Packers 2022 Discussion Thread

[areacodes]

Not that I expect the Lions to lay down or anything, but we should have beat them in Detroit when we were playing like crap.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

On 1/3/2023 at 10:56 AM, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

Yep, the Lions are just plucky enough to mess up the narrative. The Packers came to play with great energy and a superb gameplan against the Vikings last weekend, and they are going to have to do the same thing to beat the Lions. The Packers are finally playing well enough that I do expect them to win, but it isn't going to be easy. 

I think it's even simpler. We aren't good, lol. Last weekend was honestly the first game in this streak we really looked good. Hell, might have been our best game of the year. And Rodgers wasn't even good!

This year's Packers are perfectly capable of duds against anybody. Still hope we make it, because it's just more fun. 

[yourout]

11 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I think it's even simpler. We aren't good, lol. Last weekend was honestly the first game in this streak we really looked good. Hell, might have been our best game of the year. And Rodgers wasn't even good!

This year's Packers are perfectly capable of duds against anybody. Still hope we make it, because it's just more fun. 

+1. It certainly helps bridge the gap till baseball is going. There is at least some decent golf tournaments coming up.

It would be a blast to be at 16 in Phoenix in a few weeks.

[CheezWizHed]

I think our record is a pretty fair assessment of our team right now.  Not great, not terrible. I think there is a small chance they can catch fire and run the SB, but I'd feel way better about that if Gary were healthy and the Rodgers/Doubs/Watson connection was more consistent. 

As I told a friend (you know...one of those live humans not on this forum), I gave up on my playoff hopes several weeks ago.  Beating the Vikings (in smashdown fashion no less) was a great end of the season for me.  So making the playoffs and anything they could do after that is just a bonus. (Though finally beating the 49ers in the playoffs might be nice too)

[young guns]

21 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

(Though finally beating the 49ers in the playoffs might be nice too)

How crazy would it be that this is the team that beats the 49ers.  I'd take that.

[Fear The Chorizo]

17 minutes ago, young guns said:

How crazy would it be that this is the team that beats the 49ers.  I'd take that.

49ers been managing to win games with a dominant defense, but playoff football would require their scrub quarterback to do something - not saying the Packers are good enough of a team to be the ones to knock them off, but I don't see San Fran winning 3 games against the NFC playoff field to get to the Super Bowl.

That being said, if GB's defense keeps playing well (they've been MUCH better in the front 7 over the last month, which has allowed for some of the coverage gaps in the deep middle to be shored up in the secondary), they keep running the ball effectively and Rodgers gets somewhat hot, I wouldn't want to play them in the playoffs.  It also helps to have a difference maker returning kicks...

[MrTPlush]

4 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

49ers been managing to win games with a dominant defense, but playoff football would require their scrub quarterback to do something - not saying the Packers are good enough of a team to be the ones to knock them off, but I don't see San Fran winning 3 games against the NFC playoff field to get to the Super Bowl.

That being said, if GB's defense keeps playing well (they've been MUCH better in the front 7 over the last month, which has allowed for some of the coverage gaps in the deep middle to be shored up in the secondary), they keep running the ball effectively and Rodgers gets somewhat hot, I wouldn't want to play them in the playoffs.  It also helps to have a difference maker returning kicks...

Sir, that scrub QB has led their offense to 30+ points 4/5 of his games. All of those teams are decent and most are fringe playoff teams. He has played well. If Jimmy G can take a team to the Super Bowl and then the NFCCG again the next year...this guy can easily lead a team over the NFC this year. 

Who exactly is concerning for him to beat? Maybe the Eagles, but they could easily never end up facing them. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

13 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Sir, that scrub QB has led their offense to 30+ points 4/5 of his games. All of those teams are decent and most are fringe playoff teams. He has played well. If Jimmy G can take a team to the Super Bowl and then the NFCCG again the next year...this guy can easily lead a team over the NFC this year. 

Who exactly is concerning for him to beat? Maybe the Eagles, but they could easily never end up facing them. 

Many of his completions are designed checkdowns or screens to RBs, or quick hitting routes primarily to Aiyuk or a TE running off bubble screen action plays.  It's 1 read and throw running the designed play, or he's throwing to guys running wide open from busted coverages from teams being too aggressive trying to generate pressure and having to play zones behind it with huge windows.  He's been fantastic for a 7th round rookie in terms of pocket presence and standing in when making some throws, but he's also turned the ball over at times making aggressive throws into coverage.  That's a recipe for a playoff game where he gets careless with the ball and throws a couple picks at bad moments to swing the outcome of a game.

Besides the Eagles (who I've got questions on due to Hurts' shoulder), I'd add the Cowboys, Green Bay, Tampa...teams that can score points with veteran quarterbacks who've been in the postseason.  I really think that any of the potential NFC playoff teams could wind up in the Super Bowl besides the Giants and Vikings.  I think whomever comes out of the AFC will be favored in the Super Bowl, fwiw.

