Packers 2024 Season Thread

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 hour ago, True Blue Brew Crew said:

It's not schtick, it's a fact. And if placed in the proper context the value in that fact is that improvement and growth can be expected from these players. It also means that it is perfectly acceptable for said younger players not to climb to the top of the mountain on their first 1-2 go-arounds. It's not like they're young just for the sake of being young either. They're young because they're timing their build with their new franchise QB. It's somewhat stunning that this has to be pointed out. This script has been written many times over. They're in the gaining experience, growing and improvement, identify their core phase. The reason for optimism and oddity of hot takes like yours is that they've set themselves up for multiple go's at it. Those who don't wind up being part of a championship core can be dispatched and replaced all while successful core pieces still hold long term value. THAT is why quality youth, which the Packers have an abundance of, matters. 

Thanks for pointing out that it's a "fact." 

I'm not offering a hot take. I'm pointing out that the entire thing is a bit exaggerated and blown out of proportion when the entire league is young. No team has an average age of like 30, and you're talking about .1 and .3 year average age gaps between teams. 

The other side of "multiple gos" is that the Packers are already good enough now to win championships and they were last year too, and when you're as close as they are, an established pass rusher or actual standout receiver has the potential to make a big difference. 

"Identifying your core" is great, except it becomes a bit of a problem if you sign a guy to a 4 year rookie deal and he doesn't contribute until year 4 when you now have to pay him. 

Any criticism of the Packers doesn't have to mean they suck and the whole thing should be blown up. But they have not gotten enough out a litany of early defensive draft picks.  

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 minutes ago, homer said:

MLF is on starting QB #2. He has a long leash.

Long enough that he isn't getting canned this year no matter what, sure. Almost zero chance would next year either. After that, I'd think yes, no substantial achievement with 2 franchise QBs. Nine years is a very long time.  After 4 years with Love those whispers are definitely going to be there. 

[homer]

5 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Long enough that he isn't getting canned this year no matter what, sure. Almost zero chance would next year either. After that, I'd think yes, no substantial achievement with 2 franchise QBs. Nine years is a very long time.  After 4 years with Love those whispers are definitely going to be there. 

Based on this thread, there are already whispers. 

[HarryDoyle]

11 hours ago, LouisEly said:

MLF today said that knee swelling is the issue with Alexander.

Cue the David Bakhtiari consternation.

There is also the condition that a team can't cut a player who can't pass a physical due to football-related injury without paying him for the next season.  Alexander is due ~$17.5M in cash next year including workout/roster bonuses, and it's unlikely that they'll bring him back at that salary.

Yeah, there is so much more going on behind the scenes than just "his knee is swollen." All parties involved have been evasive about the whole situation to the point where reputable reporters like Demovsky and Wilde still have no clue on what the truth is. Not even national reporters like Glazer and Schefter are saying anything. At least in Bakh's case he was somewhat of an open book about his injury. An injury BTW that is more severe than the one Alexander suffered. We haven't heard a peep from him. I think everyone at 1265 knows Jaire already has one foot out the door and everyone is fine with it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

2 minutes ago, homer said:

Based on this thread, there are already whispers. 

To be clear I am not advocating his firing and believe is a good coach, I felt the same about Budenholzer, but sometimes lack of results just dictate a change. I do think it is a bit odd that "well the Vikings are better" is some kind of excuse for him and the Packers. That is kind of a big part of his job to ensure that doesn't happen.

[OldHeidelberg]

It's mostly an overreaction to a disappointing loss. Just last week we were all talking about how everyone was afraid to play us. Jaire being likely done has tempered my enthusiasm, but I still think we have a shot this year. 

[HarryDoyle]

16 minutes ago, OldHeidelberg said:

It's mostly an overreaction to a disappointing loss. Just last week we were all talking about how everyone was afraid to play us. Jaire being likely done has tempered my enthusiasm, but I still think we have a shot this year. 

Last week we were coming off a win against a team playing a JV offense. That was an overreaction too. We're somewhere in between. I think we can all agree that after Sunday there's a significant gap between the top three NFC teams and everyone else. I expect them to be a better team next season but as far as this year goes, I have no hope for a Super Bowl and not much more hope we can win a playoff game unless we do get that six seed. I seem to be more optimistic than most about McCarthy and the Cowboys doing us a solid and beating Washington but without Lamb it's going to difficult.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't think there's a significant gap. I think the Packers can beat anyone they draw. They haven't actually proven they can beat one of these top teams, but I still think they can. They have just got to stop this first half Houdini offense crap. I'd go into the Eagles matchup not really expecting a win, but I would be optimistic and expect it to be competitive. 

