Game 4: Packers @ Cowboys - Sunday, Sept 28 7:20 PM

[OldSchoolSnapper]

6 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Yes - but that is playing not to lose.  That's how they lost the Cleveland game late, too, leaning on a bad special teams unit.

  Playing to win and being way more efficient with preserving game clock, especially after Dallas was out of timeouts, could've easily been done, and they could've still run the clock down and taken a timeout to kick a tying field goal if was apparent a TD wasnt going to happen 

The most maddening thing about it all is that the path to victory allowed them to play both sides of this. Run the ball. You either keep gashing them, or you get stopped but the clock is running. Dallas had no timeouts. If I'm a Cowboys fan I'm relieved the moment we decide to throw the ball for some reason. We played right into their hands. The last 90 seconds were coached by a coward.

[homer]

This is all moot if the D had been able to get a stop the last 5 times Dallas had the ball.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It's moot if we block on a PAT. Hell, he can even kick it wide and it's moot. We have 2 wins instead of 4 because we can't block on kicks. That's insane, and all too familiar.

[Brian]

38 minutes ago, homer said:

This is all moot if the D had been able to get a stop the last 5 times Dallas had the ball.

Can't give up 40 points and expect success. 

[SeaBass]

I am still so unbelievably pissed off about this game. I don't think I've ever watched a game that has left me this baffled how it went the way it did in my entire life. I've watched terrible Packers teams play with a more focused purpose, of what they were trying to accomplish than what I saw last night.

Fire everyone. I've never quite been on the MLF is trash bandwagon but I'm now a convert, it's my new religion.

What the hell did I watch happen in that overtime? The Packers were scoring TD after TD leading up to OT. Everything in OT went exactly like you'd hope (mostly) by holding them to a FG. Then as soon as they get the ball for their possession MLF decides to play for the tie? Did that really happen? The play calling was mind boggling. The clock management was infuriating. How are they not trying to score a TD and win?

How was the defense this bad? I can accept that Dak is a capable QB and made some things happen but it sure looked like they made it as easy for him as they could.

I need it explained to me like I'm a caveman that was frozen in ice and woke up in the modern world would need computers explained to them. (Well, we dug in the ground and found these special rocks and when we figured out how to harnesses the power of lightning to feed a current into those rocks we ended up creating something that will eventually gain it's own consciousness and end human existence. That is, if we don't do it to ourselves first).

[homer]

57 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

It's moot if we block on a PAT. Hell, he can even kick it wide and it's moot. We have 2 wins instead of 4 because we can't block on kicks. That's insane, and all too familiar.

I'm got gonna Butterfly effect that because a lot happened afterwards but they were up 13 - 2 at that point. They still should have won even with that block.

[JosephC]

They have the look of a team that is unbeatable at home but will struggle on the road.  Those week 7 and week 8 games at Arizona and at Pittsburgh will go a long way in letting us know how good they are.

[Joseph Zarr]

I think where the Packers are with LaFleur, today, is comparable to where they were with McCarthy before his departure. Granted, LaFleur is a better offensive coach for the modern game so it will often look prettier. However, like Big Mac before him, LaFleur isn't going to change. He isn't miraculously going to develop a Campbell-like affinity for going for it or knowing how to manage the big moments. It isn't who he is. He is a consummately poor game manager - he always has been. I don't really care how effective his offense is - and, it is quite effective. He is not a serious post-season winning head coach. He will always be overmatched, out-strategized, and he will always cave in the biggest moments. He has shown this time and again, ad finitum, during his tenure. He is an offensive coordinator in head coach's clothing. Last night merely further solidified this. It's plain as day. The same mistakes. The same shortcomings. Year after year. It is what it is. And, because of it, I just care less and less about the Packers and their results. As I said in the thread earlier: he and Bisaccia were absolutely made for each other.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

44 minutes ago, JosephC said:

They have the look of a team that is unbeatable at home but will struggle on the road.  Those week 7 and week 8 games at Arizona and at Pittsburgh will go a long way in letting us know how good they are.

Fortunately for them, what they look like in September really doesn't mean a whole lot. They have thrown two games away, that's not good. Last year's champion looked very bad right now as well. I am very uninspired by this team, but football has always been about who's peaking at the end. It would be nice to go into the playoffs from a seed of strength for once, but we've blown that too, so, whatever.

