Game 9: Eagles @ Packers - Monday, Nov 10th @ 7:15 PM

[Brian]

7 minutes ago, wallus said:

Love needs to progress more for us to have a shot.

Agree 100%  In fact Love is regressing and not getting better but a lot of blame has to fall on LaFleur because Aaron Rodgers was known for audibling out of plays called by Matt LaFleur which I know made Matt's blood boil. 

[HarryDoyle]

43 minutes ago, Strike4 said:

Here is Jacob quote about the play.  Lefleur may be losing the team

 

“They called out our play,” Jacobs said of the Eagles defensive front that recognized an inside zone run. “We ran it like four times. They called it out. … Whenever they know what we’re doing, it’ll never feel good because it changed my mind on how I’m going to run the ball, if we’re just being honest. It makes me kind of like guess what I’m going to do.

“I kind of didn’t want to run right there … that’s just how it played out.”

And they should've called a time out to begin with and not tried to rush a play when the game was literally on the line at that moment (or should've until Siriani gave us a stay of execution), and if not then, then when the defense called out the play. I think in that moment, Jacobs has to be the veteran leader and call the time out there, idc if MLF's ego gets bruised.

[JosephC]

For those of you who are saying LaFleur is going to get fired, see Mike McCarthy....at the time he was fired McCarthy had a 4-7-1 record and the previous season was 7-9.  So in a season+, the Packers had posted a 11-16-1 record,

The Packers have a 5-3-1 record, and that is coming off a season where they were 11-6.  So the last season+ for LaFleur is 16-9-1.

LaFleur's future in Green Bay likely hangs mostly on what Gutekunst thinks of him.  Who was really behind the hire of LeFleur, was that more Murphy or was it more Gutekunst?  If Gutekunst was behind the hiring, I don't see LaFleur going anywhere at long as the Packers keep putting up 10 win seasons.  If Murphy was the guy behind the hiring, it wouldn't surprise me if the Packers dump LaFleur sooner than later so Policy/Gutekunst can put their hand-picked guy in the position.  That's just the way things work.

[HarryDoyle]

After time to marinate on this, here are my thoughts on the state of the Packers.

1. The offensive line is a hot mess and is not going to get any better. I've thought for a couple years that this unit has been overrated, but now Jenkins is out for a while, leaving either Rhyan or Monk to play center, Banks has been a flop that shouldn't have been brought in in the first place, and I'm just not that big a fan of the rest of the guys. That's why I laugh when I see talk of "We need the money to resign Tom, Walker, etc. Why? They're not that special. The O-line is not going to get better this year, and therefore, neither will the offense.

2. I overestimated the talent of our receiving corps. Badly. It's time to stop living in the past and see this unit is chock full of #3 receivers that overachieved the second half of 2023. I would say Watson is the exception, but that doesn't really help when he can't stay on the field. Golden is the legit #1 Jacobs suggested we go out and get, and I hope whoever is coach next season realizes that and actually utilizes him as such as opposed to the current coach we have now. 

3. I still believe we can win with Love, but he needs to be coached up better as far as decision making goes. If the next coach isn't a quarterback guru, I hope he brings one in to coach him up.

[HarryDoyle]

16 minutes ago, JosephC said:

For those of you who are saying LaFleur is going to get fired, see Mike McCarthy....at the time he was fired McCarthy had a 4-7-1 record and the previous season was 7-9.  So in a season+, the Packers had posted a 11-16-1 record,

The Packers have a 5-3-1 record, and that is coming off a season where they were 11-6.  So the last season+ for LaFleur is 16-9-1.

LaFleur's future in Green Bay likely hangs mostly on what Gutekunst thinks of him.  Who was really behind the hire of LeFleur, was that more Murphy or was it more Gutekunst?  If Gutekunst was behind the hiring, I don't see LaFleur going anywhere at long as the Packers keep putting up 10 win seasons.  If Murphy was the guy behind the hiring, it wouldn't surprise me if the Packers dump LaFleur sooner than later so Policy/Gutekunst can put their hand-picked guy in the position.  That's just the way things work.

Gute is not LeFleur's boss, Policy is. There's no more shared responsibility that was present under Murphy. Policy is not going to suffer any losing, or 10 win seasons, and barring a massive turnaround, MLF is as good as gone, and possibly Gute as well.

[Strike4]

24 minutes ago, JosephC said:

For those of you who are saying LaFleur is going to get fired, see Mike McCarthy....at the time he was fired McCarthy had a 4-7-1 record and the previous season was 7-9.  So in a season+, the Packers had posted a 11-16-1 record,

The Packers have a 5-3-1 record, and that is coming off a season where they were 11-6.  So the last season+ for LaFleur is 16-9-1.

LaFleur's future in Green Bay likely hangs mostly on what Gutekunst thinks of him.  Who was really behind the hire of LeFleur, was that more Murphy or was it more Gutekunst?  If Gutekunst was behind the hiring, I don't see LaFleur going anywhere at long as the Packers keep putting up 10 win seasons.  If Murphy was the guy behind the hiring, it wouldn't surprise me if the Packers dump LaFleur sooner than later so Policy/Gutekunst can put their hand-picked guy in the position.  That's just the way things work.

