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

[Brian]

6 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

It's between a Grade 1 and a Grade 2 MCL. 

Timeline grade 1, 1-2 weeks. 
Grade 2 2-4 weeks

Both based on pain tolerance.
 

Week 4 is a month from that game Oct 6th. 

I'd expect him back for the Rams, Week 4 on the 6th. 

Both based on pain tolerance? Great. 

[SeaBass]

9 hours ago, Brian said:

That is why I said  "Not sure if it is true."  Everything is pure speculation until a deal is done. There are actually 3 names total I have seen already. But the Packers do need a backup even if they stick with Sean Clifford. 

I'm reacting to the headline saying the Packers WILL sign him. That's a definitive statement which was then followed by pure speculation in the article itself. Any of us can speculate, that's nothing special. Ergo clickbait. Tannehill is a logical move to speculate on and there are pros and cons to such a move.

Like I said, wasn't intending to be harsh or critical of you in my response, just calling it what it is.

I did see a report earlier today that the Packers have contacted Tannehill, which I would interpret as doing their due diligence if they decide to go that route.

[Brian]

Jordan Love is out for a month, so if Malik Willis can go 2-2 Packers will be OK. 😁

[yourout]

23 minutes ago, Brian said:

Jordan Love is out for a month, so if Malik Willis can go 2-2 Packers will be OK. 😁

2-2 would require Devine intervention.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I've seen this movie before. The fans talk themselves into the running game and defense "helping" the QB figure things out, and hey we still have some receivers right? "Jordy Nelson is really good!" "We just need to go about .500"

Then the game starts and it takes about a quarter for everyone to realize why you pay Love $220mm. QBs are engine oil in the NFL. They are going to absolutely suck for the next 3-6 weeks.  

[nate82]

I am not a Packers fan but they should be fine you play the Colts, Titans and Vikings in the next three weeks.

If Love doesn’t comeback by 10/06 that is the first game the Packers play with a playoff caliber team in the Rams.  Even without Love the Packers should beat the Titans and Vikings.

[Recovering Chicagoan]

2 minutes ago, nate82 said:

I am not a Packers fan but they should be fine you play the Colts, Titans and Vikings in the next three weeks.

If Love doesn’t comeback by 10/06 that is the first game the Packers play with a playoff caliber team in the Rams.  Even without Love the Packers should beat the Titans and Vikings.

I dunno 'bout that. A very optimistic take.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

They will be fortunate to be 1-3. 

I am not the team's doctor, but I am guessing this will be closer to 6 weeks than 3. 

[adambr2]

52 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

They will be fortunate to be 1-3. 

I am not the team's doctor, but I am guessing this will be closer to 6 weeks than 3. 

The Packers are anticipating the shorter end of the timeline.

 

[adambr2]

Packers lost - Check

Bears won - Check

Vikings won - Check

Lions won - Check

Love injured- Check 

That's uh, one hell of a lousy week 1.

[Recovering Chicagoan]

13 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Packers lost - Check

Bears won - Check

Vikings won - Check

Lions won - Check

Love injured- Check 

That's uh, one hell of a lousy week 1.

Yep.

[Jimbo]

Still adapting to the relaxing of the NFL uniform number rule.  RB is #8, K is #44, LB #7.  Akin to watching NFL Films from the 60's.

 

[LouisEly]

12 hours ago, yourout said:

2-2 would require Devine intervention.

He was one of the worst coaches in Packers history.  And he died in 2002.

[nate82]

11 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

They will be fortunate to be 1-3. 

By playing against teams with QB's like  Darnold, Levis and Richardson? Ok Richardson is probably the best QB of the bunch but if the Packers can't win those games without Love then are they really a good team or are they just pretenders?

The Packers losing Love hurts but if your team can't win 2 of 3 against a fairly weak schedule then this Packers team is not as good as some say they are.  The Bears were able to beat the Titans with some very poor play by the offense and their starting QB.

It is not like the Packers next 4 games are against the Chiefs, 49ers, Cowboys and Dolphins.  If that were the case then yes the would be fortunate to go 1-3 over their next 4.  But the Packers next 4 are against the Colts, Titans, Vikings and Rams.  There are 2 very winnable games even without Love in the Titans and Vikings or do you expect Levis and Darnold to carve up the Packers defense and make it impossible for the Packers to win?  If that is the case then the Packers are possibly just a bit better than the Raiders, Giants and Panthers. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

18 minutes ago, nate82 said:

By playing against teams with QB's like  Darnold, Levis and Richardson? Ok Richardson is probably the best QB of the bunch but if the Packers can't win those games without Love then are they really a good team or are they just pretenders?

