Game 16: Packers @ Vikings - Sunday, Dec. 29th 3:25 PM

[yourout]

Just now, wOOgiE22 said:

If the offense is stagnant, why doesn’t MLF go to the no huddle to change things up a bit?

Probably because we have a hard enough time lining up correctly when we have a full 30 seconds

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think what's disappointing is that Packers don't seem to have gotten better since the end of last year. I think everyone wanted to ride the wave up and they essentially have stagnated. That loss to SF really stung. The run they were on was a better shot at the Super Bowl than they have this season. 

[yourout]

1 minute ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I think what's disappointing is that Packers don't seem to have gotten better since the end of last year. I think everyone wanted to ride the wave up and they essentially have stagnated. That loss to SF really stung. The run they were on was a better shot at the Super Bowl than they have this season. 

They did have a better shot last year. 

I think the field is stronger this year.

[LouisEly]

11 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

0-5 against the three best teams in the conference proves the Packers are pretenders. There are no moral victories.

One of those was a crap game on a crap field, one of those Love was maybe 70%, one of those they were missing three defensive starters and lost a fourth during the game, two were on the road by a combined total of 5 points, and all but one of those was by less than a TD.

All but one of those games had one or two things changed and they could have won them.  And I don't think that anyone wants to see the Packers in the playoffs.

[adambr2]

2 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I think what's disappointing is that Packers don't seem to have gotten better since the end of last year. I think everyone wanted to ride the wave up and they essentially have stagnated. That loss to SF really stung. The run they were on was a better shot at the Super Bowl than they have this season. 

That’s why I roll my eyes at any mention ever of “oh they’ll be back” or “they’ll be better next year”. 

Every opportunity missed is an opportunity lost. The loss in San Francisco was a missed opportunity last year. They could have won it, and they could have won the Super Bowl, last year’s expectations be damned. 

There are never any guarantees to win it all or to even be back. I don’t think anyone would have believed that Aaron Rodgers would never make it back, but he never did. The 49ers are probably the most dominant NFC team of the last decade and do not have a single Lombardi to show for it.

Progress is rarely linear in this sport. You can feel as good as you want about where you’re headed but there are always 31 other teams also trying to do the same thing as you.

[adambr2]

4 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

One of those was a crap game on a crap field, one of those Love was maybe 70%, one of those they were missing three defensive starters and lost a fourth during the game, two were on the road by a combined total of 5 points, and all but one of those was by less than a TD.

All but one of those games had one or two things changed and they could have won them.  And I don't think that anyone wants to see the Packers in the playoffs.

I think you could say that about literally any team in the NFC playoff field. I think relative to the other options, the Lions and Vikings are just fine with seeing the Packers again in the playoffs. Why would they fear a team that hasn’t shown they can beat them? 

[LouisEly]

5 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I think you could say that about literally any team in the NFC playoff field. I think relative to the other options, the Lions and Vikings are just fine with seeing the Packers again in the playoffs. Why would they fear a team that hasn’t shown they can beat them? 

Because in the 2nd half of those games the Packers scored a combined 46 points.  In their house.

[HarryDoyle]

2 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

One of those was a crap game on a crap field, one of those Love was maybe 70%, one of those they were missing three defensive starters and lost a fourth during the game, two were on the road by a combined total of 5 points, and all but one of those was by less than a TD.

All but one of those games had one or two things changed and they could have won them.  And I don't think that anyone wants to see the Packers in the playoffs.

You can literally use the "if one or two things were different" argument about damn near every NFL game. They're just excuses. As I already said, there are no more moral victories anymore. In all five of those games, it was clear we were the inferior team. You can't dig yourself into massive holes against elite teams and count on a furious comeback to win. Those games weren't as close as the scores would indicate. Maybe with another year of experience under their belts and a good offseason by Gutey to fill some holes in free agency we'll be elite next year, but it's pretty clear to me that right now the Packers are a second tier team that won't go any farther than they did last year.

[OldHeidelberg]

If I was a Viking or Lion fan I would want to see anyone but GB in postseason. Not because we are so good just the beat them 3 times thing.

[adambr2]

Just now, HarryDoyle said:

You can literally use the "if one or two things were different" argument about damn near every NFL game. They're just excuses. As I already said, there are no more moral victories anymore. In all five of those games, it was clear we were the inferior team. You can't dig yourself into massive holes against elite teams and count on a furious comeback to win. Those games weren't as close as the scores would indicate. Maybe with another year of experience under their belts and a good offseason by Gutey to fill some holes in free agency we'll be elite next year, but it's pretty clear to me that right now the Packers are a second tier team that won't go any farther than they did last year.

Not specific to anything in this thread, but I just knew after this game that social media would be flooded with “OMG if the Packers had just kicked the FG on 4th and 2 in the 1st half they would have won 28-27!!” Not how it works.

[adambr2]

1 minute ago, OldHeidelberg said:

If I was a Viking or Lion fan I would want to see anyone but GB in postseason. Not because we are so good just the beat them 3 times thing.

The “hard to beat a team 3 times” thing is a total myth. Historically when two teams meet a 3rd time in the playoffs after a regular season sweep, the team that swept wins again about 65% of the time.

[OldHeidelberg]

2 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

The “hard to beat a team 3 times” thing is a total myth. Historically when two teams meet a 3rd time in the playoffs after a regular season sweep, the team that swept wins again about 65% of the time.

It wasn't a myth 35% of the time. Add that those team were likely at home and favorites after sweeping the team and I stand by not wanting to see a division rival I swept again in postseason. I would guess we are talking about small sample size anyway.

[wOOgiE22]

Just go into the playoffs with no expectations and healthy and see where we go. The NFL playoffs are a crapshoot and anything can happen. Look at at what happened in 2010 and also the many years where we went in expecting the Super Bowl and just choked. 

