The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
I agree, they were totally outclassed/ flat out slapped down on the West coast. But my take is, the 49ers have overall better team speed. They're defense flies all over the field. You watch them and 3 guys are on the ball carrier like crazy clue. Very seldom do they blow a tackle.NCF wrote: ↑29 Sep 2020 12:28@go pak go is right. If I remember correctly it literally has nothing to do with winning or how big you win. Only losing and avoiding losing by more than one score because that is the best indicator of a team that is in every single game. It's the only knock on LaFleur... that in 3 out of the 4 times he has lost (including the most recent 3), he has had his team completely outclassed.BF004 wrote: ↑29 Sep 2020 11:52There were things to it about losing big, yes, but I think a lot of it had to do with decisive wins which we are tallying up and there is something about backward looking, where perhaps we already could be a superior team, but just don't know it yet.
But we did have the 2 decisive losses which I think is the maximum you can have.
The 49ers have 5 first round picks on their defensive line. They completely control the LOS. Then like you said their LBs have speed to get sideline to sideline and that line allows them to get to ball carriers cleanly. I really dont think their secondary is really that good but they dont need to hold up in coverage that long. Theyre just gonna press you, slow you down, and hope their rush gets a sack or affects the throw.Christo wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020 14:29I agree, they were totally outclassed/ flat out slapped down on the West coast. But my take is, the 49ers have overall better team speed. They're defense flies all over the field. You watch them and 3 guys are on the ball carrier like crazy clue. Very seldom do they blow a tackle.NCF wrote: ↑29 Sep 2020 12:28@go pak go is right. If I remember correctly it literally has nothing to do with winning or how big you win. Only losing and avoiding losing by more than one score because that is the best indicator of a team that is in every single game. It's the only knock on LaFleur... that in 3 out of the 4 times he has lost (including the most recent 3), he has had his team completely outclassed.BF004 wrote: ↑29 Sep 2020 11:52
There were things to it about losing big, yes, but I think a lot of it had to do with decisive wins which we are tallying up and there is something about backward looking, where perhaps we already could be a superior team, but just don't know it yet.
But we did have the 2 decisive losses which I think is the maximum you can have.
This year, losing Bosa is going to hurt them hard. They can still beat every team in the league. But it's going to be tough.
This Packer offence is light years better than last years. The short underneath passes are being used this time. Love the quick passes to Lazzard, tight ends and running backs.
Lets be honest, they didn't use those very much last season.
As for the defense, the poor tackling is a problem. The bad decisions by Savage letting receivers get behind him has got to stop.
Glad to see Keke get some quality time, lets have more of it.
True, they have lots of first round picks on they're defensive line. But it was Bosa that turned them into an elite group. If I'm not mistaken, they only won 3 games the year prior to him being drafted. So all of those other first round picks weren't setting the world on fire.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020 15:14The 49ers have 5 first round picks on their defensive line. They completely control the LOS. Then like you said their LBs have speed to get sideline to sideline and that line allows them to get to ball carriers cleanly. I really dont think their secondary is really that good but they dont need to hold up in coverage that long. Theyre just gonna press you, slow you down, and hope their rush gets a sack or affects the throw.Christo wrote: ↑30 Sep 2020 14:29I agree, they were totally outclassed/ flat out slapped down on the West coast. But my take is, the 49ers have overall better team speed. They're defense flies all over the field. You watch them and 3 guys are on the ball carrier like crazy clue. Very seldom do they blow a tackle.NCF wrote: ↑29 Sep 2020 12:28
@go pak go is right. If I remember correctly it literally has nothing to do with winning or how big you win. Only losing and avoiding losing by more than one score because that is the best indicator of a team that is in every single game. It's the only knock on LaFleur... that in 3 out of the 4 times he has lost (including the most recent 3), he has had his team completely outclassed.
This year, losing Bosa is going to hurt them hard. They can still beat every team in the league. But it's going to be tough.
This Packer offence is light years better than last years. The short underneath passes are being used this time. Love the quick passes to Lazzard, tight ends and running backs.
Lets be honest, they didn't use those very much last season.
As for the defense, the poor tackling is a problem. The bad decisions by Savage letting receivers get behind him has got to stop.
Glad to see Keke get some quality time, lets have more of it.
Even on offense their line is pretty good at controlling the LOS especially including Kittle and Juszczyk.
I felt if we played them 100 times we would have lost all 100 games because they really counter us. This year we have a chance with them losing some key players and us looking way better on offense. It will still be a tough out though.
For sure. But I think the NFL is also trying to have risk mitigation right now.Drj820 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 09:24At some point this stuff is gonna pop up and teams are already going to have had their bye week. I really feel like unless it’s a division game, teams should sit the positive and try to play. I thought that’s why they had expanded rosters and practice squads this year?
I guess I could see it if half the team was positive, but even then maybe a forfeit should be on the table. I would want to do everything possible to make sure division games are played at full strength, but outside of that...isn’t missing a handful of guys for a game something we all expected would happen this year?
I certainly thought the winners would be teams who had depth, or stayed away from covid best. It’s just interesting to me the Steelers don’t have any positives, yet they are the ones who lose their desirable bye week, and have to take it after playing 3 games. Yuck. Would hate for that to happen to GB.