I would assume if LeFleur is gone so is Gutenkunst. 

Policy would want his own guys in there and Gutenkunst has not done enough to impress. In fact he's a C+ talent as a GM just like LeFleur is as a coach.  No reason to not let both go and build your own team.

[JosephC]

If Policy does make a move, I think it's much more likely that he would fire all three of Gutekunst, LaFleur and Ball then rather just pick out the head coach and fire him.

I've always had a hard time figuring out how the powers-that-be in the sporting world can pick out a person and scapegoat them when their performance is so reliant on the performance of other people around them.  Take the Giants as an example.  Why fire the head coach now when it is so obvious the GM owns just as much responsibility for the sorry performance of that team?  To me the obvious move is to wait until the end of the season and just get rid of everybody.  Not saying that should happen in Green Bay.  They are 2 games above .500 with plenty of season left to play.  But with the Giants, I just don't see why one guy gets scapegoated now when the entire organization needs to be overhauled.

[Joseph Zarr]

I've slept it off. I'm back on the LaFleur bandwagon. "Trust. The. Process." 

[homer]

I think when you have a mediocre offensive line, you can get by with elite play by the QB. You can get elite play from a good but not elite QB when he has all his weapons. Love was OK last night but missed some throws that someone like Mahomes might make. He also had some drops by guys that were WRs but converted to DB but then converted back to WR because of injuries. 

The issue I have with MLF is his insistence on running the same offense with less effective skill position players. It ain't working, dude. He was so good at designing a really creative running offense when Malik Willis was in there. You can't watch Jacobs get 3.5 yards per carry and be satisfied. 

[young guns]

What's bugging me is that you can line up for a play have the defense so vocally call it out with plenty of time on the play clock and game clock to do something different or even call a timeout, but you just run the play the defense has told you they know is coming.

[HarryDoyle]

3 hours ago, JosephC said:

If Policy does make a move, I think it's much more likely that he would fire all three of Gutekunst, LaFleur and Ball then rather just pick out the head coach and fire him.

I've always had a hard time figuring out how the powers-that-be in the sporting world can pick out a person and scapegoat them when their performance is so reliant on the performance of other people around them.  Take the Giants as an example.  Why fire the head coach now when it is so obvious the GM owns just as much responsibility for the sorry performance of that team?  To me the obvious move is to wait until the end of the season and just get rid of everybody.  Not saying that should happen in Green Bay.  They are 2 games above .500 with plenty of season left to play.  But with the Giants, I just don't see why one guy gets scapegoated now when the entire organization needs to be overhauled.

I agree with you that in the vast majority of cases, the head coach gets a raw deal with firings when the general manager should be the one getting the pink slip because he doesn't give him any talent to coach, but in this case I disagree. Dave Gettlemen "retired" after a terrible run as Giants GM, but his successor has drafted Nabors and Dart, who looks like the real deal so far. Daboll has misused Dart extremely in calling plays for him to scramble, leaving him susceptible to injury, which is exactly what happened against the Bears. If Dart finishes the game, the Giants win and Daboll would still have a job. Did you see Daboll a few weeks ago running into the tent begging for Dart to come back into the game when he was being diagnosed for a concussion? Most likely because he knew his job was in jeopardy without him on the field. His man crush with Dart is embarrassing. Daboll oversaw four games where his team lost after having a two score lead in the 4th quarter. He's not a good head coach.

[Team Canada]

5 hours ago, homer said:

You can't watch Jacobs get 3.5 yards per carry and be satisfied. 

I mean, that's a first down over a set of downs.

I thought Jacobs and the run game was pretty good. As they called out on TV, if Love leads Watson to the sideline on the bomb he may score; at least it's a catch and then they have time to score or at worst a short field goal.

The 4th down call was so predictable (obviously, given the Eagles knew it was coming).

[homer]

5 minutes ago, Team Canada said:

I mean, that's a first down over a set of downs.

I thought Jacobs and the run game was pretty good. As they called out on TV, if Love leads Watson to the sideline on the bomb he may score; at least it's a catch and then they have time to score or at worst a short field goal.

 

The Niners average 3.5 yards per carry. They are last in the NFL in rushing.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

12 hours ago, homer said:

The Niners average 3.5 yards per carry. They are last in the NFL in rushing.

Yeah that is not good. You need to be at 4, and want to be around 4.4. I don't doubt that Matt is very happy with 3.5, that would allow for a very nice 23-play drive from the 20 to the end zone.

One of the elephants in the room this season, and I'm fully aware that our OL is not good, is that Emmanuel Wilson has just been more efficient than Jacobs. Just on the eye test, he runs more explosively. 

Our long rush this year is 25 yards by Jordan Love. We have zero big play-making in this offense.

[adambr2]

13 hours ago, Team Canada said:

I mean, that's a first down over a set of downs.

I thought Jacobs and the run game was pretty good. As they called out on TV, if Love leads Watson to the sideline on the bomb he may score; at least it's a catch and then they have time to score or at worst a short field goal.

