Game 3: Packers @ Browns - Sunday, Sept 21 12:00 PM

[yourout]

20 minutes ago, Brian said:

Matt Lafleur rushed back 2 injured players yesterday and they both got reinjured yesterday Zach Tom, Aaron Banks.  Now they will both be out for 2 more weeks each instead of comming back next week if he sat them yesterday.  Not a very smart decision in my book. Poor coaching and decision making everywhere yesterday by Lafleur. 

I'll never understand the praise for MLF.

He's a poster child for average in my opinion and now that the bears seem to have a decent one he is probably the weakest coach in the division.

[homer]

There were a lot of ticky tack penalties too. not using it as an excuse but a different crew may not have called a lot of them.

[homer]

and I believe the Packers have a pretty conservative medical staff. Guys aren't "rushed" back. It's football. Bad stuff happens once in a while 

[Brian]

10 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

It's still just one game, it's one of the "best" games to lose and I don't feel any differently as a whole after this game than I did before it.

I sure don't feel that way, Packers wet the bed on this game and the injuries are mounting. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

Jacobs should never, ever be targeted 9 times in the passing game.

 

Plus 16 carries running into a brick wall.

 

Unimaginative offense against a really good defense played right into their hands and created the slim chance for a terrible Browns team to win with more GB special teams ineptitude.

 

This looked like early 2023 Love, when we wondered aloud if they could score at all.  He continues to make awful decisions where to go with the football in tight late game situations, too.

 

A mini bye for this game plan? Inexcusable

[homer]

 

[JosephC]

27 minutes ago, homer said:

 

Not sure if I would equate that Redskins team with this Browns team.  The guy's own graphic says the Redskins were 3-2 after the game.  That Redskin team did finish 6-10, but they were 5-5 after 10 games so they were solidly average before going into a tailspin.  I'm not interested enough to explore reasons why that happened, maybe they had some injuries at the end of the year or they really over-performed in their first 10 games.  But when a team is 5-5 after 10 games, I probably wouldn't characterize them as being bad in the fifth game.  And the Browns, I expect them to be a 4 or 5 win team this year, but could they be better?  Time will tell.  But on paper, looking at the 2010 Redskins versus the 2025 Browns, I'd guess that the Redskins team was quite a bit better.

Also worth noting that the Redskins QB coach that season was Matt LaFleur.

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, yourout said:

I'll never understand the praise for MLF.

He's a poster child for average in my opinion and now that the bears seem to have a decent one he is probably the weakest coach in the division.

I concur with this. As a supposed offensive genius, his offenses continue to look discombobulated and lost year after year, moments of greatness and then moments where they seemingly can’t do anything.

His clock management (remember the last Bear game with him staring at Rick B in confusion?), and in-game adjustments have always been questionable at best.

He’s going to have another great regular season record because he has an elite D that he really has nothing to do with and a DC who will probably be a future HC. But I see no quality about MLF that justifies the hype and don’t see any way of stating a case for him being a great HC without citing the words “regular season record”.

If that awful, awful 3rd and short call followed by “that’s on me” was a one-off, I could excuse it. But we’ve been seeing that kind of crap from MLF for years.

[adambr2]

That 3rd and short call and pass still blows my mind.

You want to convert, but punting would not have been the end of the world. 

Cleveland was not driving the entire length of the field. Especially getting late in the 4th where there was going to be less of a threat of the run game.

The one thing they could not do was make a catastrophic mistake and turn the ball over deep in their own territory. So lo and behold, that’s exactly what they do.

[kestrel79]

Many things to look back on here to see how and why we threw this game away that are very frustrating. The INT sucked, the blocked kick sucked...but for me playing for 3 at the end there just didn't sit right to me.

I thought we are all in, playing with swag this year...we're the 2-0 Packers and we finally start moving the ball downfield with that big play to Kraft. We have them on the ropes go for 7 there and play for the dagger. Don't piddle away 1 minute and 30 seconds on the clock and play for the field goal...or if you are playing for the field goal make it a chip shot, NOT out past 40 yards. The play calling there was so conservative at the end there it drove me nuts. Even with the bonehead INT we should of won.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The entire game, the play calling was too conservative - playing not to lose leads to losses in the NFL.  

 

The Packers have an interior line/running between the tackles problem - yet MLF continued dialing up interior runs, likely to try and melt the clock faster.  And yeah, losing Reed stinks - but that shouldn't turtle the passing game to the point where your starting running back gets more that twice as many passing targets as any other receiver due to checkdowns.  Take away that long reception on a well-timed bubble screen and it's 8 targets for a total of 13 receiving yards.

