Packers Huddle

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2024 20:49

I am actually very pleased with our game today. The D didn't contain Taylor much but it didn't really matter much because Indy couldn't throw much.

Why was Taylor on the sideline almost the entire 4th quarter? Makes no sense. It is almost like the Colts were trying to lose.

musclestang wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 08:38

I don't think he has too many misses left at those distances before he's no longer here. Just my opinion. I don't think they're going to bail on him yet unless he's just sucking in practice too, but those kicks are exactly why we have kickers to score us points.

Leash is short. It was either MLF or Gute who said so in a presser shortly after acquiring him. The question is, if not him then who? I think they should have rolled with Joseph, but the main concern with him is kicking in Lambeau in December and January.

Some interesting snap count decisions from yesterday:

Kraft has been my favorite at the TE since we drafted him. To me, he's just complete in his skill set. I know musgrave has the bigger play ability they say, and i'm sure having a back up last week played into his decrease of snaps. But as a whole, Kraft can punish as a blocker, he is still a good athlete and he can run every route and catch every ball.

There is no change to anything with him on the field, he's complete, and we can run a more diverse offense IMO when you can do anything you want with the same guys on the field.

But yesterday, I do think having a limited QB played into snap counts.

Pugger wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 08:33

NCF wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 08:14

Pugger wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2024 14:29

45 ain't a chip shot.

In the NFL, 2024, 45 yards is a chip shot. He cannot miss those kicks on a perfect day in Lambeau for kicking.

You are right. Kickers all over the league are nailing 40+ yarders with seemingly ease. My bad.

Taking Narveson out of the equation, active NFL kickers are hitting 84%. Narveson is 2-4.

I know they all miss at times. It's easier to stomach or weather the storm so to speak with a guy that has been there and done that already and you have a good feeling he's going to get past a miss here and there and come thru when it counts.

But we lost games, and big ones last year because we couldn't make the points in front of us to make that most do with regularity. and we're 2 games with in a miss or 2 in each game already. 1 cost us week one IMO, and yesterday could have.

I'm willing to give him a bit yet, but we need to start hitting these kicks regularly and not holding our breath every time. yesterday was about as perfect of kicking conditions as one will see at Lambeau. It only gets more difficult from here.

Stokes graded well albeit with diminished snap count.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2024 20:04

Also, Quay should be a weakside LB not a middle LB. He should not be making calls or lining anyone up.

I genuinely think even though a lot of his woes are physical (missed tackles, bad angles), he is better if his role is less thinking, less taking on, and more running

It’s like he seeks out the blocker rather than zeroing in on the ball carrier. It’s just a weird way of going about playing the position regardless of whether he’s weak or middle.

I love me some Aaron Jones but this is something Jacobs gives the Packers that Jones rarely could.

New defensive sheriff in town…

APB wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 10:29

Stokes graded well albeit with diminished snap count.

I think they're being careful with him and his injury history. Good news is, we have guys that can step in and not see the drop off. But I suspect his percentages will go up once they're confident he's holding up well.

musclestang wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 11:36

APB wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 10:29

Stokes graded well albeit with diminished snap count.

I think they're being careful with him and his injury history. Good news is, we have guys that can step in and not see the drop off. But I suspect his percentages will go up once they're confident he's holding up well.

What do they need to be careful with? It’s his last year with the team and they declined his option. He had an additional 2 days off on just the 2nd game of the season. There’s not much to save him for.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 11:41

musclestang wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 11:36

APB wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 10:29

Stokes graded well albeit with diminished snap count.

I think they're being careful with him and his injury history. Good news is, we have guys that can step in and not see the drop off. But I suspect his percentages will go up once they're confident he's holding up well.

What do they need to be careful with? It’s his last year with the team and they declined his option. He had an additional 2 days off on just the 2nd game of the season. There’s not much to save him for.

sure there is. They invested a lot in him. He's been injured a ton, chronically so. They feel they rushed him back too soon last year. They sent him to more specialists to try and figure it out and hope they have. We're in a position he doesn't need to play every down while they test him and then rest and evaluate and if they're convinced he's healed and holding up, I think he'll play more as the season goes on.

His option was declined because of injury, not because of skills. He overcomes injury concerns they could easily sign him again.

musclestang wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 12:01

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 11:41

musclestang wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 11:36

I think they're being careful with him and his injury history. Good news is, we have guys that can step in and not see the drop off. But I suspect his percentages will go up once they're confident he's holding up well.

What do they need to be careful with? It’s his last year with the team and they declined his option. He had an additional 2 days off on just the 2nd game of the season. There’s not much to save him for.

sure there is. They invested a lot in him. He's been injured a ton, chronically so. They feel they rushed him back too soon last year. They sent him to more specialists to try and figure it out and hope they have. We're in a position he doesn't need to play every down while they test him and then rest and evaluate and if they're convinced he's healed and holding up, I think he'll play more as the season goes on.

His option was declined because of injury, not because of skills. He overcomes injury concerns they could easily sign him again.

It was also 85 degrees yesterday.

APB wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 10:29

Stokes graded well albeit with diminished snap count.

I'm surprised Wyatt didn't grade out higher. He was an ass kicker yesterday.

Great team win. Should have been more points but still a great win.

GpG

musclestang wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 11:36

APB wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 10:29

Stokes graded well albeit with diminished snap count.

I think they're being careful with him and his injury history. Good news is, we have guys that can step in and not see the drop off. But I suspect his percentages will go up once they're confident he's holding up well.

Wilson is a nice surprise, but a 99 grade for 1 tackle and 1 pick seems high, Bullard played most of the game had 5 tackles, his grade seems realistic, he's a highly rated rookie and plays up to the hype as well.

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2024 13:03

Wilson is a nice surprise, but a 99 grade for 1 tackle and 1 pick seems high

They are only graded on the snaps they play and I think it was less than 10 for Wilson, so take that grade with that caveat.

All the worry over Jacobs and the Packers signing him to the big contract after he underperformed in 2023.

I'd say it looks like the Packers got the 2022 version of Jacobs.

More on yesterday's snap count totals: