Green Bay Packers News 2022

[Yoop]

Lowry getting an extension would rock lol, so many people will hate it.

If he's getting around the vet-min and is demoted from starting, I'd be okay with it, neither jazzed or opposed.

2 less tackles then Clark, and 3 more then Reed, he's this forums whipping boy, Lowry will get more then the vet minimum somewhere, very likely from the Packers

[BF004]

I am sure we can do tons worse than Lowry.

But he's now been apart of the 2019 NFC Championship and the 2022 Eagles game.

Definitely ready to cycle in some new blood and life, and I really don't think getting rid of Kenny would help anything.

[Yoop]

I am sure we can do tons worse than Lowry.

But he's now been apart of the 2019 NFC Championship and the 2022 Eagles game.

Definitely ready to cycle in some new blood and life, and I really don't think getting rid of Kenny would help anything.

Clark having a bit of a down year is no reason to let him go, that stuff happens to the best of players, seriously I don't think there is any reason to dump Lowry or Reed either, what we do need to do is play more base fronts, specially so against the run, Wyatt is some new blood, and has been showing lately why Guty picked him.

[BSA]

Cool article on Dorsey Levens - I had about forgotten his FB role early on

https://www.packers.com/news/as-packers ... ens-career

"In 1995, Levens beat out William Henderson to become the starting fullback, but he functioned largely as the lead blocker for Bennett, who had moved to halfback, and as a checkdown option in the passing game. Levens had 48 catches that year compared to 36 rushing attempts.

In 1996, Levens lost his fullback job in training camp to Henderson, a superior blocker, and saw limited action as Bennett's backup at halfback through the first 12 games, never rushing for more than 48 yards.

Then bingo! Levens' career took off.

Coach Mike Holmgren reworked his offense at that point in the season and thrust Levens into a more featured role."

[RingoCStarrQB]

Cool article on Dorsey Levens - I had about forgotten his FB role early on

https://www.packers.com/news/as-packers ... ens-career

"In 1995, Levens beat out William Henderson to become the starting fullback, but he functioned largely as the lead blocker for Bennett, who had moved to halfback, and as a checkdown option in the passing game. Levens had 48 catches that year compared to 36 rushing attempts.

In 1996, Levens lost his fullback job in training camp to Henderson, a superior blocker, and saw limited action as Bennett's backup at halfback through the first 12 games, never rushing for more than 48 yards.

Then bingo! Levens' career took off.

Coach Mike Holmgren reworked his offense at that point in the season and thrust Levens into a more featured role."

Dorsey's TD catch in the 1996 NFC Championship Game was a thing of beauty.

[RingoCStarrQB]

A 29 yarder. Great precision pass from Brett to Dorsey.

[lupedafiasco]

Resigning Lowry is the most Gutenbumst move I could ever imagine.

I was ready to move on from Lowry this pre-season but, like everything, it's conditional. If it's a vet min rotational type player deal, I'm ok with that. If they give him a contract that dictates starter-level playing time, then yeah...dumb. They drafted Wyatt for that.

To me there’s no purpose of making him on the field. We know what he is. At his age he’s more likely to fall off and regress. Get younger guys with a chance to improve on cheaper deals. Or… idk play the ones you already have in Slayton and Wyatt.

[Pckfn23]

He's 28...

[Pckfn23]

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/tom ... n-his-side
Zach Tom

[BSA]

from the Wilde article


Rodgers:
“We’ve got to score points. We need to be in the 30s moving forward,” Rodgers said
“Regardless of what our defense does, (if) we score 30 points, we should win those games. Whatever it takes for us on offense"


"Through 13 games, the Packers have scored more than 30 points only twice this season — in a 31-28 win over the Dallas Cowboys on Nov. 13, and in a 40-33 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles on Nov. 27.

For perspective, in Rodgers’ back-to-back MVP seasons in 2020 and 2021, the Packers scored 30 or more points in 12 of their 16 games in 2020 and in eight of their 17 games a year ago."


I looked up the Packers 2022 offensive performances vs the Top 10 defenses in the league ( pts ) to see if the Packers scored more or fewer points than those defenses allow on average. Note that all of those top defenses give up less than 20/game.

See below: Def.Rank/Team/Avg pts allowed per game...Packers pts vs that defense


# 2 Buffalo... 17/game...Packers scored 17
# 3 DAL... 17.6/game...Packers scored 31
# 5 NE... 18.4/game...Packers scored 27
# 7 PHL... 19.1/game...Packers scored 33
# 9 TB... 19.5/game...Packers scored 14
# 10 WA... 19.7/ game...Packers scored 21

[url]https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/s ... s-per-game[/url]
.

[BSA]

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/tom ... n-his-side
Zach Tom

140th pick, rookie...starting at LT and holding his own. Packers sure know how to scout mid-round OL

"The Packers have a history of drafting offensive linemen with athletic traits and positional versatility. Tom is the latest example, with a 9.59 RAS score and 37 starts at both left tackle and center during his career at Wake Forest.

When Tom arrived in Green Bay, he was basically positionless. However, when injuries struck the offensive line, it became clear that he could play just about anywhere. In five games this season, Tom has taken snaps at right guard, left guard, and left tackle."