The Packers losing Love hurts but if your team can't win 2 of 3 against a fairly weak schedule then this Packers team is not as good as some say they are.  The Bears were able to beat the Titans with some very poor play by the offense and their starting QB.

It is not like the Packers next 4 games are against the Chiefs, 49ers, Cowboys and Dolphins.  If that were the case then yes the would be fortunate to go 1-3 over their next 4.  But the Packers next 4 are against the Colts, Titans, Vikings and Rams.  There are 2 very winnable games even without Love in the Titans and Vikings or do you expect Levis and Darnold to carve up the Packers defense and make it impossible for the Packers to win?  If that is the case then the Packers are possibly just a bit better than the Raiders, Giants and Panthers. 

Again, look back at what happens when a team loses their stud QB. 

Anyone remember Bob McGinn's infamous "Without Rodgers, Packers are still an 11-5 team" or whatever it was? Then he goes down and they are quite literally one of the worst 3 teams in the league. You need a QB in the NFL. If the rest of your team is strong, you at least need somebody like Baker Mayfield or Derek Carr or something. We are seriously trotting out Malik Willis as a starter. 

So yes - I think they will be fortunate to win a game in the next 3 weeks, given that Willis is playing and he has been in the offense for like 2 weeks. And I don't think it says much about how good or bad the rest of the roster is. You simply need a good QB to do anything.

As far as the Packers defense I won't hold my breath. I have seen the worst of the worst carve them up over the last decade so while I hope you are right, my expectations are not very high especially after seeing guys run free in midfield and the defensive line get gashed up the gut again.

[kestrel79]

What year did Rodgers miss a lot of time? 2018? When we had the Badgers guy, and Kizer and someone else. That was tough to watch.

This will be a good test for the rest of the team and the coaching staff. Can we win without a star QB?

I'd like to see MLF get creative and use Malik and Clifford together for the QB running/option stuff mixed with traditonal pocket passing and play action. Lots of runs, screens, get the WRs on the end around stuff. 

And the D needs to show up and win the game like the Bears did yesterday. That was exciting to see. Can our D do that?

[CheezWizHed]

The one positive I see from our Defense was that they did improve as the game went on.  Still much improvement desired, but they did start to solidify as the game wore one. 

Cooper over McDuffie at LB will be an improvement on 70% of our snaps.  I'm sure the DB has much to improve for communication.  Our DL looked very conservative rushing the QB to keep containment over pressure. 

[young guns]

Based on watching the titans play the bears, if we wouldn't beat them with me at quarterback that would be an embarrassment, let alone any actual nfl qb.

[SeaBass]

7 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

We are seriously trotting out Malik Willis as a starter. 

Public Service Announcement that Malik Willis has started and won an NFL game. Sure it was against the Texans in 2022 and his QB rating wasn't close to good. The following week he started again and the Titans lost to the Chiefs, in overtime. Again, Willis himself wasn't impressive at all.

Things have to go right but with an effective running game and good defense there is a chance to win. A great chance? I wouldn't say so but I'm not going to say it's a foregone conclusion that they lose either.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

5 hours ago, young guns said:

Based on watching the titans play the bears, if we wouldn't beat them with me at quarterback that would be an embarrassment, let alone any actual nfl qb.

Go back and look at some of the teams we lost to with Brett Hundley. Losing a QB cuts off most teams at the knees. As I said, I don't think it's an indictment on the roster if the Packers suck without Love. He is "the guy" and it would happen to most teams.

[HarryDoyle]

1 hour ago, SeaBass said:

Public Service Announcement that Malik Willis has started and won an NFL game. Sure it was against the Texans in 2022 and his QB rating wasn't close to good. The following week he started again and the Titans lost to the Chiefs, in overtime. Again, Willis himself wasn't impressive at all.

Things have to go right but with an effective running game and good defense there is a chance to win. A great chance? I wouldn't say so but I'm not going to say it's a foregone conclusion that they lose either.

I would expect the Colts defense to load the box to stop the run and dare Willis to win the game, and this "new and improved" defense still left a lot to be desired. As I've said before, I'll believe it when I see it.

[thebruce44]

3 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Go back and look at some of the teams we lost to with Brett Hundley. Losing a QB cuts off most teams at the knees. As I said, I don't think it's an indictment on the roster if the Packers suck without Love. He is "the guy" and it would happen to most teams.

