Game 1: Packers "@" Eagles - Friday, Sept 6 7:15 PM - São Paulo, Brazil!

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't think a FA is the answer but neither is Willis. I'd think it would be Clifford just due to the time he's spent in the offense. Maybe Willis is that much better and they plan to coach him up ASAP. I think 1-3 with a win over the Vikings would be fortunate in those circumstances. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 minute ago, SeaBass said:

It really is unbearable all the winning they've done since the early 90s. Sad times.

And now put that into context. Losing in the divisional a jillion times,  a timespan that includes 7 MVP QBs (one who is is the top 3 most talented ever if not the best) combining for 1 championship during those seasons and 7 losses in the NFC Championship game, with a defensive unit that cracked the top 10, what, 3 times in 30 years?

With the proper context, it really isn't that good.

[OldHeidelberg]

I am guessing it will be on the longer side considering Love had to be helped to the locker room and how MLF and some of the players responded to questions last night. I think they will go with Willis/Clifford and try to ride Jacobs and hope the defense can step up. We started 3-6 last year so I don't think the season is over but it's a tough break for sure. But who knows, maybe Love feels better today and the extra couple of days are all he needs to get back for Indy.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Just now, OldHeidelberg said:

I am guessing it will be on the longer side considering Love had to be helped to the locker room and how MLF and some of the players responded to questions last night. I think they will go with Willis/Clifford and try to ride Jacobs and hope the defense can step up. We started 3-6 last year so I don't think the season is over but it's a tough break for sure. But who knows, maybe Love feels better today and the extra couple of days are all he needs to get back for Indy.

Schefter is now saying Packers hoping for 3-4 weeks so I will guess 6 weeks. Either way will be very bad, they have no realistic backup and their defense sucks. They are facing several strong QBs in that timespan.

[Joseph Zarr]

Heck, at this point I'm way more interested in going with something entertaining and fun. Let's break out a heavy two back Option offense with Willis.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The "win" is that Love isn't career-altering-ly hurt. This alone is likely to leave them clawing to get into the playoffs, at best.

[BrewerFan]

1 hour ago, BruisedCrew said:

Obviously, an MCL sprain is a lot better than an ACL tear, but it’s still probably enough to torpedo this season.

The situation would not look quite as dire if the Packers had a real back up quarterback that had worked with them through training camp instead of someone they picked up off the scrap heap just before the season started.

It is?

This is the same injury Aaron Jones...a RB had twice last year.

It REALLY shouldn't be enough to "torpedo," this season. 

[BrewerFan]

31 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

It really is unbearable all the winning they've done since the early 90s. Sad times.

It is kinda crazy how fatalistic we get(and how quickly).

We played a REALLY good team on a bad field. Love didn't play well. We had two third-down penalties that stopped us from getting off the field(the Clark one was legit, the Jaire penalty was terrible). 

Just a whole bunch of slipping and sliding on open passes or Love missing guys. He didn't play great. 

The guy who did look pretty damn good is Cooper. I'd like to see Cooper playing more in the future in nickel. You line up McDuffie vs Cooper in man and...that's a bad matchup. 

 

I can't imagine how miserable these game threads would be if this was a Cubs forum though! 

[SeaBass]

14 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

And now put that into context. Losing in the divisional a jillion times,  a timespan that includes 7 MVP QBs (one who is is the top 3 most talented ever if not the best) combining for 1 championship during those seasons and 7 losses in the NFC Championship game, with a defensive unit that cracked the top 10, what, 3 times in 30 years?

With the proper context, it really isn't that good.

I'm satisfied with the experience. I guess not everyone feels the same. It's hard to win in the NFL, people look at the Patriots and Chiefs and think that's the standard but it's absolutely the outlier in the revenue sharing, salary cap era. Fans of other teams like to point at the Packers for failing in all those NFC Championship games, well where were their teams? How many times were they even that far?

Sorry I'm just not going to feel bad because they've had a hard time getting back to a Super Bowl. They've been in the mix, moreso than the majority of franchises. Bad luck, mistakes, things not going their way, it's the essence of sports. It makes getting there all the more satisfying when it happens. None of us are guaranteed or entitled to see that happen again in our lifetimes. So either enjoy the good times or don't, that's the choice.

[adambr2]

Indy next week is an interesting litmus test of what we can expect without Love.

They're not an awful team, but they're definitely one we'd expect to beat with Love, particularly at home.

If we can pull it off, maybe we can turn that 1 win into 2 and end up handing Jordan back the keys at 2-2 or 2-3, which certainly wouldn't be devastating.

If we get blown out of Lambeau...well, we're probably going to be digging ourselves into quite the hole to start the season. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

It is?

This is the same injury Aaron Jones...a RB had twice last year.

