Packers Huddle

texas wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 20:08

British wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 19:39

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 19:18

Why is next year the measuring stick? Why not the next 3 years?

Yes, the idea that MLF has to "prove" it next year is laughable.

Yeah, that would be a laughable idea. Good thing nobody here is espousing it.

That would be laughable. Lafleur has earned a much longer leash than a one year prove it deal.

That said, its actually year 4 of his regime.

One may say that you cant expect next year to be a super bowl year...completely agree. But the other side of that is that the reason the ship is expected to get rocky next year is because all the chips that were put in the basket for the 2020 and 2021 season in order to win a super bowl. Did we achieve that goal? No.

So We sacrificed some future expectations for a super bowl window, and in that window...we failed to win a super bowl. The coach bares responsibility for that. Sorry, he just does.

Next, the defense was soft to mediocre at best, with pretty darn good players on it when he got here...did he fix that? Shoot, I would tip my cap and say yes based on how they played in the postseason. In year 3 of the Lafleur regime, I say props in that dept.

STs...has he fixed that? No. It went from abysmal to god awful. It even cost us a playoff game. This failure has nothing to do with Rodgers leaving. I give him devastatingly low remarks in this regard.

And finally, while a drop off is expected and unavoidable when you lose someone like Rodgers...it was the org who went ahead and prepared for the day Rodgers would leave, before Rodgers ever even thought about leaving. Gutey and probably Lafleur drafted Love. They drafted Dillon, and Stokes, and will resign Jaire, and resigned Bahk. Meaning...they have prepared for this day.

So, while I do not expect 13-4 and would find that extremely unreasonable for anyone to expect, what is reasonable to expect? Considering how bad the division is...I think if Lafleur is a great coach, we will still win the North next year. Two teams are in a total rebuild and the other is the lions with Goff (even tho i like Campbell). Meaning, sure we can still evaluate Lafleur based off what happens next year. But, no matter what...Lafleur will be the coach beyond next year..and yes, if he and Gute are awesome at their jobs..then maybe in three years we can start to hope for a super bowl again.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 19:18

Why is next year the measuring stick? Why not the next 3 years?

There are many who'd rather think they won a debate rather than try to be correct.

But yes, like judging Rashan Gary as a rookie, would be foolish to overly judge LaFleur in a transition year and not give it ample time.

texas wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 20:08

British wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 19:39

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 19:18

Why is next year the measuring stick? Why not the next 3 years?

Yes, the idea that MLF has to "prove" it next year is laughable.

Yeah, that would be a laughable idea. Good thing nobody here is espousing it.

Next year MLF has the opportunity to prove it.

Lafleur will get to show us all how good he is next year.

Sounds like a lot of people posturing for a bunch of I told ya so's just in case we have a few little struggles.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 21:15

texas wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 20:08

British wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 19:39

Yes, the idea that MLF has to "prove" it next year is laughable.

Yeah, that would be a laughable idea. Good thing nobody here is espousing it.

Next year MLF has the opportunity to prove it.

Lafleur will get to show us all how good he is next year.

Sounds like a lot of people posturing for a bunch of I told ya so's just in case we have a few little struggles.

swing and a miss by you. thats not what is going on.
All that is being said is Lafleur and Gutey get to show what they got without Rodgers.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 21:15

texas wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 20:08

British wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 19:39

Yes, the idea that MLF has to "prove" it next year is laughable.

Yeah, that would be a laughable idea. Good thing nobody here is espousing it.

Next year MLF has the opportunity to prove it.

Lafleur will get to show us all how good he is next year.

Sounds like a lot of people posturing for a bunch of I told ya so's just in case we have a few little struggles.

How in the world does my comment that you quoted imply this?

Reading comprehension bro...

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 16:38

Now I'm more inclined to get rid of LaFleur and keep Rodgers. Rodgers did not lose Saturday night's game.

You didn’t see the videos that 23 posted from Kurt Warner then. Watch it. Will change your mind.

Everything that Rodgers did well on the first two drives was the opposite of most everything after that. Even that last drive, when he threw to a double-covered Adams (incomplete, of course), Deguara was WIDE open for a BIG gain that definitely would’ve put us in figgy range. A big miss for 12. And it wasn’t the only one.