Not saying Purdy can't manage the 49ers to win a playoff game or two with a more talented roster and quality weapons at all levels of their offense, but at some point they'll need him to make plays on his own against a defense game planned to take away what he's been successful with thus far to go on a Super Bowl run.  I think a team that could at least limit the 49ers run game while playing primarily man principles on the outside and more matchup zone concepts in the middle would give Purdy many fewer easy throws and lead to some bad decisions.  Would almost rather play coverage and blitz sparingly, because the 49ers tend to get all options out in routes and trust their Oline to pick most everything up well enough to give the pass catchers a couple seconds to find their way into wide open spaces. 

I don't think 4.5 regular season games is enough to stake any confidence in him in the playoffs, but I'm probably wrong depending on the matchups (and frankly how successful opponents are against a damn good 49er defense).  

[MrTPlush]

2 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Besides the Eagles (who I've got questions on due to Hurts' shoulder), I'd add the Cowboys, Green Bay, Tampa...teams that can score points with veteran quarterbacks who've been in the postseason.  I really think that any of the potential NFC playoff teams could wind up in the Super Bowl besides the Giants and Vikings.  I think whomever comes out of the AFC will be favored in the Super Bowl, fwiw.

I'm not sure I would label our offense as being able to score points. We haven't been terrible lately, but not like we are really lighting the word on fire. The Bucs offense is absolutely terrible, Tom Brady in the postseason or not. The Cowboys can score, but I can't imagine being all that confident in them not blowing their chances per usual. 

Not saying Purdy is great, but we once lost the conference championship to a guy throwing 8 passes. This is the kind of year I would just want the elite defense. Brady is not scary at this point, Rodgers isn't scary, Dak is Dak, and I have little confidence Cousins has any shot to carry that team multiple games like he would need to.

Right now the odd are Eagles then Cowboys...then a massive drop off to the Cowboys/Vikings. Seems about right. 

[OldHeidelberg]

When is the last time the Packers lost one of these must win to get in final games? Last one I can think of is Favre's first season in GB against the Vikes. I know we have 2 wins since against the Bears, 2010 and the Randall Cobb game. Maybe one against the Lions? We have had so many meaningful final games against them that I can't remember specifics. I don't mean games like Denver when the Vikes choked in Arizona but true win you are in for sure and lose you are out going into weekend. 

[HarryDoyle]

4 hours ago, OldHeidelberg said:

When is the last time the Packers lost one of these must win to get in final games? Last one I can think of is Favre's first season in GB against the Vikes. I know we have 2 wins since against the Bears, 2010 and the Randall Cobb game. Maybe one against the Lions? We have had so many meaningful final games against them that I can't remember specifics. I don't mean games like Denver when the Vikes choked in Arizona but true win you are in for sure and lose you are out going into weekend. 

These don't qualify but I remember a couple wild scenarios like in 1999 the Packer and Panthers had to run up the score in their respective games to break a tie breaker between them which Green Bay won but Dallas ended up getting the last playoff spot anyway, and in 2006 where before they played the Bears that night they needed about 8 or 9 underdogs to win their games.

[OldHeidelberg]

18 hours ago, HarryDoyle said:

These don't qualify but I remember a couple wild scenarios like in 1999 the Packer and Panthers had to run up the score in their respective games to break a tie breaker between them which Green Bay won but Dallas ended up getting the last playoff spot anyway, and in 2006 where before they played the Bears that night they needed about 8 or 9 underdogs to win their games.

I think we had one of those need a half dozen games to go our way back in the Infante era too and I remember thinking it wasn't impossible as most wins we needed were favorites but it didn't happen.

We blew first round bye's to the Pennington led Jets and more recently to Peterson and the Vikes, those felt like we were eliminated back in those days. We also lost the division to the Vikes on a Sunday night so it's not like we are on some amazing run in meaningful finals. I feel pretty good about tonight but mostly because we are at home, Detroit is just as hot as we are.

[HarryDoyle]

Welp, looking on to next year.

HOME: MIN, CHI, DET, TB, NO, KC, LAC, LAR

AWAY: MIN, CHI, DET, CAR, ATL, LV, DEN, NYG, PIT

[yourout]

How about this for a hot take.....ARod to Dallas to finish his career where it started...next to MM.

 

In my opinion the Packers will not win another playoff game with MLF. They probably wont even get to one.

[adambr2]

I don't know what the Packers are going to do with Rodgers. It's kind of funny, they've given him total control of the offense and his contract basically does the same off the field. The Packers have no control over the situation, it is all up to Rodgers, they cannot cut him or force him to retire. 

Gute had an opportunity to trade Rodgers at essentially peak value and usher in the next era and instead completely gave up control of ushering in the next era. The ramifications of that decision will be massive.

