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

[Fear The Chorizo]

15 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

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?

Exactly....once they got the ball down 3 in overtime with how that game was going, they should have tried to score a TD as quickly and aggressively as possible, because doing so both wins the game and removes the defense and special teams getting another chance to lose it.  Instead mlf opted to use the clock against and neuter their own offense based on the worry of what those units wouldnt be able to do the next time they took the field.

 

Its just a losing strategy in that spot.

[Strike4]

17 hours 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.  

I believe this will be the lasting issue from this game.  It is clear that if the Packers are not applying a great amount of pressure their cornerbacks are just not good enough to hold up for even an average amount of time for the opposing QB to throw.  This is a problem that is not going away because you are not finding a couple of good coverage CBs at this point.  Unfortunately this was foreseeable and was a mystery why CB was not addressed early in the draft this year (or last year) 

[LouisEly]

I like how people think it's so easy to call plays in a game where you have about 5 seconds to decide on what play to call with trying to get personnel in and out in time for the opponent to substitute with play clock.

They scored on 7 out of their 10 possessions excluding the end of the 1st half, and yet somehow the play caller is a "mental midget".

[young guns]

One thing that would be nice to figure out is kickoffs.  Aubry was fantastic putting the ball jutlat shy of the goal line which caused us fits.  Would be nice to figure out how to do that and our returners seemed to hop the ball would just land in the endzone, but when it didn't we just took the knee and the ball at the 20.

[Fear The Chorizo]

4 hours ago, LouisEly said:

I like how people think it's so easy to call plays in a game where you have about 5 seconds to decide on what play to call with trying to get personnel in and out in time for the opponent to substitute with play clock.

They scored on 7 out of their 10 possessions excluding the end of the 1st half, and yet somehow the play caller is a "mental midget".

Its not easy, but its not supposed to be for a coordinator/nfl head coach.  That's why they are paid millions of dollars to run a game.  Of the few dozen who are responsible for that to happen, mlf is probably among the worst at handling those scenarios - at least among teams perenially expected to contend.

 

The Bears scored at will on the Cowboys the week prior, too.  Scoring points against Dallas is not all that difficult

[LouisEly]

25 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

The Bears scored at will on the Cowboys

So did the Packers.  They scored on 7 of their 10 possessions and had almost 500 total yards of offense (425 in regulation).

The Bears scored on 5 out of 9 possessions (excluding the end of game) and had just under 400 yards of offense.  Oh, and the Bears scored 31 points versus the Packers 37 in regulation.

[homer]

you can score a lot of points and have bad clock management

[Fear The Chorizo]

16 hours ago, homer said:

you can score a lot of points and have bad clock management

Absolutely - and how the Packers mismanaged the clock and playcalling decisions at the end of the 1st half set the stage for them to ever get to OT, where they managed to botch the game clock at the end of that period and likely cost them a win then, too.

 

The people that are ticked at MLF dont think the Packers are terrible - they know they could be much better if their coach improved at managing game situations.

[Sixtolezcano]

23 hours ago, LouisEly said:

I like how people think it's so easy to call plays in a game where you have about 5 seconds to decide on what play to call with trying to get personnel in and out in time for the opponent to substitute with play clock.

They scored on 7 out of their 10 possessions excluding the end of the 1st half, and yet somehow the play caller is a "mental midget".

You’ve got to be kidding me! A grade school coach could have called better plays and have had superior clock management on Love’s fumble prior to half time and Love’s incomplete pass prior to the game tying FG. My goodness both MLF and Love admitted that. 

The 2nd quarter play was more forgivable. With a 13-9 LEAD with 21 seconds left in the half at their own 27 yard line, the safe play to call was to take a knee, especially with the lead. MLF even admitted he shouldn’t have trusted his gut instincts. But somewhat forgivable.

The 4th quarter play was a complete screwup leaving only 1 second left to kicking the FG. Wasting the amount of time between plays during that drive and only 1 second left. Love has played enough football to know that. 
 

[Joseph Zarr]

I just re-watched that last drive of OT. Man, they were absolutely cooking. Plenty of time left at the Dallas, what, 13 yard line? Roughly 40 seconds. Can. Not. Call that absurd Bubble Screen. Can not do it. That was the difference, essentially. Obviously, then we see the inexplicable lack of urgency from there - comically lackadaisical. What an absolute quagmire of failing to seize the moment. I continue to be amazed by the Packers inability to recognize Mathew Golden is not really all that creative in space. And, yet, they insist on throwing him back for punt returns - beyond head scratching. I would gather he is likely catching the punts at a less than 50% rate?  He needs to be going straight line and they really need to take less off his plate. Whereas, the rookie who is very dynamic in space, in Savion Williams, it's like they are finding ways not to exploit that. The Packers seem to annually lack the ability to scout themselves in key areas. It is utterly confounding to me. 