I think you have made your opinions very clear at this point.

[BrewerFan]

On 9/8/2024 at 9:30 AM, Brian said:

Both based on pain tolerance? Great. 

Both? It's the same thing. It's the degree of the knee injury.

I don't get why that is a good or bad thing? It seems like you're inferring Love is soft or something. 

[BrewerFan]

12 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

The one positive I see from our Defense was that they did improve as the game went on.  Still much improvement desired, but they did start to solidify as the game wore one. 

Cooper over McDuffie at LB will be an improvement on 70% of our snaps.  I'm sure the DB has much to improve for communication.  Our DL looked very conservative rushing the QB to keep containment over pressure. 

I saw some pretty big positives. I thought aspects of the defense improved. The scheme, the play calling...everything but the DL(which I'll touch on and it's understandable why they didn't).

The tackling was bad, it's always bad early, they need to play some during pre-season, but that's a given.

But the positives, the DBs were pretty good, they were in position at least. Even on that dropped pick 6, they were competitive when they could stay on their feet. A lot of slipping by both teams, but Stokes looked really good, really healthy. 

Really bad call on the Ja holding that extended that last drive. Nixon, again drops an EASY pick 6(at least he read it). So definitely grading on a curve when I say the DBs looked good, but is there a team with a more talented 11 personnel than Philly? I guess SF with CMac, Kittle, Deebo, Ayiuk and whoever is their #3...but Philly is right there when healthy.

Barkley, Goedert, AJ Brown, DeVonta Smith, Jahan Dotson, then you have that OL...that really puts your D in a tough position. Do you play 3 LBs knowing they can run with that huge OL, Hurts and Barkley or do you play Nickel with all that speed and an elite pass-catching back? This is why you play Cooper more(I get it, he was injured, bringing him along slowly, but I think he'll force their hand like Clay did his rookie year).

Cooper flashed a few times. He was coming on a big blitz on 3rd down in the 3rd Quarter and slipped, but we had that side overloaded, but since he didn't get home, they hit Smith for a big ~30-yard gain when he shook Nixon.

DL just wore down. Looked like that DL we were hoping to see early and the the Eagles just wore them down.

Bullard looked really good.

McKinney looked good. 

Quay has a miss where Barkley hits him with a really sick jab step in the hole, but whoever the DT was(I forgot) was absolutely washed out of the play by Mekhi Becton, so that's a tough matchup for Quay, but outside of that, he played...solid. Not great, but solid. Set up the first pick by carrying the TE all the way down the seem. Having two LBers who can do that is huge. Hurts had to try and force the ball in there and McKinney made him pay. 

 

Another tweak they have to make is to put Valentine in as the #3 CB. We're REALLY lucky to have Stokes back and so far, looking like he's back to where he was as a rookie...I think. He's such a smooth athlete and was step-for-step with Smith on a few plays, just staying in phase, looked a bit better getting his head around. After two lost years, he's one of the X factors. I hope he makes the decision to re-sign, Franchise or Transition a hard one.

***I thought Jordan Morgan looked good in pass pro and he was one of the 3 guys I had them taking in the 1st rd, but...with hindsight being 20-20, I wish we'd have moved up for Mitchell. That guy is a stud. He reminds me of Ramsey. Physical, fast, cocky in the best way. I think he'll be a DPOY candidate. 

 

Anyway, regarding scheme, pretty vanilla, but a few nice wrinkles. In addition to the Cooper blitz, there were a couple others...the CB blitz by Nixon where we got home, forced an errant throw, and another where he threw the ball and they didn't call a grounding(IIRC that was a 2nd level blitz).

We were smart rushing Hurts. 

The negatives were obvious. Poor tackling, they were NOT rallying(I guarantee that will change week 2). The DL was solid early but got wore down when Philly had so many snaps. I understand Gary and Smith/LVN playing to a draw vs that OT combo, it's elite. But you need more from KC/Wyatt/Brooks/Wooden. 

I'd have to look at the snaps, but you need to rotate more or...something.

You're facing Jordan Mailata(6'9 365), Landon Dickerson (6'6 332), Cam Jurgens(6'3 303), Mekhi Becton(6'7 370😉) and then Lane Johnson (6'6 330)...a 235 LB RB back who when healthy is one of the most talented backs in the last decade or so and Jalen Hurts, one of the most physical runners.

 

So we wore down, but we were getting stops and playing really physical vs the run. We'll have another test vs what should be a pretty good line in Indy, but not on the same level.