[duewizard]

This doesn't feel like a SB season. We can probably win the wild card maybe even the divisional with some luck but I doubt we win the NFCC or the SB. We are a good team but still too young and there are some glaring holes. We can always get lucky and run the table but I doubt it.

What is the outlook for next season? IMO the O-line is fine. Really what needs work os discipline. In general discipline is needed across the board.

Receiving core seems fine. Not outstanding and it would be nice to have a no.1 but what we have is pretty good. RB room is stacked.

Special teams are also fine. McManus has solidified everything, Whelan is above average and even Orzech who I rate low has been solid.

The safety room is also great. Everywhere is there are question marks. Cooper is amazing but the rest of the LB room is lacking. Alexander is injured for 2/3 of the season and the rest of the corners are not great. 

The D-line has really regressed. I wonder if the 3-4 fit them better? We rarely get any pressure which really exposes the secondary.

What is the strategy in the draft/free agency?

[Sixtolezcano]

43 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Packers kick the FG, don't get called offsides on the missed FG by the Viqueens.  That's the difference.

If I'm the Packers, I feel good about this and that they can play with anyone, anywhere.

Very optimistic, but I don’t think it’s realistic….sorry.

[adambr2]

8 minutes ago, OldHeidelberg said:

It wasn't a myth 35% of the time. Add that those team were likely at home and favorites after sweeping the team and I stand by not wanting to see a division rival I swept again in postseason. I would guess we are talking about small sample size anyway.

I’m just saying the raw statistics bear that out to just not be based in any reality. Seems to be more psychological than anything. I think you could make just as good of an argument that we don’t want to see either of those teams either because frankly, we haven’t shown that we can beat them, regardless of venue.

[Sixtolezcano]

19 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Because in the 2nd half of those games the Packers scored a combined 46 points.  In their house.

Garbage time points.

[LouisEly]

1 minute ago, Sixtolezcano said:

Garbage time points.

21 of the 46 were in the 3rd quarter.

But I get it, those teams are so good that they weren't able to put the Packers away...

[adambr2]

I do believe we can beat the Lions or Vikings, but until we actually execute well enough to do it, we’re the 3rd best team in the North.

On the plus side, Lions/Vikings for the division and #1 seed is a hell of a matchup and pretty much guaranteed to be the regular season prime time finale.

I'm disappointed to lose but I do take solace in having not helped the Lions.

[OldHeidelberg]

2 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I’m just saying the raw statistics bear that out to just not be based in any reality. Seems to be more psychological than anything. I think you could make just as good of an argument that we don’t want to see either of those teams either because frankly, we haven’t shown that we can beat them, regardless of venue.

I just think if you feel you are a favorite for SB you would rather not face a team that scouted you twice a year already, all else being equal. There are enough examples of good teams struggling against poor division rivals in regular season like Buffalo NE last week to make me think there is something to it. I guess that might be a more worthwhile look, are intra division games really any closer than other regular season games?   

[HarryDoyle]

Again I have to ask, what's this team's signature win this year? The Rams with no Cupp and Nacua? The Texans, who have been pretty mediocre ever since with Stroud regressing from last year? The Seahawks with Geno Smith? I wish we could post polls on this forum.

[adambr2]

3 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

Again I have to ask, what's this team's signature win this year? The Rams with no Cupp and Nacua? The Texans, who have been pretty mediocre ever since with Stroud regressing from last year? The Seahawks with Geno Smith? I wish we could post polls on this forum.

They clearly do not have one which is the most frustrating thing.

Against clearly inferior opponents, they’ve been remarkably consistent — which even that is kind of hard to do. Almost every team has a dud somewhere against a mediocre team.

But against the true, obvious contenders, the Packers haven’t had the mental toughness to stand toe to toe.

[OldHeidelberg]

Just now, HarryDoyle said:

Again I have to ask, what's this team's signature win this year? The Rams with no Cupp and Nacua? The Texans, who have been pretty mediocre ever since with Stroud regressing from last year? The Seahawks with Geno Smith? I wish we could post polls on this forum.

We don't have one, you just have to hope Love gets hot and we put it together in the playoffs. I know other disagree but I think this is more likely if we face the Rams in round one than Philly.  

[Sixtolezcano]

17 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

21 of the 46 were in the 3rd quarter.

But I get it, those teams are so good that they weren't able to put the Packers away...

Packers second half points in 2024

Vikings: 3rd Quarter = 7 points    4th Quarter = 37 points

Lions: 3rd Quarter = 17 points.    4th Quarter = 18 points

[OldSchoolSnapper]

53 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

One of those was a crap game on a crap field, one of those Love was maybe 70%, one of those they were missing three defensive starters and lost a fourth during the game, two were on the road by a combined total of 5 points, and all but one of those was by less than a TD.

All but one of those games had one or two things changed and they could have won them.  And I don't think that anyone wants to see the Packers in the playoffs.

I haven't really changed my expectations at all based on tonight but I think we can put the "they don't want to play the Packers" thing to bed. Minnesota should be more confident than anyone playing the Packers. I think Dan Campbell is fine with it too. They both have explosive offenses that hit the Packers where it hurts. 

Sure, I think the Packers can beat them on a good/lucky day, but I think it's pretty clear on paper, the Packers are a 4/5 in the NFC. Stranger things have happened than a run by this Packers team, but I think primarily they lack a playmaker in the middle of their defense and the offense is just too streaky. They have a good group of WRs, but none of them really stand out.  

Philly is a interesting one to me. They should beat GB but the one thing the Packers do fairly well is play the run and contain mobile QBs. That, and there is enough dysfunction in that org right now that its plausible to see them choke it up. 

I have no expectations though. Not anything beyond an extra week of football.