Packers Huddle

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2024 19:30

We don't know much about Malik. But is he anything more than a raw QB? How much time has he actually played NFL ball?
...

He started 3 games as a rookie with bad results. He attempted only 5 passes in year two. Now he's here in year three learning a third offensive system, so yes, he's raw. Dude can run though, and he's got a strong arm.

Malik is fine to be on the team, but no thanks, obviously sign Tannehill

This one is easy either way.

IR love for 4 weeks

Either play Malik if they actually believe in him, or bring in tannehill and have Malik be qb2.

We gotta survive a month minimum and we got winnable games

Drj820 wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2024 22:26

This one is easy either way.

IR love for 4 weeks

Either play Malik if they actually believe in him, or bring in tannehill and have Malik be qb2.

We gotta survive a month minimum and we got winnable games

Disagree. If there is a chance you get him back in even week 5 you keep him on the active roster. From there you can play him in pistol sets to limit his mobility and have a heavy run focused game plan. The sooner he is back the sooner you give yourself a chance.

One things seems to be true for sure. Were going to find out just how good, on the fly, of an offensive coach Matt Lafleur and staff really is/are.

Assuming the Lions start hot to the year, yes this definitely resets expectations for the season. I was really looking forward to the Packers and Lions battling for the division all season. Now we probably have to hope that we just make the playoffs. We’re already 0-1 and I have zero confidence in winning ANY game without Love at QB. Even if he only misses 3 weeks, I think 1-3 is best case scenario. Then you have to assume the they have to go 9-4. Not impossible, but it’s just really deflating.

The majority of reporting I’ve seen seems to indicate a recovery period at the shorter end of the 3-6 week projected window. Time to exhale.

APB wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 07:33

The majority of reporting I’ve seen seems to indicate a recovery period at the shorter end of the 3-6 week projected window. Time to exhale.

If it is Grade 1, that’s the absolute best case. There would be a chance he’d only miss 1 game.

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2024 23:39

One things seems to be true for sure. Were going to find out just how good, on the fly, of an offensive coach Matt Lafleur and staff really is/are.

Don't we honestly know that by now? I think we can anoint Matt as a great coach whether he is successful here or not.

if this OL was or could get better quick, there would be hope that we could develop a run pro offense, but we can't even pass pro to keep our QB upright.

we seem to always be a work in progress, except progress doesn't take place till the last half of the season.

It can be done though, we've seen light switch flips from game one before under Lafleur, in 2021 we were shellacked by the Saints then went on a 7 game winning streak, course we hadn't lost our starting QB, if we can go 500 with the backup, we can still win the division or make the PO's, thats still a makable goal

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 07:44

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2024 23:39

One things seems to be true for sure. Were going to find out just how good, on the fly, of an offensive coach Matt Lafleur and staff really is/are.

Don't we honestly know that by now? I think we can anoint Matt as a great coach whether he is successful here or not.

My opinion is that I think he is a good coach, but I think he can improve his resume. Why not? He has to respond to a difficult situation. So I believe he can prove more.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 07:44

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2024 23:39

One things seems to be true for sure. Were going to find out just how good, on the fly, of an offensive coach Matt Lafleur and staff really is/are.

Don't we honestly know that by now? I think we can anoint Matt as a great coach whether he is successful here or not.

The thing we know about Matt Lafleur is he is NOT a “great coach” yet in his career.

Sure, he has a great record. He’s had marginal playoff success. But he has lost multiple games he should have won in the playoffs, and the team just comes out completely not ready to play at least twice a year. “Great” coaches don’t just come out and lay eggs and LOOK so poorly coached so often.

Many will misconstrue my words and say I hate Lafleur. I don’t. I think he’s a good coach! But great coaches don’t lay so many eggs.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 07:44

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2024 23:39

One things seems to be true for sure. Were going to find out just how good, on the fly, of an offensive coach Matt Lafleur and staff really is/are.