Great points and I don’t disagree at all on that line of thinking. I guess I just hope that a precedent isn’t being set. Say week 11 a team has 4 positives...3 of which starters. I would hope they would be expected to play, instead of trying to say “well the titans didn’t have to play down a few starters” “the NFL did what it had to do to delay the game for them”go pak go wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 09:54For sure. But I think the NFL is also trying to have risk mitigation right now.Drj820 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 09:24At some point this stuff is gonna pop up and teams are already going to have had their bye week. I really feel like unless it’s a division game, teams should sit the positive and try to play. I thought that’s why they had expanded rosters and practice squads this year?
I guess I could see it if half the team was positive, but even then maybe a forfeit should be on the table. I would want to do everything possible to make sure division games are played at full strength, but outside of that...isn’t missing a handful of guys for a game something we all expected would happen this year?
I certainly thought the winners would be teams who had depth, or stayed away from covid best. It’s just interesting to me the Steelers don’t have any positives, yet they are the ones who lose their desirable bye week, and have to take it after playing 3 games. Yuck. Would hate for that to happen to GB.
Tennessee continues to have problems. They play MN who had some slight problems. If the TN and PIT game continues even with sitting players out...but then it travels to Pittsburgh...we could have issues.
The NFL will likely alter its risk view later on if this becomes a "new normal" but like everything, people will always be more cautious and shocked after the first go-round.
Don't you think the Super Bowl is honestly going to be later in February? I just think at some point this year the NFL is going to shut down for a week league wide and push everything back a week.Drj820 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 10:03Great points and I don’t disagree at all on that line of thinking. I guess I just hope that a precedent isn’t being set. Say week 11 a team has 4 positives...3 of which starters. I would hope they would be expected to play, instead of trying to say “well the titans didn’t have to play down a few starters” “the NFL did what it had to do to delay the game for them”go pak go wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 09:54For sure. But I think the NFL is also trying to have risk mitigation right now.Drj820 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 09:24At some point this stuff is gonna pop up and teams are already going to have had their bye week. I really feel like unless it’s a division game, teams should sit the positive and try to play. I thought that’s why they had expanded rosters and practice squads this year?
I guess I could see it if half the team was positive, but even then maybe a forfeit should be on the table. I would want to do everything possible to make sure division games are played at full strength, but outside of that...isn’t missing a handful of guys for a game something we all expected would happen this year?
I certainly thought the winners would be teams who had depth, or stayed away from covid best. It’s just interesting to me the Steelers don’t have any positives, yet they are the ones who lose their desirable bye week, and have to take it after playing 3 games. Yuck. Would hate for that to happen to GB.
Tennessee continues to have problems. They play MN who had some slight problems. If the TN and PIT game continues even with sitting players out...but then it travels to Pittsburgh...we could have issues.
The NFL will likely alter its risk view later on if this becomes a "new normal" but like everything, people will always be more cautious and shocked after the first go-round.
Because after teams start having their bye weeks, the reschedule games gets a lot tougher. So starting a precedent would be my concern.
But I agree with all your points too!
I could see it being pushed back, and that would be just fine. But like you said, I could see the league shutting down for a week too, but I think that would be when multiple teams have issues, and multiple games are needing to be rescheduled. Not just one team and one game.go pak go wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 10:08Don't you think the Super Bowl is honestly going to be later in February? I just think at some point this year the NFL is going to shut down for a week league wide and push everything back a week.Drj820 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 10:03Great points and I don’t disagree at all on that line of thinking. I guess I just hope that a precedent isn’t being set. Say week 11 a team has 4 positives...3 of which starters. I would hope they would be expected to play, instead of trying to say “well the titans didn’t have to play down a few starters” “the NFL did what it had to do to delay the game for them”go pak go wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 09:54
For sure. But I think the NFL is also trying to have risk mitigation right now.
Tennessee continues to have problems. They play MN who had some slight problems. If the TN and PIT game continues even with sitting players out...but then it travels to Pittsburgh...we could have issues.
The NFL will likely alter its risk view later on if this becomes a "new normal" but like everything, people will always be more cautious and shocked after the first go-round.
Because after teams start having their bye weeks, the reschedule games gets a lot tougher. So starting a precedent would be my concern.
But I agree with all your points too!
Didn't the Jets have a bunch of players test positive only to have them called a " false positive " a few days later?packman114 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 10:09Curious, have any of the infected players shown symptoms and/or been hospitalized? Or is this strictly locking down to prevent spread? Must be frustrating if they are feeling perfectly healthy.
The teams/players aren't allowed to comment, so we don't know if they are having symptoms. NFL is controlling all info on this one and that makes sense given the laws regarding medical privacy and the media's insatiable appetite for finding and reporting everything.packman114 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 10:09Curious, have any of the infected players shown symptoms and/or been hospitalized? Or is this strictly locking down to prevent spread? Must be frustrating if they are feeling perfectly healthy.
Aaron Rodgers also said every player has a tracker on them so the league and quickly identify who and how many an infected person has been in contact.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2020 15:11The reason the game is being postponed is that the Titans continued to have positive tests today. Had this been limited to only that initial outbreak, I would think they would have proceeded. Now that they are still finding cases, they can't reasonably say they contained it to that small group of Titans. They can't risk infecting the Steelers too.