Labrev wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 17:47

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 16:38

Now I'm more inclined to get rid of LaFleur and keep Rodgers. Rodgers did not lose Saturday night's game.

Rodgers did not lose the game, but he did not win it, either. Same story as 2020 and 2014.

Gotta disagree here. Rodger's terrible play had as much to do with the loss as anything, other than maybe special teams.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 21:11

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 19:18

Why is next year the measuring stick? Why not the next 3 years?

There are many who'd rather think they won a debate rather than try to be correct.

But yes, like judging Rashan Gary as a rookie, would be foolish to overly judge LaFleur in a transition year and not give it ample time.

Or, I don't know, judging a transition QB BEFORE he has even transitioned? I honestly don't know if this site is some form of therapy for you guys just to get some things out and say things you don't mean. I am honestly picturing some of you apologizing to screen shots of Rashan Gary because of the ridiculous nonsense that can be spewed out so, so, so prematurely.

NCF wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 06:38

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 21:11

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 19:18

Why is next year the measuring stick? Why not the next 3 years?

There are many who'd rather think they won a debate rather than try to be correct.

But yes, like judging Rashan Gary as a rookie, would be foolish to overly judge LaFleur in a transition year and not give it ample time.

Or, I don't know, judging a transition QB BEFORE he has even transitioned? I honestly don't know if this site is some form of therapy for you guys just to get some things out and say things you don't mean. I am honestly picturing some of you apologizing to screen shots of Rashan Gary because of the ridiculous nonsense that can be spewed out so, so, so prematurely.

I didn't want Gary, big freaking deal, most Packer fans I know didn't want him either, we had just invested a ton with both Smiths, we then and still do need another talented DT, Simmons went 7 slots later and has produced from day one, trading back a few slots and taking him may have gotten us another 3rd round pick. I would never apologize for my feelings on Gary, that he turned out well now is besides all of that.

And while we know little about Love, the little we saw was far from impressive so the future is still a untold story, all we can do is hope he turns out like Gary, but this crap that we need to wait for 3 years for draft picks to even be a quality starter is rediculous, Rookies start and do well every season, people take this D&D process to extremes.

Yoop wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:14

NCF wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 06:38

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2022 21:11

There are many who'd rather think they won a debate rather than try to be correct.

But yes, like judging Rashan Gary as a rookie, would be foolish to overly judge LaFleur in a transition year and not give it ample time.

Or, I don't know, judging a transition QB BEFORE he has even transitioned? I honestly don't know if this site is some form of therapy for you guys just to get some things out and say things you don't mean. I am honestly picturing some of you apologizing to screen shots of Rashan Gary because of the ridiculous nonsense that can be spewed out so, so, so prematurely.

I didn't want Gary, big freaking deal, most Packer fans I know didn't want him either, we had just invested a ton with both Smiths, we then and still do need another talented DT, Simmons went 7 slots later and has produced from day one, trading back a few slots and taking him may have gotten us another 3rd round pick. I would never apologize for my feelings on Gary, that he turned out well now is besides all of that.

And while we know little about Love, the little we saw was far from impressive so the future is still a untold story, all we can do is hope he turns out like Gary, but this crap that we need to wait for 3 years for draft picks to even be a quality starter is rediculous, Rookies start and do well every season, people take this D&D process to extremes.

You only name one example of one player in 2019 with retrospective view in place of Gary and then with the multitude of data we have brought over the years of rookies contributing effectively early being a minority of top 100 picks and you use the phrase "people take this D&D process to the extreme"

oh the irony.

Gary is literally exactly on pace of what the coaches and scouts always projected. He had a position change. They knew it would take time and he stepped in his 3rd year being one of the most effective pass rushers and run defenders in the league.

If there is any player to feel sorry for last Sunday, it's Clark and Gary. They played their butts off. They would be talked about with the likes of Packer legends level if not for the offense and STs taking away that honor from them.

It's okay to just say "I was really, really, wrong about Rashan Gary"

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:23

Yoop wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:14

NCF wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 06:38

Or, I don't know, judging a transition QB BEFORE he has even transitioned? I honestly don't know if this site is some form of therapy for you guys just to get some things out and say things you don't mean. I am honestly picturing some of you apologizing to screen shots of Rashan Gary because of the ridiculous nonsense that can be spewed out so, so, so prematurely.