[MrTPlush]

18 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I don't know what the Packers are going to do with Rodgers. It's kind of funny, they've given him total control of the offense and his contract basically does the same off the field. The Packers have no control over the situation, it is all up to Rodgers, they cannot cut him or force him to retire. 

Gute had an opportunity to trade Rodgers at essentially peak value and usher in the next era and instead completely gave up control of ushering in the next era. The ramifications of that decision will be massive.

The entire thing is a mess. Even if they were to go with Love, it looks dysfunctional. 

A) They go with love and keep MLF. Which won't go well because MLF is trash...but Love has been sitting there learning his system for darn near a half decade. 

B) They go with Love and dump the entire coaching staff because it is rightfully a pile of garbage. Now you have Love waiting all those years to suddenly have to learn an entire system in his first year starting. Then you won't know if he is bad or just needs to learn the system...but would quickly need to pay him lots of money when he could in reality be Zach Wilson. 

The best way to win a Super Bowl would be to go with Rodgers. Rodgers could easily rebound next year and it wouldn't even be slightly shocking. Tom Brady hasn't exactly been consistently great in his old age...he has certainly seen his fair share of 'cooked' years. Rodgers didn't look overly special this year, but what a disaster situation with the WRs and the OL being swiss cheese majority of the year. Doubt they would make it, but certainly would have a chance going into the year. 

The best long-term thing is to go with Love and keep MLF...but I don't know that I have any confidence at this point that MLF can take a team to a Super Bowl. He had MVP Rodgers two years and didn't...and constantly was a big reason for helping blow games. MLF with a more human QB (like 2022 Rodgers)? Couldn't even make the playoffs. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm reluctant to do the MLF/Love thing. 

We've really got to commit to something. The past 5 years have been marred in half measures. Trying to be sustainable but trying to win now. Planning for the future but appeasing our old QB. 

I think you gotta do something drastic, either make this Love's team or do some really aggressive work in the office and put all your eggs in the 'now' basket (trading picks, whatever) to shore up the biggest weaknesses and give it one more go.

The Rams are a mess but they got their 'ship. I think most would agree that we wish we were the Rams with 2 recent SBs and a win.

[adambr2]

I also think the "trade Rodgers" thing is more wishful thinking than something that actually has potential to happen.

 

You basically can't trade him til June 1st because of his contract. How many teams are still figuring out their QB situation in June?

[homer]

I still maintain Gute got caught with his pants down on the Davante Adams desire to go to LAS. I really think they thought signing Rodgers would be enough to keep Adams around and take another Rams like shot at it. This offense looks a whole lot different with Adams out there. Butterfly effect stuff notwithstanding related to trading up for Watson in the draft.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 minute ago, homer said:

I still maintain Gute got caught with his pants down on the Davante Adams desire to go to LAS. I really think they thought signing Rodgers would be enough to keep Adams around and take another Rams like shot at it. This offense looks a whole lot different with Adams out there. Butterfly effect stuff notwithstanding related to trading up for Watson in the draft.

I think pretty much everybody thought Adams was bluffing. Honestly though, probably a bullet that we dodged there. We would have been better this season, but I'm not sure we need more of those deals right now. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

5 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I also think the "trade Rodgers" thing is more wishful thinking than something that actually has potential to happen.

 

You basically can't trade him til June 1st because of his contract. How many teams are still figuring out their QB situation in June?

Enough of them. There will be a handful that think they are Rodgers away from a SB. I'm not really concerned with Rodgers being tradable. I think some people might be thinking the return would be more grand than reality, though. 

[homer]

1 minute ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I think pretty much everybody thought Adams was bluffing. Honestly though, probably a bullet that we dodged there. We would have been better this season, but I'm not sure we need more of those deals right now. 

Like you said in your last post, the Rams are a mess but they got their title.

[adambr2]

We had a lot of Rams could have gotten our title teams. 2014-15 and 2020-21 probably in particular. Last year was another. 

It's just never mattered because we've never been able to finish. 

[GAME05]

I don't think GB would necessarily be out of a Superbowl race if it were Love next year. The defense has every ability to be great, and an influx of cap money if Rodgers retires or an extra draft pick or two if he's traded would shore up the offense. You wouldn't have to have a superstar QB to have a good team.

Tend to think Rodgers returns partly because it takes great players a little while to accept that they're declining, part because the money is too good and part because the team's late-season surge could convince him that they'll be good again next year. Though I also wonder if Cobb retires and with Bakh maybe not playing as much, that's kinda the last vestige of the Rodgers-era squad, and so maybe Rodgers bows out with them.

How about Rodgers to the Saints for Sean Payton?

[MrTPlush]

People are really trying to fuel it is the end of the Rodgers era because he opted not to swap jerseys (I don't think he has ever done it) with a rookie WR with 41 yards receiving the entire year. LOL