[OldHeidelberg]

One thing about 0-5 is it is embarrassing and should motivate them. I don't feel great about winning in Philly at all, I think they are the best team, but get past them and it will feel like we have as good a chance as anyone. But that is still only 25% chance to get out of NFC. 

[endaround]

The terrible, awful two point loss to Minnesota caused the Packers to fall all the way to #4 in DVOA.

https://ftnfantasy.com/nfl/week-17-dvoa-ravens-keep-climbing

[CheezWizHed]

3 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I don't think there's a significant gap. I think the Packers can beat anyone they draw. They haven't actually proven they can beat one of these top teams, but I still think they can. They have just got to stop this first half Houdini offense crap. I'd go into the Eagles matchup not really expecting a win, but I would be optimistic and expect it to be competitive. 

Sure, they can beat anyone they draw, but at what odds?  The Bears can beat anyone they draw too.

Without Alexander and Williams, our odds are pretty low, IMO.  Especially when you have to string together three straight games of beating the odds just to get TO the Superbowl.  

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Not sure comparing the Packers to the Bears is like comparing the Packers to the Eagles. 

This place gets so incredibly reactionary. The odds of any one team making the Super Bowl aren't very good. But I am not even talking Super Bowl. I'm talking winning a first round game, which I'd put somewhere around 25-35%. 

I don't have the feeling of say 2020 when we had to play SF and it was incredibly obvious we couldn't hold their jock. The Packers can beat any of these teams, realistically. It's not that long of a shot. 

[endaround]

23 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Not sure comparing the Packers to the Bears is like comparing the Packers to the Eagles. 

This place gets so incredibly reactionary. The odds of any one team making the Super Bowl aren't very good. But I am not even talking Super Bowl. I'm talking winning a first round game, which I'd put somewhere around 25-35%. 

I don't have the feeling of say 2020 when we had to play SF and it was incredibly obvious we couldn't hold their jock. The Packers can beat any of these teams, realistically. It's not that long of a shot. 

Based on what?  Of course the last time the Packers entered the first playoff game with such low odds:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/game/_/gameId/401547752/packers-cowboys

 

The Packers have a tough road as the 7th seed because they don't have a bye or get to face once of the three also rans (WAS still being much better than the other two). But they will be more like what entering the Minnesota game was like, a coin flip, then severe underdogs.

 

[Sixtolezcano]

3 hours ago, endaround said:

The terrible, awful two point loss to Minnesota caused the Packers to fall all the way to #4 in DVOA.

https://ftnfantasy.com/nfl/week-17-dvoa-ravens-keep-climbing

Yeah, and the Vikings are rated #7.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 hour ago, endaround said:

Based on what?  Of course the last time the Packers entered the first playoff game with such low odds:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/game/_/gameId/401547752/packers-cowboys

 

The Packers have a tough road as the 7th seed because they don't have a bye or get to face once of the three also rans (WAS still being much better than the other two). But they will be more like what entering the Minnesota game was like, a coin flip, then severe underdogs.

 

And what would you say 25% is? 

[LouisEly]

On 12/30/2024 at 7:18 PM, LouisEly said:

MLF today said that knee swelling is the issue with Alexander.

Cue the David Bakhtiari consternation.

There is also the condition that a team can't cut a player who can't pass a physical due to football-related injury without paying him for the next season.  Alexander is due ~$17.5M in cash next year including workout/roster bonuses, and it's unlikely that they'll bring him back at that salary.

According to Adam Schefter, a "source" told him that Alexander had knee surgery:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/43250547/source-packers-cb-jaire-alexander-undergoes-knee-surgery

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Jaire officially on the shelf. Not a big surprise, but I guess the good news is that it was actually his knee and not a personality thing. That is probably a death knell for the Packers run, but at least they've already been playing without him. 

[HarveysWBs]

The checklist for the Packers this week would seem to look like this:

1. Win. Losing two straight going into the postseason kind of sucks the wind out of your sails psychologically. They need to mentally reset after going 0-5 against the big dogs, and losing at home to these Bears would not do them any favors in that regard.
2. Do whatever is necessary to ensure Watson's further health since he is the only vertical element the Packers have (they should really do more up the seam with Musgrave and Kraft, but whatever, I'm not holding my breath for that ship to come in). Not that Love had an abundance of time to throw anyway, but this passing game with no vertical element is pretty much a dead letter.
3. Limit Jacobs' reps. Maybe they don't need to sit him entirely, but I'm not sure I'd give him more than a couple series if I could help it. This week seems like a good time to give him some rare rest.
4. Let the passing game rip. Love and the receivers need to get something working on a game field with live bullets. You might as well do it in a game where the only stakes are psychological, and aren't going to send you home. They need to find something in the passing game because they are going to need it at some point, as last week ably demonstrated.

