Packers Huddle

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2025 21:11

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2025 19:30

LaCoach's has a 3 - 4 post season record. Hardly stellar.

I’ll say this about LaFleur teams. They play tight in big games. If they get out to an early and dominant lead they’re usually fine but if they don’t they make all the mistakes in the world that just shouldn’t happen.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the Packers will somehow get their (offense, defense, special teams, coordinating, coaching, motivation, preparations, etc) acts together just in time for kickoff in Philly. Followed up with an embarrassing big win over the Eagles. The pressure will be on the Eagles. It could happen.......

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2025 21:46

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2025 21:11

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2025 19:30

LaCoach's has a 3 - 4 post season record. Hardly stellar.

I’ll say this about LaFleur teams. They play tight in big games. If they get out to an early and dominant lead they’re usually fine but if they don’t they make all the mistakes in the world that just shouldn’t happen.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the Packers will somehow get their (offense, defense, special teams, coordinating, coaching, motivation, preparations, etc) acts together just in time for kickoff in Philly. Followed up with an embarrassing big win over the Eagles. The pressure will be on the Eagles. It could happen.......

It happened last season vs Dallas. Personally I would prefer the Packers start against Philly.

72 hours from now we'll know if MLF was able to put it together or not.

With how little fan support they get at their home games, Rams might as well just play the game in Minnesota.

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 10:54

With how little fan support they get at their home games, Rams might as well just play the game in Minnesota.

I think they should play in St Louis.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2025 04:19

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2025 21:46

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2025 21:11

I’ll say this about LaFleur teams. They play tight in big games. If they get out to an early and dominant lead they’re usually fine but if they don’t they make all the mistakes in the world that just shouldn’t happen.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the Packers will somehow get their (offense, defense, special teams, coordinating, coaching, motivation, preparations, etc) acts together just in time for kickoff in Philly. Followed up with an embarrassing big win over the Eagles. The pressure will be on the Eagles. It could happen.......

It happened last season vs Dallas. Personally I would prefer the Packers start against Philly.

How ridiculous of me to have thought the Packers had what it took to upset the Eagles. Now I'm wondering who will end in last place in the NFC North in 2025.

Not NFC but...

This is crazy.

For reference, the success rate is 40% for those 125 drives.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2025 08:39

This is crazy.

For reference, the success rate is 40% for those 125 drives.

This is why I have such a hard time picking against KC. Even Brady was under 50%?? It always felt like he was a sure thing.

It is hard to bet against Mahomes and Reid. Penalties and stuff aside when it’s time to have something happen it’s like they just walk on to the field and do it. You can see and feel it, it’s kind of cool

Mahomes is what Rodgers should have been, and for all the kvetching over our receivers, Mahomes has had way less than Rodgers had (yet has been better at winning big games).

No serious person would take what Mahomes had at receiver over what Rodgers had. Don't try to argue that point.

Labrev wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2025 09:43

Mahomes is what Rodgers should have been, and for all the kvetching over our receivers, Mahomes has had way less than Rodgers had (yet has been better at winning big games).

No serious person would take what Mahomes had at receiver over what Rodgers had. Don't try to argue that point.

your insane, Rodgers hasn't had a field tilting receiver besides Adams for over 6 of his last season with us, not a TE, or slot and boundary, and had just as many 4th quarter comeback wins, hate does truly blind people from reality

Labrev wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2025 09:43

Mahomes is what Rodgers should have been, and for all the kvetching over our receivers, Mahomes has had way less than Rodgers had (yet has been better at winning big games).

No serious person would take what Mahomes had at receiver over what Rodgers had. Don't try to argue that point.

Mahomes is very good. So was Rodgers. Brady had Gronk, Mahomes has Kelce, who somehow just always seems to get wide open. Rodgers had, Richard Rodgers LOL

They've all had weapons, they've all won in different and similar ways. It basically boils down to Rodgers had to play at an exceptional level always or we'd lose the big games. that's it.