[yourout]

2 hours ago, Brian said:

? Question ?: Why is everyone on Matt LaFleur's ass when we gave up 40 points?  Haven't seen Hafley's name mentioned much if at all?  Can't give up 40 and expect to win. Packers couldn't stop a parked car yesterday. 

Because this is far from the first time he's showing he's incapable of managing a game.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 hour ago, homer said:

I'm got gonna Butterfly effect that because a lot happened afterwards but they were up 13 - 2 at that point. They still should have won even with that blocks.

That's all fair but we have had 3 kicks blocked since the finale of last season. They aren't the random event they should be.

[HarveysWBs]

LaFleur’s clock management is in fact abysmal, and I don’t see much reason to hope for improvement on that.

But as was also discussed earlier, he is such a conservative coach about most of his in-game decisions, too. This is where there should be improvement, because he has demonstrated that he can coach differently:

I haven’t looked at this year’s numbers specifically, but the eye test suggests to me he’s still more in line with 2023-2024 than 2020-2022.

I have two thoughts. One, he obviously had Rodgers in the early part of his tenure, and when combined with a mostly rock-solid O-line this probably gave LaFleur a lot of confidence to let 12 go get it pretty much whenever he thought it was there for the taking. Love and this current line isn’t on that level—and that’s fine to an extent, but I’d like to see them try and get two or three yards on 4th more often.

My second thought, related to the first, is that LaFleur is now gun shy. He seems to be making decisions out of fear of what might happen instead of taking initiative to drive more desirable outcomes, which is what the numbers would also suggest is the right call. I leave it to the reader to decide for themself how much confidence they have in LaFleur ever finding his aggression again. Much may depend on it.

[young guns]

Ugh that reminds me that I'm still pissed he didn't go for that 4th and 2 on like the second drive I think it was, which is also odd because it feels like he has been going for it in those situations this year.

[homer]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

That's all fair but we have had 3 kicks blocked since the finale of last season. They aren't the random event they should be.

That I agree with. Interesting article in ACME Packing Co today that thinksit's MLF's fault. He won't let good players play on Special Teams. They got backups to backups protecting in the kicking game.

[CheezWizHed]

Summary thoughts after letting things simmer (and trying to look beyond the MLF issues).  

Love: He put up great numbers, but I can't shake the feeling that he still isn't leading the team.  Not to totally defend MLF (he certainly had his issues), but I get the feeling that Love isn't commanding his offense.  The fact that the team was slow to get to the line is either a large amount of apathy or Love wasn't commanding urgency.  I leaning to the later since it was just about everyone.  I hate to say it, but he needs a bit more of Rodger's edge to him.  

RB:  Jacobs and Wilson did a great job.  Glad to see MLF get more creative on outside runs after 3 games of up the gut only focus.  Also nice to see Wilson in there a bit more.  

WR: Doub was Money.  Golden was clutch (though I still want the backstory to the Golden/Wicks convergence - props to Wicks for backing off).  Wicks had some good moments late.  Still can't wait for Reed and Watson to come back.  

TE: Kraft had a few nice catches, but the group was quiet. 

OL:  Woof.  Seems like the OL really stepped back once Stenavich was promoted to OC. But to be fair, they weren't horrible considering they had two backups.  Run blocking improved later, but that is the major weakness right now.  

DL: Parson actually did better than was "visible".. certainly was more impactful late than early.  But for this dude to earn his money, (like Love) his leadership needs to improve.  Still building a relationship with the others, but this D needs to be his and not just sulking by himself on the sidelines.  We point to the PAT block/2pt conversion as the major game changer (it was), but that also coincided (more or less) with Wyatt's injury.  The DL play really shifted as our depth there is poor.  The run game stepped up... Wooden wasn't as effective... Stackhouse was garbage. Probably didn't help with the heat either.

OL: Walker and Cooper had moments, but were really ghosts most of the day.  McDuffie was the only one consistently making plays.

DB: McKinney was another ghost.  Did nothing all day.  Williams in involved more, but mixed effectiveness.  Bullard seemed pretty strong.  Nixon played very strong, but Hobbs and Valentine were abused. 

Defense had way too many ghosts today.

[LouisEly]

I think the main reason for why they did what they did is because of Aubrey.  He's already hit from 64 this year.  If they give Dallas any time, they don't need to get much yardage to give him a chance.