I didn't want Gary, big freaking deal, most Packer fans I know didn't want him either, we had just invested a ton with both Smiths, we then and still do need another talented DT, Simmons went 7 slots later and has produced from day one, trading back a few slots and taking him may have gotten us another 3rd round pick. I would never apologize for my feelings on Gary, that he turned out well now is besides all of that.

And while we know little about Love, the little we saw was far from impressive so the future is still a untold story, all we can do is hope he turns out like Gary, but this crap that we need to wait for 3 years for draft picks to even be a quality starter is rediculous, Rookies start and do well every season, people take this D&D process to extremes.

You only name one example of one player in 2019 with retrospective view in place of Gary and then with the multitude of data we have brought over the years of rookies contributing effectively early being a minority of top 100 picks and you use the phrase "people take this D&D process to the extreme"

oh the irony.

Gary is literally exactly on pace of what the coaches and scouts always projected. He had a position change. They knew it would take time and he stepped in his 3rd year being one of the most effective pass rushers and run defenders in the league.

If there is any player to feel sorry for last Sunday, it's Clark and Gary. They played their butts off. They would be talked about with the likes of Packer legends level if not for the offense and STs taking away that honor from them.

It's okay to just say "I was really, really, wrong about Rashan Gary"

And Gary turned 24 in December. It's not like it took him until 27/28 to get decent. Dude has a TON of great years ahead of him.

I'm happy to say I was wrong on Gary. Wasn't a fan when we took him.

I was very excited about Gary.

But that is because I am a huuuuuuge Packers homer over the draft weekend. I only become jaded irritable of the Packers in January.

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:23

You only name one example of one player in 2019 with retrospective view in place of Gary and then with the multitude of data we have brought over the years of rookies contributing effectively early being a minority of top 100 picks and you use the phrase "people take this D&D process to the extreme"

what position change, more crappola, edge is edge whether you rush from the 7 or 9 hole, and Gary had a lot to learn, still does, his sack to pressure count is still a tad low, I love the progress Gary has made, but Simmons has been a starter since day one, and he would have been my choice, there where several others I liked over Gary too.

If I'am picking 12 in the draft I want someone that can contribute soon in there first year, obviously I expect them to improve for several years after that to reach there ceiling, to wait for 3 years on every draft pick to develop as a quality starter translates to always being in rebuild mode, sorta spells out our defense from 2011 till 2020

There seems to be a list of packers that aren’t supposed to defended, and a list that aren’t supposed to be criticized.

We will find out a lot about Lafleur next year. Rodgers on the roster has prevented him from getting the usual amount of credit for 3 13 win seasons

Great coaches usually don’t roll into the playoffs with such a liability at special teams. There was a major problem and he was never able to figure it out and get it fixed. We will see how that impacts his success going forward, hopefully he learns from the experience.

And we will learn a lot about Lafleur next year. And everyone should have adjusted reasonable expectations.

If the pack go 4-13, safe to say regular season rodg carried the young coach.

If the packers compete for a bad division and win 8-10 games....that’s a pretty darn good job by the coach. While that’s not great compared to recent success, considering all the changes..I would be very pleased with Lafleur in that situation.

And if he wins 12-14 games...well, he will finally get his COTY award.

None of the above statements are unreasonable

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:30

I was very excited about Gary.

But that is because I am a huuuuuuge Packers homer over the draft weekend. I only become jaded irritable of the Packers in January.

what????? what could you have possibly saw in Gary for you to be on board with that pick, all he showed at Mich. was that he was johnny hustle, he didn't have the pressre count or sacks of the other edge rush for mich, I looked at Gary as a huge miss and a late first rounder, turns out he wasn't a miss per say, but it took till his 3rd year to prove his talent, but hell late first round edge rushers excell just as well.

Yoop wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:42

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:30

I was very excited about Gary.

But that is because I am a huuuuuuge Packers homer over the draft weekend. I only become jaded irritable of the Packers in January.

what????? what could you have possibly saw in Gary for you to be on board with that pick, all he showed at Mich. was that he was johnny hustle, he didn't have the pressre count or sacks of the other edge rush for mich, I looked at Gary as a huge miss and a late first rounder.