Just look at some similar games with San Fran. We give up blocked punts and TD's on ST's and lose a game we should have won and KC gets muffed punts for Short field TD's and and blocked Extra points to even keep them in the game to then be in the positon to win a super bowl. All that gets lost and fans forget and think it's just excuses for Rodgers. Well, maybe, but it's also reality.

Everyone of these Greats has needed his team to pick him up sometimes. Even against the last time we played Brady in the playoffs. Well Rodgers got 3 INT's to work with, yeah had to drive 70 yards for a TD and then 2 others right around the opposite 20 against a defense that then gave up 9 freaking points to Mahomes the next week. Rodgers gets slaughtered for it. Brady took 2 turnovers for TD's. yeah from midfield and from the freaking 8 yard line. Very different. Rodgers gets slaughtered because well, he's just an asshole to some.

Brady had help over the years, Mahomes had help over the years. GB won big games if Rodgers was on fire, if he only played well, we usually didn't. they all had Olines and weapons and coaches that helped or not.

Labrev wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2025 09:43

Mahomes is what Rodgers should have been, and for all the kvetching over our receivers, Mahomes has had way less than Rodgers had (yet has been better at winning big games).

No serious person would take what Mahomes had at receiver over what Rodgers had. Don't try to argue that point.

2014 and 2021 will always be the postseasons I am most disappointed in Rodger not stepping up. The team around him did - especially the defense. Throw 2013 in there too.

The other seasons I can buy more into the mainstream narrative that everyone let Rodgers down and deserved the leadership stare.

musclestang wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2025 10:45

Just look at some similar games with San Fran. We give up blocked punts and TD's on ST's and lose a game we should have won and KC gets muffed punts for Short field TD's and and blocked Extra points to even keep them in the game to then be in the positon to win a super bowl. All that gets lost and fans forget and think it's just excuses for Rodgers. Well, maybe, but it's also reality.

The SF loss is an insult to the defense. Not Rodgers. STs let the defense down. Shouldn't be out of this world to expect the MVP to score 14 points to advance.

Yoop wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2025 10:34

Labrev wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2025 09:43

Mahomes is what Rodgers should have been, and for all the kvetching over our receivers, Mahomes has had way less than Rodgers had (yet has been better at winning big games).

No serious person would take what Mahomes had at receiver over what Rodgers had. Don't try to argue that point.

your insane, Rodgers hasn't had a field tilting receiver besides Adams for over 6 of his last season with us, not a TE, or slot and boundary, and had just as many 4th quarter comeback wins, hate does truly blind people from reality

What great receivers has Mahomes had lately, in the prime of his career? Kelce. A few years with Hill. That's it. Kelce is now old and not even all that dominant, compared to the top receiving threats in the league. He's nowhere near as dangerous as an AJ Brown, Jamar Chase, Justin Jefferson, st. Brown, etc.

In the prime of Rodgers's career he had Nelson, Jennings, Cobb, Finley, Jones (Jones alone would be WR1 on all the KC teams after they traded Hill), even a young Adams for a few years with Nelson and/or Cobb (wasn't the amazing player yet that he later became, but even that version of Adams would be WR1 or 2 on KC teams after trading Hill).

No, yoop, what's insane and blind to reality is anyone who would even begin to think to argue that Mahomes has had it better than Rodgers in offensive supporting cast.

go pak go wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2025 11:31

Labrev wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2025 09:43

Mahomes is what Rodgers should have been, and for all the kvetching over our receivers, Mahomes has had way less than Rodgers had (yet has been better at winning big games).

No serious person would take what Mahomes had at receiver over what Rodgers had. Don't try to argue that point.

2014 and 2021 will always be the postseasons I am most disappointed in Rodger not stepping up. The team around him did - especially the defense. Throw 2013 in there too.

The other seasons I can buy more into the mainstream narrative that everyone let Rodgers down and deserved the leadership stare.

If the Rodgers fangirls argued that our defenses weren't good enough, that would be a compelling argument, most years.

That's not their position, though. They always claim it was not having enough at WR. That is preposterous. Every QB has to go through a few seasons here and there without much help at WR. I've never seen a QB who had to deal with less of it than Rodgers. For the vast majority of his career, he had good ones. You can count on one had where it was inadequate.