As we saw, they didn't need much time to drive the length of the field.

[OldHeidelberg]

Going back to the Chicago loss last year we have 2 losses and 1 tie in our past 5 regular season games where the coaching staff, especially clock management, carried a good load of the blame. Look around the NFL, most games comes down to the end and it's a big problem if your coaches are making obvious brainlock mistakes repeatedly. After the false start at end of half pretty much every coach in the league knows it's time to take itin for the half. They probably just ran the same play and it took 5 yards longer to develop and it bit us.

[CheezWizHed]

34 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

I think the main reason for why they did what they did is because of Aubrey.  He's already hit from 64 this year.  If they give Dallas any time, they don't need to get much yardage to give him a chance.

As we saw, they didn't need much time to drive the length of the field.

Clearly.  But I think they obsessed with that too much. I'd rather take 3 shots at the endzone to win the game (compared to 2 shots short+1 panicked attempt) and kick a FG with 30 seconds left rather than how we flopped there at the end. 

That isn't totally on MLF either... Love needs to understand his time management better and command the team better than that. 

[HarryDoyle]

5 hours ago, homer said:

I'm got gonna Butterfly effect that because a lot happened afterwards but they were up 13 - 2 at that point. They still should have won even with that block.

That's something else that grinds my gears too. How mentally weak is this team that that play immediately transformed you from a team dominating the game to looking like the worst team in football? Yes, it's an unfortunate play, but it's still a 13-2 game. 

 

[HarryDoyle]

Final thought. Why did MLF think it was a good idea to be aggressive at the end of the first half but conservative in overtime? Make it make sense.

[sveumrules]

1 minute ago, HarryDoyle said:

Final thought. Why did MLF think it was a good idea to be aggressive at the end of the first half but conservative in overtime? Make it make sense.

If you are aggressive at the end of the first half, and mess up like they did, you have the whole second half to make up for it.

If you are aggressive as the second team possessing the ball in overtime, and mess it up, game over you lose.

[nate82]

2 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

DB: McKinney was another ghost.  Did nothing all day.  Williams in involved more, but mixed effectiveness.  Bullard seemed pretty strong.  Nixon played very strong, but Hobbs and Valentine were abused. 

Packers DB’s are the weakness on their defense.  Way too much zone played by the Packers defense.  The DB’s didn’t even check or put hands on the Cowboys receivers.  It was like they were playing scared of the Cowboys receivers beating them deep.  I don’t see the Packers defense be any better than it was last year even with Parsons on the team.  

[Fear The Chorizo]

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

Packers DB’s are the weakness on their defense.  Way too much zone played by the Packers defense.  The DB’s didn’t even check or put hands on the Cowboys receivers.  It was like they were playing scared of the Cowboys receivers beating them deep.  I don’t see the Packers defense be any better than it was last year even with Parsons on the team.  

They still played alot of man coverage, but Hobbs/Valentine got exposed without a pass rush.  Pickens had a huge game.  

 

I also despise that officiating crew - the missed intentional grounding late in that game, a missed obvious holding call at the point of attack on a big cowboy run, no PI on that 3rd down play where Wicks got mugged/face guarded.  Then taking 10 minutes to get every penalty announced.

 

End of the day, September football games mean zilch in January - but still frustrating watching this team make the same mistakes year after year...amd one noteable constant is the head coach

[da swedish german]

matt is a mental midget

I don't enjoy seeing my team's coach on camera looking like he's going to pass out because he's so overwhelmed/hopefully embarrassed, especially after being on the job for 7 years

we will never win a Superbowl with him

[SeaBass]

16 hours ago, sveumrules said:

If you are aggressive at the end of the first half, and mess up like they did, you have the whole second half to make up for it.

If you are aggressive as the second team possessing the ball in overtime, and mess it up, game over you lose.

I'd rather be going for the win than playing it safe. I feel like that's an attitude that you end up setting inside that locker room whether it's intentional or not: we aren't confident that we can win so we're going to play it safe.

I can't speak for the men in that locker room but I feel pretty confident that if they took a vote it would overwhelmingly be in favor of aggression rather than caution.

I'm just not going to ever understand how they decided to play scared at the end of that game.

What did that one dude say that one time?