The 4th down call was so predictable (obviously, given the Eagles knew it was coming).

Technically 2.5 YPC can get you a TD on every drive with no passing game, if you go for every 4th down.

Between penalties, turnovers, and inconsistency, I think we all understand that 3.5 and even 4 YPC isn’t good enough to run a functional offense in today’s NFL.

[adambr2]

22 hours ago, Brian said:

Agree 100%  In fact Love is regressing and not getting better but a lot of blame has to fall on LaFleur because Aaron Rodgers was known for audibling out of plays called by Matt LaFleur which I know made Matt's blood boil. 

So the problem with the offense is Jordan Love, Matt’s ego, or both?

I mean not calling an audible out of that 4th down play when Philly is literally screaming out the play is beyond comprehension. It is a grave offense for somebody.

If Matt doesn’t give Love leeway to change the play at the line in big moments, if Love knows he’ll get chastised if his audible play fails, that is a fireable offense for Matt Lafleur.

If Love genuinely believed that the inside run was still there, he is a long ways away from where we need him to be at QB.

[Brian]

59 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

So the problem with the offense is Jordan Love, Matt’s ego, or both?

I mean not calling an audible out of that 4th down play when Philly is literally screaming out the play is beyond comprehension. It is a grave offense for somebody.

If Matt doesn’t give Love leeway to change the play at the line in big moments, if Love knows he’ll get chastised if his audible play fails, that is a fireable offense for Matt Lafleur.

If Love genuinely believed that the inside run was still there, he is a long ways away from where we need him to be at QB.

I would blame both Love and Lafleur for the bad offense. Love needs to do what he thinks is correct but if he audibles it better work or he probably will get chastised. 

[JosephC]

18 hours ago, HarryDoyle said:

I agree with you that in the vast majority of cases, the head coach gets a raw deal with firings when the general manager should be the one getting the pink slip because he doesn't give him any talent to coach, but in this case I disagree. Dave Gettlemen "retired" after a terrible run as Giants GM, but his successor has drafted Nabors and Dart, who looks like the real deal so far. Daboll has misused Dart extremely in calling plays for him to scramble, leaving him susceptible to injury, which is exactly what happened against the Bears. If Dart finishes the game, the Giants win and Daboll would still have a job. Did you see Daboll a few weeks ago running into the tent begging for Dart to come back into the game when he was being diagnosed for a concussion? Most likely because he knew his job was in jeopardy without him on the field. His man crush with Dart is embarrassing. Daboll oversaw four games where his team lost after having a two score lead in the 4th quarter. He's not a good head coach.

I post on another board where, I would guess, about 30% of the people who post live in New York, although they are mostly Jets fans.  Last year they were talking a lot about the Giants and them being on the HBO show.  In there there was a lot on Barkley and the Giants decision to not re-sign him,

From what I saw, and I didn't sit there and watch full episodes, it left me with a really bad impression.  That got much worse a few months later when I was messing around on overthecap, and couldn't help but notice that Barkley had something like a 3.8 million dollar cap hit while playing with the Eagles, and the Giants had Drew Lock on their roster with a cap hit of 5 million.  Now I know how NFL contract work, and the year one cap number is going to be the lowest number, and it is going to go up dramatically from there.  But when a team moves on from Barkley and instead has a 1-year backup QB that has a higher cap number...that is not only a bad look, but that is just stupid.

Schoen was hired by the Giants on January 21, 2022...so he was in charge the entire 2022 off-season, so he legitimately owns everything from 2022 forward.  The Giants were 4-13 in 2021, and under Schoen they've gone from 9-7-1 to 6-11 to 3-14 to 2-8....total for the 3+ seasons is 20-40-1.

I can't imagine a scenario where a firing is more deserved.

[JosephC]

On 11/10/2025 at 11:29 PM, HarryDoyle said:

 

If that is the typical performance from #77 and #88, Walter Payton wouldn't be getting many yards with those two guys on the field.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

On 11/11/2025 at 10:15 AM, JosephC said:

For those of you who are saying LaFleur is going to get fired, see Mike McCarthy....at the time he was fired McCarthy had a 4-7-1 record and the previous season was 7-9.  So in a season+, the Packers had posted a 11-16-1 record,

The Packers have a 5-3-1 record, and that is coming off a season where they were 11-6.  So the last season+ for LaFleur is 16-9-1.

LaFleur's future in Green Bay likely hangs mostly on what Gutekunst thinks of him.  Who was really behind the hire of LeFleur, was that more Murphy or was it more Gutekunst?  If Gutekunst was behind the hiring, I don't see LaFleur going anywhere at long as the Packers keep putting up 10 win seasons.  If Murphy was the guy behind the hiring, it wouldn't surprise me if the Packers dump LaFleur sooner than later so Policy/Gutekunst can put their hand-picked guy in the position.  That's just the way things work.

McCarthy was 7-9 with Hundley playing most of the season. The expectation for his last season was very much that they were going to be competitive. So it's a bit of a disingenuous comparison. He was fired for that season's failure, not because of the Hundley results the year before.