Packers Huddle

BF004 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 12:08

BF004 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 12:08

German_Panzer wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2023 15:45

Pugger wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2023 15:42

German_Panzer wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2023 15:15

I second that. The Steelers are a winning team and we were in it. We „just“ lack … talent. I am still open about Love, sometimes his throws look , sometimes . Our defense does alright too. It is the offense that is hurting us at this point.

How many yards rushing did the Steelers get today?

Still held them to 23 which is alright for me.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 07:22

To me, this game was perfect. Jordan Love actually looked permission and seems to be settling in, but the loss helps our quest to get a high draft pick and maybe find our next LT or get Marvin Harrison.

Oh. And Fire Barry.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 14:39

true it was a great completion, but the throw was short and those 2 safety's had no chance to recover on Musgrave if the throw was 3 or 5 yrds longer., Love needs to improve on that, the play could have produced more yardage with a better pass.

packman114 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 15:13

Looks to me like Love thinks Musgrave is going to stay running down the hash lines but while the ball is in the air Musgrave starts drifting towards the middle and has to adjust to the ball. If Musgrave stayed running down the hash he catches it in stride.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 15:10

The throw was not short. The throw was behind whether by decision of Love to keep it away from the safety or, more likely in my estimation, his footwork was to the left too much and it forced an errant throw behind Musgrave.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 15:58

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 15:10

The throw was not short. The throw was behind whether by decision of Love to keep it away from the safety or, more likely in my estimation, his footwork was to the left too much and it forced an errant throw behind Musgrave.

course it was short, possibly footwork issue, sure, but it was still short, when you see receivers doing 180's to make the catch, obviously the ball wasn't thrown far enough, I don't have a issue defending Love, but I wont defend his lack of accuracy, over and over , week after week, sorry

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 16:01

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 15:58

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 15:10

The throw was not short. The throw was behind whether by decision of Love to keep it away from the safety or, more likely in my estimation, his footwork was to the left too much and it forced an errant throw behind Musgrave.

course it was short, possibly footwork issue, sure, but it was still short, when you see receivers doing 180's to make the catch, obviously the ball wasn't thrown far enough, I don't have a issue defending Love, but I wont defend his lack of accuracy, over and over , week after week, sorry

A 180 means it is behind the receiver. Musgrave also caught it above his head. Not short.

The last sentence in my post specifically pointed to bad footwork leading to an errant pass.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 16:08

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 16:01

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 15:58

course it was short, possibly footwork issue, sure, but it was still short, when you see receivers doing 180's to make the catch, obviously the ball wasn't thrown far enough, I don't have a issue defending Love, but I wont defend his lack of accuracy, over and over , week after week, sorry

A 180 means it is behind the receiver. Musgrave also caught it above his head. Not short.

The last sentence in my post specifically pointed to bad footwork leading to an errant pass.

if Love would have led Musgrave which was the first fail, he could have put the ball deeper and Musgrave could have caught it in stride, and possibly got another 10 yrds out of that play, maybe more.

the only way it wasn't underthrown is do to the poor throw which forced Musgrave to cut his progress and turn around to make the catch, your defending Love making a poor throw to support in your opinion that it wasn't under thrown.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 15:10

his footwork was to the left too much and it forced an errant throw behind Musgrave.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 16:10

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 16:08

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 16:01

A 180 means it is behind the receiver. Musgrave also caught it above his head. Not short.

The last sentence in my post specifically pointed to bad footwork leading to an errant pass.

if Love would have led Musgrave which was the first fail, he could have put the ball deeper and Musgrave could have caught it in stride, and possibly got another 10 yrds out of that play, maybe more.

the only way it wasn't underthrown is do to the poor throw which forced Musgrave to cut his progress and turn around to make the catch, your defending Love making a poor throw to support in your opinion that it wasn't under thrown.

Do you know what the word errant means? I suspect you do not since the word completely proves your theory wrong.

Where did I defend Love making a poor throw? I support reality, nothing more. It was behind Musgrave, not a short throw.

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 16:22

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 16:10

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 16:08

if Love would have led Musgrave which was the first fail, he could have put the ball deeper and Musgrave could have caught it in stride, and possibly got another 10 yrds out of that play, maybe more.

the only way it wasn't underthrown is do to the poor throw which forced Musgrave to cut his progress and turn around to make the catch, your defending Love making a poor throw to support in your opinion that it wasn't under thrown.

Do you know what the word errant means? I suspect you do not since the word completely proves your theory wrong.

Where did I defend Love making a poor throw? I support reality, nothing more. It was behind Musgrave, not a short throw.

read what I wrote, I said I, thats me, wont continue to defend Love, never mentioned you.

jesus christ you are frustrating, Love could have led that ball out 3 to 5 feet Farther and Musgrave would have caught it in stride, course it was under thrown, and poorly thrown.

whats real is you would have never have cut Rodgers this slack

Yoop wrote: ↑

13 Nov 2023 06:09

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2023 18:54

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

12 Nov 2023 17:26

Gotta stop blaming DCs for systemic problems.

Fans have blamed 3 straight DCs now for not being able to stop the run.

Lupe, no. Stop it. Did you count how many plays we had the 2-man front Nascar out there today? Joe didn't even care to stop the run.

Think about this. The Steelers prefer to run the ball a lot. And they are decent at it too. So, we're on their field and we pull out that 2-man front like 80% of the time? Seriously? I wish I had an actual count of how many snaps, including third and short plays. Joe did NOT want to stop the run.

Was he too worried about needing max coverage on the back end, with Quay and Jaire out? Maybe.

Did he really think that Pickett was going to pass us to death? Give me a break.

This one game is the one where I pull the plug on Joe Barry. Get him outta there! Never soon enough.

there are always some sort of defense for Joe Barry, either the secondary is weak do to injury's or we play a hot QB/receiver team and have to play the nickel package, theirs always excuses, it's true we had to play both tines yesterday, both Balentine and Valentine did there part though, still Barry must have lacked enough faith in them to play a heavy front and dedicate himself to stopping the run.

I'd like to see us completely restock the defensive coaching, bring in a established DC prospect and let him bring in his assistants, and let him run that, with zero interference from Lafleur, who has all he can do prepping this offense