 42 rushing yards in week 7?

We are only judged on Dalvin Cook shredding us one week?

A lot of those games I would argue we pulled ahead and forced teams to pass and also controlled TOP heavily. We’re the best in the league in TOP.

LOL, so it is out of the realm of possibility that Rodgers chucks a couple TD's early and force Jimmy Garoppolo/Nick Mullens to beat us and abandon the run. Got it. It fits the narrative.

Packfntk wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2020 15:25

Do you also think they would steamroll us if we were completely healthy as well?

No. On paper, we can take them, but they are designed in a way that gives this team fits.

More to the point, that team pretty much created the blueprint for how to destroy this defense last year, and there has been no change in strategy on D and very little change in personnel.