[LouisEly]

10 hours ago, Sixtolezcano said:

You’ve got to be kidding me! A grade school coach could have called better plays and have had superior clock management on Love’s fumble prior to half time and Love’s incomplete pass prior to the game tying FG. My goodness both MLF and Love admitted that. 

That sounds like an execution issue, not a play-calling issue.  

And what's MLF supposed to say?  "Yeah, Kraft screwed up by not even bothering to look where the ball was spotted which cost us several seconds in getting set, and Love screwed up by dumping the ball off to a RB who couldn't get out of bounds."  Of course he's going to publicly take responsibility because he's never going to publicly throw his players under the bus.

He may say something completely different privately in practice and in film review.

[Fear The Chorizo]

14 hours ago, LouisEly said:

That sounds like an execution issue, not a play-calling issue.  

And what's MLF supposed to say?  "Yeah, Kraft screwed up by not even bothering to look where the ball was spotted which cost us several seconds in getting set, and Love screwed up by dumping the ball off to a RB who couldn't get out of bounds."  Of course he's going to publicly take responsibility because he's never going to publicly throw his players under the bus.

He may say something completely different privately in practice and in film review.

Some of this, IMO, has to do with how spoiled we've been watching HOF quarterbacks in complete control of an offense manage the game on the field with next to zero input from a coach.  Love obviously isn't at the same level as Rodgers or even Favre when it comes to that.  On that checkdown to a RB with no shot at getting out of bounds, Love has to realize that even if it's a 2nd or third read on the play that was called and even if it's open enough for the completion, the ball can't be thrown there in that situation and risk the game clock evaporating.  The better decision is to throw it 10 feet over his head out of bounds to stop the clock and allow for another play from a huddle.

As frustrating as it is knowing better clock management/play decisions the past two weeks have this team 2-1-1 instead of 4-0, it is just getting to October - hopefully some of this improves as the season wears on.  If it doesn't

[OldHeidelberg]

At the end of the season the tie will probably either amount to a win or a loss for playoff positioning. Just have to hope for the former. Really ugly couple of games after such a promising start, we were 9 point and 7 point favorites and went 0-1-1. Pretty good time for a bye as it turns out.

[BrewerFan]

On 9/29/2025 at 3:17 PM, 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 played 37 snaps in man coverage vs Dallas.

They played more man in Dallas than they've played in the first 3 weeks combined.

The Packers cannot play man with these CBs. They can play some press, but now you're getting away from McKinney playing the robber. 

The CBs(which... I'll assume you meant as we're pretty good at safety) is definitely the weakness. It was the weakness with Jaire, it was the weakness going into the draft. Getting a CB who plays better in man seemed obvious, but they went for Hobbs. 

 

And honestly, it's worked out for the most part, but we went so heavy man and then the Dallas Cowboys OL stood up well(and got away with about 20 blatant holding calls)... at least 3 of which were on the big plays. The Pickens TD where he beats Valentine after the catch, the play Dak Rolls out and hits that PERFECT play to Pickens... one of the few you just have to say perfect pass and even better catch. 

 

They lost a lot of their pass rush up the middle and that was because Wyatt was out... but losing Devonte Wyatt should NOT have that type of impact. He's not Dexter Lawrence or Aaron Donald, your defense can't fall apart when he goes out.

 

I don't think there were any other really glaring issues. I mean, our OL was bad vs a bad Dallas front, but you were down Tom, Belton and Banks, arguably our 3 best OL at this point with Jenkins struggling like he is. 

 

Go back, do some self scouting and I'm confident they'll look more like week1 and week2 versions of themselves. 

Getting Wyatt, Tom, Banks, Belton, Watson, Monk and Lloyd back in the coming weeks should provide a massive boost. Watson is really the guy who is a difference maker at WR.

Nearly 4 yards per play better when Watson is on the field. that's an extreme number for a WR. 

-Get the ball to Golden more. He's trying to do too much, pressing too hard, but he's such a smooth route runner, and we all know how Watson just completely opens up the field.

They were saying Watson may be able to start practicing this week. That'd be huge. He's well ahead of schedule. Get Reed back hopefully in early December and... I still like our chances.... but good week for a bye(there should be 2 with the 17 game season, but... I digress). 