 

On that brutal INT, Love had time to throw and read the defense but he appeared to have a predetermined throw based on the coverage he thought the Browns were in.  If he reads coverage, he'd see that the guy who jumped that route played a robber coverage and intercepted the pass just let Kraft run free up the seam with the weak side safety ~5 yards away from Kraft trying to close ground with no help over the top - there was a chance for a monster play had Love made the right read.

 

I thought this was the game where Golden could really break out - he did lead them in receiving yards but I don't think he was targeted enough.  Plus, if Love gives him a better throw in stride on the deep route Golden did catch it could've been a long TD with how open he was.

[homer]

re 3rd and short passes. Could those have been RPOs? If so that's on Love.

[Fear The Chorizo]

46 minutes ago, homer said:

re 3rd and short passes. Could those have been RPOs? If so that's on Love.

Some, maybe - but not the one he threw a pick on based on the entire O-line and RB dropping into pass pro the instant the ball was snapped, 6 guys in to block what turned out to be a 4 man rush.

[CheezWizHed]

My post game summary: 

No need to waste more ink on that game.  🤢

On to Dallas. 

 

[BrewerFan]

5 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

The entire game, the play calling was too conservative - playing not to lose leads to losses in the NFL.  

 

The Packers have an interior line/running between the tackles problem - yet MLF continued dialing up interior runs, likely to try and melt the clock faster.  And yeah, losing Reed stinks - but that shouldn't turtle the passing game to the point where your starting running back gets more that twice as many passing targets as any other receiver due to checkdowns.  Take away that long reception on a well-timed bubble screen and it's 8 targets for a total of 13 receiving yards.

 

On that brutal INT, Love had time to throw and read the defense but he appeared to have a predetermined throw based on the coverage he thought the Browns were in.  If he reads coverage, he'd see that the guy who jumped that route played a robber coverage and intercepted the pass just let Kraft run free up the seam with the weak side safety ~5 yards away from Kraft trying to close ground with no help over the top - there was a chance for a monster play had Love made the right read.

 

I thought this was the game where Golden could really break out - he did lead them in receiving yards but I don't think he was targeted enough.  Plus, if Love gives him a better throw in stride on the deep route Golden did catch it could've been a long TD with how open he was.

I agree with pretty much all of this.

I'd also add... this is the defense the Packers play a WHOLE lot in short yardage. McKinney is that robber the majority of the time. Even when we're not in short yardage, that's pretty much our base defense. You'd really think Love would read the safety there.

 

The only thing I'd quibble about is I think Love did throw a good ball to Golden and Golden just... I'm not sure if he didn't know where he was on the field or if he just thought he'd try and get the first to put it away, but, he had ever chance to put his foot in the ground and cut up field there. 

[BrewerFan]

 

6 hours ago, kestrel79 said:

Many things to look back on here to see how and why we threw this game away that are very frustrating. The INT sucked, the blocked kick sucked...but for me playing for 3 at the end there just didn't sit right to me.

I thought we are all in, playing with swag this year...we're the 2-0 Packers and we finally start moving the ball downfield with that big play to Kraft. We have them on the ropes go for 7 there and play for the dagger. Don't piddle away 1 minute and 30 seconds on the clock and play for the field goal...or if you are playing for the field goal make it a chip shot, NOT out past 40 yards. The play calling there was so conservative at the end there it drove me nuts. Even with the bonehead INT we should of won.

I was good with trying to put them away and throwing the ball on the 3rd down and I was fine with the decision to milk the clock at the end for the FG. That kick SHOULD have been attempted with ~4 seconds left but Walker's penalty stopped the clock and allowed the Browns to get the ball back with time. 
 

4 minutes left, throwing the ball on 3rd down is fine. When you're down to the final possession... we don't need the TD there, just a FG and it shouldn't need to be a chip shot. Wasn't it like a 45 yard FG attempt? That's been as good as a chip shot. And without a false start, it's a 39-40 yard attempt to go to OT, or to go to the Bus and escape with a very ugly win.

 

I do think the "2010 Washington was better," does two things. It Misses the point and it REALLY underestimates how good Cleveland's defense is.

Them being 3-2 at that point doesn't... really matter. Cleveland is 1-2 and they'd be 2-1 if their kicker who just hit a 56...hit a much easier FG to win Week 1. That Washington team was bad on both sides. This Cleveland team is bad on offense, but they've got an elite defense.