Don't we honestly know that by now? I think we can anoint Matt as a great coach whether he is successful here or not.

What kool aid you be drinkin GPG? Without an NFC belt he ain't nuttin' yet but a prissy wannabee.

If Matt loses these games it doesn’t prove anything. He has a backup QB. It doesn’t matter. Most teams don’t win with backup QBs.

If he pulls some wins out it does make him look that much better of a coach. Say what you want about MM but when he had to use backups he got his team to come and play. He needs to rally and motivate his team to step up.

I hope MLF held onto his Marcus Mariota playbook from TEN, because that is probably the offense you need to run with Willis.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 08:35

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 07:44

MY_TAKE wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2024 23:39

One things seems to be true for sure. Were going to find out just how good, on the fly, of an offensive coach Matt Lafleur and staff really is/are.

Don't we honestly know that by now? I think we can anoint Matt as a great coach whether he is successful here or not.

The thing we know about Matt Lafleur is he is NOT a “great coach” yet in his career.

Sure, he has a great record. He’s had marginal playoff success. But he has lost multiple games he should have won in the playoffs, and the team just comes out completely not ready to play at least twice a year. “Great” coaches don’t just come out and lay eggs and LOOK so poorly coached so often.

Many will misconstrue my words and say I hate Lafleur. I don’t. I think he’s a good coach! But great coaches don’t lay so many eggs.

So when you said last year that Matt needs to prove it by developing and winning with a QB not named Rodgers you didn't really mean it and just moved the goal post then.

Or are we getting down to wordage of "great" vs "good" vs "excellent", etc.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 09:27

If Matt loses these games it doesn’t prove anything. He has a backup QB. It doesn’t matter. Most teams don’t win with backup QBs.

If he pulls some wins out it does make him look that much better of a coach. Say what you want about MM but when he had to use backups he got his team to come and play. He needs to rally and motivate his team to step up.

He did with the right backup QB. MM was only successful with Matt Flynn. Though I agree by and large his teams still came to play.

I think Green Bay at New England in 2010 was one of Mike's finest hours as a coach.

I have a feeling we will find out if it was prudent for us to go with Jacobs over Jones. We have to have an effective running game no matter who is starting in Love's stead these next few weeks.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 10:06

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 09:27

If Matt loses these games it doesn’t prove anything. He has a backup QB. It doesn’t matter. Most teams don’t win with backup QBs.

If he pulls some wins out it does make him look that much better of a coach. Say what you want about MM but when he had to use backups he got his team to come and play. He needs to rally and motivate his team to step up.

He did with the right backup QB. MM was only successful with Matt Flynn. Though I agree by and large his teams still came to play.

I think Green Bay at New England in 2010 was one of Mike's finest hours as a coach.

He still pulled out some wins. Brett Huntley got a few and he was probably just a little better than Willis.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 10:06

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

08 Sep 2024 09:27

If Matt loses these games it doesn’t prove anything. He has a backup QB. It doesn’t matter. Most teams don’t win with backup QBs.

If he pulls some wins out it does make him look that much better of a coach. Say what you want about MM but when he had to use backups he got his team to come and play. He needs to rally and motivate his team to step up.

He did with the right backup QB. MM was only successful with Matt Flynn. Though I agree by and large his teams still came to play.

I think Green Bay at New England in 2010 was one of Mike's finest hours as a coach.

Most teams are average to bad, so a back up makes them much worse, if they in fact had a QB. A lot of times teams will step up with the back up. They know they have to hold their blocks longer, they have to run sharper routes, etc. Our past defenses have certainly gave enough games away to back ups. I think we are a top team so a back up should be able to have a decent chance to win. We've got runners, tons of targets, and a D that can get after teams. We're not facing murder's row in the next few weeks. If Willis is the starter you give him play action for deep balls, but mostly RPOs. And you run Jacobs and Wilson. This doesn't make or break MLF as a great coach, but if we're 2-2 when Love comes back that's good enough.