Packers Huddle

"Low grades" is not to say they scored on the low end of the *full* grading scale and got bad grades, it's to say they scored only slightly above zero, where zero = neutral grade.

Most of the O graded in the positive, so above zero, just not by a lot (like, less than 0.5), but they scored high as a unit due to the lack of negative (as in, below 0) grades.

Labrev wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 16:35

"Low grades" is not to say they scored on the low end of the *full* grading scale and got bad grades, it's to say they scored only slightly above zero, where zero = neutral grade.

Most of the O graded in the positive, so above zero, just not by a lot (like, less than 0.5), but they scored high as a unit due to the lack of negative (as in, below 0) grades.

grades is grades, either these players played well or they didn't, every one I mentioned had a plus grade, not just better then average, above that, my point is I don't see any reason to act as though they didn't so my expectations are protected.

we played a ball control style scheme and with a lead was very affective, to me thats how we should play Detroit, dink and dunk, till a deeper route opens, don't let them establish the run, and force them to play catch up ball.
Rodgers may not need to be the Dodger any more, just take the high % throws and let Jones and Dillon do the dirty work, I expect another 2 score victory, all three phases of this team seem injected with adrenaline, the last couple games to me is this team finally playing up to talent level, I don't think my expectations are to high.

I honestly can’t figure out why some blogger’s grades are that important to you…

APB wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 18:22

I honestly can’t figure out why some blogger’s grades are that important to you…

I can't figure out why any grades are important to anyone. Any grade that has a person's opinion in it is bogus in my book. PFF, QBR, and many others. Most people who make these grades, if not all, have never played on a professional level so how the hell can they tell if a particular play was good or not? Oh, that's an easy throw! From behind your screen yes it is, with a 300-pound defensive lineman bearing down on you in real life, not so much.

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 16:58

Labrev wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 16:35

"Low grades" is not to say they scored on the low end of the *full* grading scale and got bad grades, it's to say they scored only slightly above zero, where zero = neutral grade.

Most of the O graded in the positive, so above zero, just not by a lot (like, less than 0.5), but they scored high as a unit due to the lack of negative (as in, below 0) grades.

grades is grades, either these players played well or they didn't, every one I mentioned had a plus grade, not just better then average, above that, my point is I don't see any reason to act as though they didn't so my expectations are protected.

Yeah, they did play well, which is why they graded above zero/neutral. They just didn't grade far above zero.

Mike Spofford’s What You Might Have Missed

Labrev wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:21

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 16:58

Labrev wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 16:35

"Low grades" is not to say they scored on the low end of the *full* grading scale and got bad grades, it's to say they scored only slightly above zero, where zero = neutral grade.

Most of the O graded in the positive, so above zero, just not by a lot (like, less than 0.5), but they scored high as a unit due to the lack of negative (as in, below 0) grades.

grades is grades, either these players played well or they didn't, every one I mentioned had a plus grade, not just better then average, above that, my point is I don't see any reason to act as though they didn't so my expectations are protected.

Yeah, they did play well, which is why they graded above zero/neutral. They just didn't grade far above zero.

by who's grading system? above net zero doesn't say anything, again when someone tells me a RB with 111 yrds in 14 touches played above net zero, it will be hard for to to keep a straight face

Watch the O-Line play across the board on the Tonyan TD. Just a thing of beauty.

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 20:33

Labrev wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:21

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 16:58

grades is grades, either these players played well or they didn't, every one I mentioned had a plus grade, not just better then average, above that, my point is I don't see any reason to act as though they didn't so my expectations are protected.

Yeah, they did play well, which is why they graded above zero/neutral. They just didn't grade far above zero.

by who's grading system? above net zero doesn't say anything, again when someone tells me a RB with 111 yrds in 14 touches played above net zero, it will be hard for to to keep a straight face

Why. Because you think it should be a below zero grade? You think that is a bad day?

APB wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 20:47

Watch the O-Line play across the board on the Tonyan TD. Just a thing of beauty.