We also will find out a lot about Gary next year when all eyes are him and he isn’t flying under the radar or lined up across from a Smith.

He will be THE guy expected to bring pressure. I wish him luck.

Yoop wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:14

And while we know little about Love, the little we saw was far from impressive so the future is still a untold story, all we can do is hope he turns out like Gary, but this crap that we need to wait for 3 years for draft picks to even be a quality starter is rediculous

Most don't take it to extremes. Most realize that year one contributions are gravy and should not be the expectation. Especially in the case of drafting super young, toolsy players that will take some time by design. Gary fits in that category, as does a guy like Kenny Clark. Guess what, Jordan Love definitely fits in that category. No one described Love as a polished player coming out in The Draft. He was a guy with all the tools that you could mold into a top-level QB. That is my point. 3 years, blah, blah... every one of these guys is different and the timelines should be different based on individual circumstances.

Let's rewind the clock 15 years to January 2007. Over the course of that offseason Packer nation was unified in adding Rodgers to whatever trade package was necessary to acquire Randy Moss. Rodgers had showed nothing and getting anything for him was the goal. Argue all you want, if we had reacted rashly to Rodgers development to that point, what a mistake it would have been. I'm not saying Love gets three years. There is a lot to factor in there. You want to see progression, elimination of recurring mistakes, feel him becoming the guy you envisioned on Draft Day. He might not make it through 2022 or it might take 3 years to figure everything out. It all depends. We will have to see and trust we know when we know. But I am begging, can we give the guy more than 6 quarters, because I assure you, no one knows today despite their insistence that they do.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:39

There seems to be a list of packers that aren’t supposed to defended, and a list that aren’t supposed to be criticized.

We will find out a lot about Lafleur next year. Rodgers on the roster has prevented him from getting the usual amount of credit for 3 13 win seasons

Great coaches usually don’t roll into the playoffs with such a liability at special teams. There was a major problem and he was never able to figure it out and get it fixed. We will see how that impacts his success going forward, hopefully he learns from the experience.

And we will learn a lot about Lafleur next year. And everyone should have adjusted reasonable expectations.

Sounds like somebody listen to Mike Wahle with Andy Herman.

But I absolutely agree with you. A good coach does not let a unit get that historically bad. It is why MLF is right now labeled as a "loser" in my eyes.

Everyone - unless you are associated with the defense not named Kevin King is a loser. I can't get beyond and I don't think I ever will until MLF proves me wrong. Except AJ Dillon. He is a f*cking stud.

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:57

Drj820 wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:39

There seems to be a list of packers that aren’t supposed to defended, and a list that aren’t supposed to be criticized.

We will find out a lot about Lafleur next year. Rodgers on the roster has prevented him from getting the usual amount of credit for 3 13 win seasons

Great coaches usually don’t roll into the playoffs with such a liability at special teams. There was a major problem and he was never able to figure it out and get it fixed. We will see how that impacts his success going forward, hopefully he learns from the experience.

And we will learn a lot about Lafleur next year. And everyone should have adjusted reasonable expectations.

Sounds like somebody listen to Mike Wahle with Andy Herman.

I’ve never listened to them haha but maybe they are smart

Drj820 wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 08:00

go pak go wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:57

Drj820 wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2022 07:39

There seems to be a list of packers that aren’t supposed to defended, and a list that aren’t supposed to be criticized.

We will find out a lot about Lafleur next year. Rodgers on the roster has prevented him from getting the usual amount of credit for 3 13 win seasons

Great coaches usually don’t roll into the playoffs with such a liability at special teams. There was a major problem and he was never able to figure it out and get it fixed. We will see how that impacts his success going forward, hopefully he learns from the experience.

And we will learn a lot about Lafleur next year. And everyone should have adjusted reasonable expectations.

Sounds like somebody listen to Mike Wahle with Andy Herman.

I’ve never listened to them haha but maybe they are smart

Maybe.

Or maybe they are just using the strategist of every other analyst and say enough things that you have a large enough portfolio to pull from that you can say, "I was right".