It REALLY shouldn't be enough to "torpedo," this season. 

A QB missing the time Jones did would most definitely torpedo a season.  

I will be surprised if the Packers have 2 wins when Love returns. And you'd have to start wondering how fast you want him back if they are 0-5. 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

2 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Indy next week is an interesting litmus test of what we can expect without Love.

They're not an awful team, but they're definitely one we'd expect to beat with Love, particularly at home.

If we can pull it off, maybe we can turn that 1 win into 2 and end up handing Jordan back the keys at 2-2 or 2-3, which certainly wouldn't be devastating.

If we get blown out of Lambeau...well, we're probably going to be digging ourselves into quite the hole to start the season. 

Richardson will run for 200 yards. The Green Bay special. 

[CheezWizHed]

18 hours ago, Joseph Zarr said:

I get that. It is one loss. And, I think it's also quite fair to (1) criticize the NFL for that colossal dumpster fire of a product they just showed the world and (2) complain about repeat issues. 

I don't really fault overall sloppiness or penalties that were clearly not penalties. BUT, certainly there are some repeating issues. 

I'm speaking more to the "let's tank" and "draft a new QB" or "Fire MLF" and "FIre the DC" stuff. 

Many people have said Packer fans have been spoiled and I've defended against that.  But that garbage after one game is silly.

18 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I respect telling yourself what is necessary to sleep at night lol. 

Same crap as ever. Hyped up defense with pricy additions that leaves the middle of the field seemingly unguarded. New kicker missing same clutch kick. Opening game where team looks like they haven't played football before. 

People are sick of this team and it's very hard for me to blame them. They have been a massive disappointment for 15 years. 

 

Yes, I slept very well thank you.  

If people are sick of our team for 15 years, then they are welcome to join the Bear's bandwagon.  If you really thought that a team would look polished playing football after not playing preseason, having a new DC, new starters, flying 10 hours to play in Brazil, I think you need to adjust expectations. 

Ever since they stopped playing preseason, they look terrible for 3-4 games.  You just can't get it down without playing full speed. 

[Dragonbait]

Must say.. Tom Grossi's reaction during his watch stream was perfect. 

 

~3hr :48min

 

'Bout 200 "no"s

 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

15 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

I'm speaking more to the "let's tank" and "draft a new QB" or "Fire MLF" and "FIre the DC" stuff. 

Many people have said Packer fans have been spoiled and I've defended against that.  But that garbage after one game is silly.

Yes, I slept very well thank you.  

If people are sick of our team for 15 years, then they are welcome to join the Bear's bandwagon.  If you really thought that a team would look polished playing football after not playing preseason, having a new DC, new starters, flying 10 hours to play in Brazil, I think you need to adjust expectations. 

Ever since they stopped playing preseason, they look terrible for 3-4 games.  You just can't get it down without playing full speed. 

The normal response is one like this where people say something like go root for the Bears. 

All it really does is prove my point. Those crappy teams have no stability at QB. And yet the Rams have won more titles than the Packers since 2000. The standard shouldn't be to not be absolutely terrible. The Patriots and Chiefs are not a reasonable standard either, ok, that's fair. But not playing in a Super Bowl since 2010 with the talent they have had is absolutely an organizational failure. 

[Joseph Zarr]

30 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

I'm speaking more to the "let's tank" and "draft a new QB" or "Fire MLF" and "FIre the DC" stuff. 

Many people have said Packer fans have been spoiled and I've defended against that.  But that garbage after one game is silly.

That's fair. Yeah, I'm nowhere near that level of histrionics. I know what the Packers have in LaFleur. Heck, the Packers pumped out over 400 yards of offense and average over 7 yards a play and were very clearly rusty. I trust him to right the ship there - though, obviously, with J-Love hurt that is going to change things in the near term. I still think they should have fun with this. I'm dead serious about simplifying things and trying split back looks. Option looks. And heavy play-action off of that. Jacobs improved as the game went on and he got comfortable. We have to love what we saw from RB 2. 

And, defensively, I mean they didn't play consistently well but I certainly saw flashes. That game was absolutely not lost via Jalen Hurts' feet which is a big plus - we've typically been obliterated by QB's who can run. Their containment package was a major plus for me. There were some rookie mistakes. There were absolutely phantom penalties (shocking). The missed open-field tackles and the interior run defense (sadly, yet again) were the most glaring concern for me. Good plays are going to beat coverage. There were some perfect and well-executed play calls called against certain Packers looks. But, at the end of the day, the defense with all the warts still gave the offense several opportunities to win the game despite their inability to hold a lead when they got it. They also held them late inside the 10 yard line giving the offense yet another (tho unlikely) chance.