If the Oline can keep doing this vs pass rush teams like SF, PHI, and DAL...we can win those games.

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 14:38

BSA wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 14:23

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 12:56

Our blocking, especially run blocking, was phenomenal.

BTW...Elgton Jenkins is becoming a monster at LG again. He is stringing week after week of dominant play.

Great post above and you nailed it on the run blocking.
It took some time to assimilate new coaches, different players - but they're starting to gel and its a blast to watch

Our offensive line from Week 1 - Week 10 compared to Week 11 - Week 18 has to be one of the greatest turnarounds a position group has ever done.

Our kick return unit says hi.

go pak go wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2023 07:11

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 20:33

Labrev wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 19:21

Yeah, they did play well, which is why they graded above zero/neutral. They just didn't grade far above zero.

by who's grading system? above net zero doesn't say anything, again when someone tells me a RB with 111 yrds in 14 touches played above net zero, it will be hard for to to keep a straight face

Why. Because you think it should be a below zero grade? You think that is a bad day?

I deleted my response because I simply can't fathom your comment, you contradicted yourself right from the start after saying the team played well, but players graded out low, which was false, then out comes this net zero grading from Labrev, whatever, I have no idea what your motive was for such a two tongued comment, so I bow out.

Haha!

Can't fix stupid...

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2023 11:12

Haha!

When the bears finish their dumdum dome, the Packers will be the last outdoor team in the NFC North.
And that means every time these indoor cats come outside to play, they're at a major disadvantage.

APB wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2023 11:48

Can't fix stupid...

That's for sure!

Yoop wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2023 10:05

go pak go wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2023 07:11

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2023 20:33

by who's grading system? above net zero doesn't say anything, again when someone tells me a RB with 111 yrds in 14 touches played above net zero, it will be hard for to to keep a straight face

Why. Because you think it should be a below zero grade? You think that is a bad day?

I deleted my response because I simply can't fathom your comment, you contradicted yourself right from the start after saying the team played well, but players graded out low, which was false, then out comes this net zero grading from Labrev, whatever, I have no idea what your motive was for such a two tongued comment, so I bow out.

I have no motive when it comes posting about grading. My only motive is I like to track players and trends.

However, my point of the post was displaying that overall the offense performed well but it was not due to a small handful of people leading the performance but instead an overall strong contribution from everyone (you didn't have a Christian Watson or Aaron Jones outlier). It was just good team football on offense. Everyone did their 1/11th. No real weaknesses. No real standouts.

Rodgers rushing TD vs the vikes gives him 35 for his career and he moved in front of Daunte Culpepper with that shimmy & shake fake out

https://www.packers.com/video/wheels-aa ... vs-vikings

The rushing TD gave Rodgers 13 seasons where he has scored a TD for the Pack. That is the second-most seasons with a TD for the franchise.
Donald Driver tops this list with 14 seasons with the Packers with at least one touchdown.

There have been nine Packers players who scored a TD in 10 or more seasons. They are:

14- Donald Driver
13- Aaron Rodgers
11- Max McGee, Don Hutson

Rodgers became the second Packers player in history to score a TD for the team at age 39+. He was 39 years and 30 days old on Sunday. The other Packer was Zeke Bratkowski who was 39 years and 355 days when he scored a TD for Green Bay on October 10, 1971 vs the Loins.
.

I knew the Packers elevated Ahmed last week.

But just found out we was supposed to do kickoffs but hurt his groin during pregame warmups.

BF004 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2023 07:47

just found out he was supposed to do kickoffs but hurt his groin during pregame warmups

Bisaccia mentioned it in his presser, Crosby too. That other kicker got hurt minutes before kickoff - Crosby looked at Bisaccia, gave him the thumbs up and handled the kickoff duties. MLF was a little disappointed in the length of the opening kick, but Bisaccia told him to relax - Mason hadn't warmed up to kick off and only found out about it a few minutes before gametime.