I think in ~10 weeks we'll look at Philly as one of the best teams in the league, a dynamic offense, so long as Barkley is healthy, one of the best run games in the league up there with the Ravens. Especially if Barkley and Becton stay healthy. That's a OL that moves the LOS.

 

We NEED Edge Cooper to step up and have a big rookie year, but going back and watching the game again....I saw enough positives I still believe the Defense will be a top 5-10 defense...and it will create turnovers. 

 

So still an ugly game, and not getting it twisted, if I had to hand out grades, I'd give the secondary a C in coverage. It'd be D if this was at home or Philly, but the turf created problems.

DL-C-  Again, just wore out.
LB-D  without Cooper, B with him.

Tackling-DL was again, good early, but the back 7 was bad. Didn't rally, gave up early. If Hafley is any type of coach, that'll be a noticeable improvement in week 2. One play Quay pulls up thinking Bullard has the tackle and we give up another 8-9 yards. 

Offense, I'm not going to go too much into it, already a long post.
QB/WR/TE they were all out of sync. Dropped balls, Love missed easy throws we know he makes(Watson in the EZ was a big miss). 
RB-Not impressed with Jacobs, very impressed with Wilson. 
OL-Need Morgan to win the Job. 

Wicks was the most disappointing of the group. Watson is a man beater, not a complete WR. And that's fine, he doesn't need to be with the supplemental pieces, but the Eagles played the Fangio Defense(probably because their DC is Vic Fangio) so they kept things in front. 

We averaged 7.1 Yards a play, but didn't make the plays we were making last year to keep drives going. Should have been up 14-0 early and I think that changes the outlook of teh game, but poor play calling. You're on the 2, 2 1/2 yard line and you run at Jordan Davis and that front? Let Love do his thing there. 

Offense...defense put them in position with two big plays in plus territory and we scored 3 and 0 respectively. 

But still like the scheme and personnel. Next week, we NEED to stay on the field more and keep the Colts to ~60 plays, not the 78 the Eagles ran. 

Give Jacobs/Wilson a chance to establish the run, I'd imagine we'd have some different designed runs for Willis. Some RPOs with easy reads. Maybe Kraft/Musgraves releasing in the flat with Watson coming behind.

If he starts, I'll guess Willis has a line in the 12-25 170 yards, 10 carries just to keep the chains moving, 70 yards, Wilson and Jacobs each get 10+ carries and there's going to be a couple of shots at a big play and Willis is going to have to hit it. The Colts will just keep coming up, crowding the LOS. Willis just needs to use his legs and then the other thing he's good at, throwing the deep ball and limit the turnovers. If he hits just one big play for a  TD, I think they win it ugly. 23-13, something like that. 

**I'm also counting on the FG unit to perform...which is another leap of faith...one I'm less confident in, but I'm not changing my outlook on this team after that ONE ugly game vs IMO, the 2nd most talented team in the NFC and most talented East of Santa Clara(excluding GB, we'll have to see exactly where we stack up). 

1-1 heading into week 3 and Jordan Love returns! 11-6 still well within reach!

 

[BrewerFan]

13 hours ago, kestrel79 said:

What year did Rodgers miss a lot of time? 2018? When we had the Badgers guy, and Kizer and someone else. That was tough to watch.

This will be a good test for the rest of the team and the coaching staff. Can we win without a star QB?

I'd like to see MLF get creative and use Malik and Clifford together for the QB running/option stuff mixed with traditonal pocket passing and play action. Lots of runs, screens, get the WRs on the end around stuff. 

And the D needs to show up and win the game like the Bears did yesterday. That was exciting to see. Can our D do that?

2018 was hard to watch, but not because of an injury. Rodgers was hurt in 2017 and Brett Hundley went 3-6 while he was out. 3-4 actually and had won two in a row(albeit vs two bad teams), then IIRC, Rodgers came back, we got blown out by the Panthers and Rodgers sat the last game as we were eliminated and Huntley lost the next two and went 3-6 that year.

2013 is when we had Tolzien, Seneca Wallace and then Matt Flynn was put on waivers and we claimed him. He wasn't the same with the shoulder injury, but he could put enough on it to keep us in it.

Rodgers came back week 17 vs Chicago, throw to Cobb with the assist from Kuhn on Peppers, got us in as NFCN Champs. 8-7-1.

Tolzien would move the ball up and down the field. Came in for Wallace, had nearly 300 yards, threw for 300 yards in his next start, but just threw a lot of picks when we got in the red zone.