[HarveysWBs]

Clearing out the mental notebook on other team goings on:

• re the Alexander injury: that really stings. Luckily, the defense has had ample experience in the second half figuring out how to play fairly effectively without him. Unluckily, this has also shown that they can't really afford any other injuries. Williams going out forces an already injury-limited and inexperienced Bullard into the safety role and out of the slot (or a big question mark in Anderson into safety), which takes Nixon into slot and out of the boundary where he has been a bit of a revelation this year, and forces the really iffy Stokes and Valentine into more playing time. If Williams is back for Philly, I'm not worried about this being fatal. But if anyone else goes down they are in real trouble on the back end. Minnesota exposed them (I don't believe they had allowed a pass play for more than 30 yards until last week, and Minny got several of them), and they'll get more of the same from the gauntlet they are about to face.

 

• re playoff seeding and matchups: I'll probably get flamed for this, but I kind of want Philly. The way I see it, we're likely going to have to see at least two (and probably all three) of Detroit, Minnesota, or Philly on the road to get out of the NFC. If playing in Philly is a near certainty then, wouldn't now be the best possible time to do it? Philly has nothing to play for this week, so they're probably resting Hurts, who will then have some rust to shake off. As @OldSchoolSnapper has pointed out, Philly also has their weird internal stuff going on, and this with a team that was probably a straw or two away from canning Sirianni in the offseason. I'd rather have the chance to punch them in the mouth now and see if they crumble, as opposed to have to play them after they get an easier win to build momentum and confidence.

[OldHeidelberg]

14 hours ago, HarveysWBs said:

 

• re playoff seeding and matchups: I'll probably get flamed for this, but I kind of want Philly. The way I see it, we're likely going to have to see at least two (and probably all three) of Detroit, Minnesota, or Philly on the road to get out of the NFC. If playing in Philly is a near certainty then, wouldn't now be the best possible time to do it?

As a 7 seed we are locked in @Philly and then @Det/Min winner. Plus, if we do beat Eagles we are probably doing a big favor for one of our hated rivals who get a surprise home game in division round and an easy path to NFCC. As a 6 seed we could possibly avoid Eagles entirely. It is what it is but hard for me to see sliding to 7 as anything but bad for our chances.   

[homer]

 

 

[OldHeidelberg]

16 minutes ago, homer said:

 

 

I would have bet on Jacobs, Xavier, and Tom. Gary?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

5 hours ago, OldHeidelberg said:

As a 7 seed we are locked in @Philly and then @Det/Min winner. Plus, if we do beat Eagles we are probably doing a big favor for one of our hated rivals who get a surprise home game in division round and an easy path to NFCC. As a 6 seed we could possibly avoid Eagles entirely. It is what it is but hard for me to see sliding to 7 as anything but bad for our chances.   

The loser of MN/DET falls to 5 and is visiting Tampa most likely, a tough team DET lost to at full strength. They will likely have a battle just to advance out of the Wild Card. If they win, they're still quite possibly visiting LA in the divisional.

The winner would play us, as you said. I don't really see an "easy" path for anybody, looking at the quality of Washington's losses, there just isn't really a chump in this year's NFC field. I think people get way too wrapped up in the seedings. I have seen it go sideways so many times, including for the Packers. I remember jumping for joy in 07 when NYG knocked off Dallas and yelling "We're going to the Super Bowl!" I didn't take SF seriously at all in '21.

Packers are simply not a favorite, it is what it is. I don't think 5, 6 or 7 they were seeded would have made a real difference there.

[CheezWizHed]

On 12/31/2024 at 1:15 PM, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Not sure comparing the Packers to the Bears is like comparing the Packers to the Eagles. 

I was saying that I believe the Bears can beat anyone in the playoffs.  It isn't about can they beat the teams, but how likely it will be.  It might take the Bears 1000x before that 1 time occurs.  Even if our odds are better, it is probably 1 in a 1000 that we beat all three consecutively to merely get to the SB. 

 

[sveumrules]

8 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

Even if our odds are better, it is probably 1 in a 1000 that we beat all three consecutively to merely get to the SB. 

The NFL Playoff Projections at The Athletic give the Packers a 4% chance of winning the Super Bowl for whatever that is or isn't worth.