 

*I'd also check in on Jedrick Willis. He was planning on sitting out at least part of this year, but he could be a Veldheer type addition(though much younger and potentially a guy we can get back on track),

 

But the guys on this team are enough. Need to tighten things up and I think we'll be fine. 

Nobody is trading an elite OT or CB and we already traded away our 1st. MAYBE if a team falls out of it,...like SF, they'd consider trading Trent during his final year... but that's a pretty crazy wild chot.

 

Still not worried about this team long term.; I am not as confident as I was, but the talent on this team is still elite... when playing together. 

[JosephC]

4 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

They lost a lot of their pass rush up the middle and that was because Wyatt was out... but losing Devonte Wyatt should NOT have that type of impact. He's not Dexter Lawrence or Aaron Donald, your defense can't fall apart when he goes out.

 

The thought was the Packers had a big problem with nose tackle depth.  It looks more like they have a major problem with interior defensive line depth.  Stackhouse got terrible reviews for his pre-season play, and by all accounts was well beyond awful in the Cowboys game.  And I appreciate that Stackhouse is a nose tackle and Brinson is not a nose tackle, but being a BAD nose tackle shouldn't make one active ahead of a player that might be able to at least hold their own.  If Stackhouse is so bad, but is still active and Brinson is not, that just tells us where Brinson is now (also terrible).  If those two are as bad as they appear to be, that leaves the Packers with only Wyatt, Wooden and Brooks as interior defensive linemen, and there really isn't a nose tackle in the group.

Maybe including Kenny Clark in that Parsons trade was not such a no-brainer move after all.

[Joseph Zarr]

On 10/1/2025 at 8:49 AM, Joseph Zarr said:

I just re-watched that last drive of OT. Man, they were absolutely cooking. Plenty of time left at the Dallas, what, 13 yard line? Roughly 40 seconds. Can. Not. Call that absurd Bubble Screen. Can not do it. That was the difference, essentially. Obviously, then we see the inexplicable lack of urgency from there - comically lackadaisical. What an absolute quagmire of failing to seize the moment. I continue to be amazed by the Packers inability to recognize Mathew Golden is not really all that creative in space. And, yet, they insist on throwing him back for punt returns - beyond head scratching. I would gather he is likely catching the punts at a less than 50% rate?  He needs to be going straight line and they really need to take less off his plate. Whereas, the rookie who is very dynamic in space, in Savion Williams, it's like they are finding ways not to exploit that. The Packers seem to annually lack the ability to scout themselves in key areas. It is utterly confounding to me. 

You go right ahead and down vote me @BrewerFan.I was built for this adversity!

(Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the LaFleur led Packers 🤭)

 

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, Joseph Zarr said:

You go right ahead and down vote me @BrewerFan.I was built for this adversity!

(Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the LaFleur led Packers 🤭)

 

Yeah, I thought the declaration of Golden a bit silly given how early it is(especially contrasting it to Williams). How he's not creative?

Also... the purpose of that is to agree or disagree, right? Well...I don't agree. 

[BrewerFan]

7 hours ago, JosephC said:

The thought was the Packers had a big problem with nose tackle depth.  It looks more like they have a major problem with interior defensive line depth.  Stackhouse got terrible reviews for his pre-season play, and by all accounts was well beyond awful in the Cowboys game.  And I appreciate that Stackhouse is a nose tackle and Brinson is not a nose tackle, but being a BAD nose tackle shouldn't make one active ahead of a player that might be able to at least hold their own.  If Stackhouse is so bad, but is still active and Brinson is not, that just tells us where Brinson is now (also terrible).  If those two are as bad as they appear to be, that leaves the Packers with only Wyatt, Wooden and Brooks as interior defensive linemen, and there really isn't a nose tackle in the group.

Maybe including Kenny Clark in that Parsons trade was not such a no-brainer move after all.

I think it was still a no-brainer to include Clark in that deal. Wooden has been playing NT(or rather he's been the 1 tech which is the 4-3 equivalent of NT).

It really shouldn't be hard to bring someone in to just play a 1 technique in early downs, but I think the bigger issue is that Wyatt is such a good pass rusher, he doesn't leave a lane for the QB to step up. 

 

I'd be checking in on Christian Wilkins. If he's healthy, he should be a cheap addition and GB would be just about the best place to improve his value. He's also more than capable of playing either the 1 or the 3 and he can rush the QB. 

All this assumes he's healthy, but if he is, that could be a massive addition. 

Short of that, they should still be able to find someone to play the run relatively cheap. Mike Pennell was a FA and then signed to the Bengals PS. 

 

The holding really was just so ridiculous. Brooks was tackled on a couple plays himself. It was bad.