I mean, 24 hours removed from the experience itself I'm at: It's week one with a new defensive scheme and an entirely new defensive staff with several rookies playing key positions and they played in a foreign country with 90% humidity wearing the wrong cleats with the worst reffing crew in the NFL and the B-Squad broadcast booth. I don't know why the sky is falling is a sensible take. What I see is an over-reaction due to years of disappointments. I get that. I don't think it's rational when we step back. But, I absolutely get it. 

[adambr2]

If we start 0-5 without Love, one of these things is true:

1) Our roster isn't nearly as good as we hyped it up to be

2) We grossly neglect our backup QB roster spot. 

 

Or some of both. Probably some of both. 

[BruisedCrew]

2 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

It is?

This is the same injury Aaron Jones...a RB had twice last year.

It REALLY shouldn't be enough to "torpedo," this season. 

Huge difference between a losing a QB on a team with no credible backup and losing a running back. 

[BruisedCrew]

12 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

If we start 0-5 without Love, one of these things is true:

1) Our roster isn't nearly as good as we hyped it up to be

2) We grossly neglect our backup QB roster spot. 

 

Or some of both. Probably some of both. 

I guess it depends on what you expected from the Packers in the first place. For anyone who expected the Packers to go 13-4 there’s probably a lot of #1.

But I think #2 is clearly true..Having to go to a backup QB with NfL experience who has been with the team through camp is one thing, But the Packers don’t have that. They have someone who came in late and has to develop chemistry with the team on  the fly.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

29 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

If we start 0-5 without Love, one of these things is true:

1) Our roster isn't nearly as good as we hyped it up to be

2) We grossly neglect our backup QB roster spot. 

 

Or some of both. Probably some of both. 

Don't we already know #2 is true? 

The backup is a guy we signed like 10 days ago. They preferred him to a guy they drafted last year in the 5th round. They don't really have a backup QB. Other teams have backups like Garopollo or Justin Fields; it has never been a route the Packers have taken. I understand the math of why, but they have never taken that position seriously. 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

52 minutes ago, Joseph Zarr said:

 

I mean, 24 hours removed from the experience itself I'm at: It's week one with a new defensive scheme and an entirely new defensive staff with several rookies playing key positions and they played in a foreign country with 90% humidity wearing the wrong cleats with the worst reffing crew in the NFL and the B-Squad broadcast booth. I don't know why the sky is falling is a sensible take. What I see is an over-reaction due to years of disappointments. I get that. I don't think it's rational when we step back. But, I absolutely get it. 

The Eagles played in the same circumstance, turned the ball over 3 times and still humiliated our "defense." 

If the Packers had committed those 2 early turnovers inside their own 25 yard line, does anyone have confidence they wouldn't have immediately been down 14-0? The game was eerily similar to the one they lost to end the season in San Francisco. It's a pattern, no matter how much everyone likes making excuses for MLF's consistently unprepared teams.

[BrewerFan]

2 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

A QB missing the time Jones did would most definitely torpedo a season.  

I will be surprised if the Packers have 2 wins when Love returns. And you'd have to start wondering how fast you want him back if they are 0-5. 

 

Yeah...MAYBE...if he has the same injury twice.

 

[BrewerFan]

26 minutes ago, BruisedCrew said:

Huge difference between a losing a QB on a team with no credible backup and losing a running back. 

Sure. That is why I didn't compare the IMPACT of losing both, I pointed out that Aaron Jones TWICE last year suffered the same injury at RB, a position where an MCL is much more significant...and he missed 6 weeks.

So it's unlikely that the same injury to a QB would "torpedo" our season.

[Joseph Zarr]

6 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

The Eagles played in the same circumstance, turned the ball over 3 times and still humiliated our "defense." 

If the Packers had committed those 2 early turnovers inside their own 25 yard line, does anyone have confidence they wouldn't have immediately been down 14-0? The game was eerily similar to the one they lost to end the season in San Francisco. It's a pattern, no matter how much everyone likes making excuses for MLF's consistently unprepared teams.

Well, that didn't happen. What's the point of your thought exercise? The Packers grabbed three turnovers. They won the turnover battle. This isn't an excuse. Games are never perfect. Packers didn't play well. But acting as if there are zero positives to take away is just a hum bug take.

[BrewerFan]

8 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Don't we already know #2 is true? 

The backup is a guy we signed like 10 days ago. They preferred him to a guy they drafted last year in the 5th round. They don't really have a backup QB. Other teams have backups like Garopollo or Justin Fields; it has never been a route the Packers have taken. I understand the math of why, but they have never taken that position seriously. 

 

No, we don't know #2 is true.

Jimmy G was taken in the 2nd rd by the Pats and then traded and Fields/Wilson is clearly an aberration.