[Labrev]

from the Wilde article

Rodgers:
(....)
“Regardless of what our defense does, (if) we score 30 points, we should win those games.(....)

"Through 13 games, the Packers have scored more than 30 points (....) in a 40-33 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles

[BSA]

The Packers would be 12-1 if the offense scored 30/game

[wallyuwl]

Last 4 games Packers have averaged almost 28 points/game.

[Labrev]

The Packers would be 12-1 if the offense scored 30/game

This is premised on a faulty assumption that, while we play the game very differently (almost doubling our scoring output), there would be no change on the other side of the equation (i.e. opposing team) in terms of points.

More likely, the other team would have answered with more offense and evened the odds.

[Realist]

The Packers would be 12-1 if the offense scored 30/game

This is premised on a faulty assumption that, while we play the game very differently (almost doubling our scoring output), there would be no change on the other side of the equation (i.e. opposing team) in terms of points.

More likely, the other team would have answered with more offense and evened the odds.

The fact that you responded to the BSA post kinda speaks volumes. More likely.

[BSA]

The Packers would be 12-1 if the offense scored 30/game

This is premised on a faulty assumption that, while we play the game very differently (almost doubling our scoring output), there would be no change on the other side of the equation (i.e. opposing team) in terms of points.

More likely, the other team would have answered with more offense and evened the odds.

This is premised on the faulty assumption that those teams now playing the game very differently - wouldn't have a worse outcome
That happens all the time, especially when teams get behind vs a high scoring offense. I also think you might wanna check your math, because 30 pts a game isn't "nearly double" 20 pts a game.

Negativity does not have a monopoly on reality when it comes to the NFL, positive outcomes actually exist.
.

[Labrev]

The Packers would be 12-1 if the offense scored 30/game

This is premised on a faulty assumption that, while we play the game very differently (almost doubling our scoring output), there would be no change on the other side of the equation (i.e. opposing team) in terms of points.

More likely, the other team would have answered with more offense and evened the odds.

This is premised on the faulty assumption that those teams now playing the game very differently - wouldn't have a worse outcome
That happens all the time, especially when teams get behind vs a high scoring offense. I also think you might wanna check your math, because 30 pts a game isn't "nearly double" 20 pts a game.

Negativity does not have a monopoly on reality when it comes to the NFL, positive outcomes actually exist.
.

Point is, we will never know, No one can say if we'd be 12-1 or 1-12, the rest of the game also would have played out differently. Butterfly Effect.

What I will say is this: we have won every game where we stuck to a balanced offense in terms of run:pass ratio. I doubt we could go the distance with what we have, this team has pretty fatal flaws, but I think we'd be a lot better than 5-8 if we stuck with the formula.

[Scott4Pack]

Cool article on Dorsey Levens - I had about forgotten his FB role early on

https://www.packers.com/news/as-packers ... ens-career

"In 1995, Levens beat out William Henderson to become the starting fullback, but he functioned largely as the lead blocker for Bennett, who had moved to halfback, and as a checkdown option in the passing game. Levens had 48 catches that year compared to 36 rushing attempts.

In 1996, Levens lost his fullback job in training camp to Henderson, a superior blocker, and saw limited action as Bennett's backup at halfback through the first 12 games, never rushing for more than 48 yards.

Then bingo! Levens' career took off.

Coach Mike Holmgren reworked his offense at that point in the season and thrust Levens into a more featured role."

Dorsey's TD catch in the 1996 NFC Championship Game was a thing of beauty.

That single game put a STAR (a big star) on Dorsey. He was amazing. He never got enough credit for his growth and contribution. But he was a HOF caliber player who didn’t play long enough. Truly one of our best RBs in Green Bay - ever.

[Yoop]

This is premised on a faulty assumption that, while we play the game very differently (almost doubling our scoring output), there would be no change on the other side of the equation (i.e. opposing team) in terms of points.

More likely, the other team would have answered with more offense and evened the odds.

This is premised on the faulty assumption that those teams now playing the game very differently - wouldn't have a worse outcome
That happens all the time, especially when teams get behind vs a high scoring offense. I also think you might wanna check your math, because 30 pts a game isn't "nearly double" 20 pts a game.

Negativity does not have a monopoly on reality when it comes to the NFL, positive outcomes actually exist.
.

Point is, we will never know, No one can say if we'd be 12-1 or 1-12, the rest of the game also would have played out differently. Butterfly Effect.

What I will say is this: we have won every game where we stuck to a balanced offense in terms of run:pass ratio. I doubt we could go the distance with what we have, this team has pretty fatal flaws, but I think we'd be a lot better than 5-8 if we stuck with the formula.

seriously, I havn't even checked, but seems to me we did use a pretty close balance, we just didn't run more when you thought we should have, to a point I agree, but we also had to establish that we could pass the ball or there defense would just load up to stop the run, which did actually happen at times, we needed Doubs and Watson to learn up quick, same with WAtkins, even Lazard and Cobb, in order to do that ya have to pass the ball.

Our RB's needed this bye week, Jones and even Dillon seem to be getting a little worn down, might as well rest them a little this week for the stretch run to Rodgers, he's gonna Love having both Doubs and Watson to throw to, we'll probably just run to keep the defense honest, lol I think we'll pass as much or more then we run, like normal, with a few going to Jones and Dillon.