Game 14: Packers @ Broncos - Sunday, Dec. 14th @ 3:25 PM

[BrewerFan]

35 minutes ago, igor67 said:

The future of football, and we're halfway there, is playing to go 10-7 so that your key guys are available in January. Every sport has followed this trajectory. 

 

Going to the 17 game schedule was a mistake. And I fear you are correct. I enjoy the long baseball season and the resting of guys just feels different there. But I always appreciated the idea in football that every game was impactful.

I don't think it is, nor do I think that'd work.

Micah Parsons or Watson last year or Kraft this year... they can have those injuries at any time.

Also, it's not that easy to win 10 gams AND rest your best players. 

It works in Baseball because they're a direct correlation between resting your pitcher and being MORE likely to keep them healthy come October, there doesn't work in a game like Football. 

It may put more of an emphasis on depth and rotations(which again, I am still excited to see Sorrell and see how he can play WITH Parsons next year)... but I don't see how you can be strategic in preventing injuries. It's... just too random and fluky. 

 

I do hope part of the future is sending more guys to Madison to work on injury prevention. It won't stop fluke plays like Watson or Parsons, but Watson hasn't had hamstring injuries, neither has Stokes. Marshawn Lloyd should sure as hell go there this off-season since he's had the most cursed start to a career I can recall. Not counting on him for anything, but also don't think they should give up on him. 

 

But, in fairness, our injuries haven't really been the soft tissue injuries we've had in the past. They've been probably fewer players, but more significant. That's just... bad luck. 

[adambr2]

1 minute ago, BrewerFan said:

To quote you, "did you read my last paragraph?"

 

And the Rams haven't been a better organization than the Packers. Unless you're including all sports which... given this is a Packers thread, I obviously wasn't. 

Thought it was clear by my Giannis/2021 comment that I was including the entirety of the Wisconsin sports experience in the fan base discussion.

I don’t know that I agree on the Rams, anyway. They’ve got a ring in this era and two conference championships. I don’t know how that’s a worse organization, at least in recent years.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Nah. This ship is at the bottom of the sea already. If it were just Watson? I'd pray Golden wakes up and believe. Parsons? That's a deal breaker. You can't bet the house on a single guy and lose that guy. He's the same as losing Love as far as title hopes go. You can still be a winning team, but you're not winning the championship you had your eyes on. 

Losing Tom for the year would probably be catastrophic on its own, too, at this stage of the season. 

[BrewerFan]

2 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Thought it was clear by my Giannis/2021 comment that I was including the entirety of the Wisconsin sports experience in the fan base discussion.

 

So... AGAIN, you took MY comment about the PACKERS, made it about the Bucks in 2021 and then made it about an entire metro area to include the Dodgers and LA teams when I was clearly talking about... the Packers and you're whining that YOU made it clear in RESPONSE to my post that you were talking about someone different?

 

.... yeah, I don't care dude. You've done this a couple times. You either change the subject in reply or you use a strawman. 

"Everyone felt... until Parsons."

Me talking... obviously about the Packers

You bringing up Giannis and the Dodgers... 

 

So you talk about what you want, just... don't respond to me and respond to a different topic. 

 

 

[yourout]

1 hour ago, adambr2 said:

Comes with the territory of having bad corners.

Obviously the most important position to shore up next year àlong with both of the lines needing help as well

[adambr2]

2 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

So... AGAIN, you took MY comment about the PACKERS, made it about the Bucks in 2021 and then made it about an entire metro area to include the Dodgers and LA teams when I was clearly talking about... the Packers and you're whining that YOU made it clear in RESPONSE to my post that you were talking about someone different?

 

.... yeah, I don't care dude. You've done this a couple times. You either change the subject in reply or you use a strawman. 

"Everyone felt... until Parsons."

Me talking... obviously about the Packers

You bringing up Giannis and the Dodgers... 

 

So you talk about what you want, just... don't respond to me and respond to a different topic. 

 

 

I see your temper hasn’t changed in the last 20 years. All I was saying is that I thought the context of what I said in the previous post made it apparent that I was including all recent Wisconsin sports team seasons in the discussion. I certainly didn’t know you were going to fly off the handle about it.

[homer]

33 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Hitting a couple points here:

The Packers corners suck. It was a known problem before the season. It was everyone's concern before the Parsons trade. We have been masquerading Nixon as a CB1. He is a journeyman type that, sure, can play some ball, but he's a nickel starter that can thrive in the slot. We are trying to make him Jaire, and he's not. That's been passable with Parsons rushing. It was immediately exposed and will continue to be. Hobbs is possibly the worst move of Gute's career. 

This is recency bias. Their corners have not been all that bad. I'd put them at mediocre. If McKinney catches two INTs today we probably aren't even having this discussion. The scheme gives up the underneath stuff to avoid splash plays and before today the Packers were behind only the VIkings and Broncos in explosive play rate allowed. If someone wants to find a metric to prove me wrong by all means please do. I don't subscribe to PFF so I don't know what grades our CBs get but I'd be willling to bet they are middle of the pack.

[adambr2]

10 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Nah. This ship is at the bottom of the sea already. If it were just Watson? I'd pray Golden wakes up and believe. Parsons? That's a deal breaker. You can't bet the house on a single guy and lose that guy. He's the same as losing Love as far as title hopes go. You can still be a winning team, but you're not winning the championship you had your eyes on. 

Losing Tom for the year would probably be catastrophic on its own, too, at this stage of the season. 

The plan clearly was to predicate the entire defense on a pass rush to make it not matter who was playing corner. That kind of falls apart when Parsons gets hurt.

Although they obviously thought Hobbs would be better.

Gute had a lowkey terrible offseason. Credit for Parsons I guess but that wasn’t some genius move — was something any armchair GM does if they get a chance.

Everything else was kind of a disaster. Not just signing Hobbs but letting Stokes walk for cheap.

[adambr2]

4 minutes ago, yourout said:

Obviously the most important position to shore up next year àlong with both of the lines needing help as well

I agree, but it’s hard to trust that it will be done effectively with how bad we swung and missed this year when we had the same needs this time last year.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

5 minutes ago, homer said:

This is recency bias. Their corners have not been all that bad. I'd put them at mediocre. If McKinney catches two INTs today we probably aren't even having this discussion. The scheme gives up the underneath stuff to avoid splash plays and before today the Packers were behind only the VIkings and Broncos in explosive play rate allowed. If someone wants to find a metric to prove me wrong by all means please do. I don't subscribe to PFF so I don't know what grades our CBs get but I'd be willling to bet they are middle of the pack.

Recency bias of what? This season?

Nixon, Valentine and Hobbs have combined for 1 interception this season. Nixon grades the highest as the 28th corner per PFF. So a fringe bottom starter/nickel. Those are atrocious numbers for the pressure we generate. The safeties are decent, the corners suck. 

Of course you can't be great across the board, but when you spend like we did on Hobbs you better get a better result. 

To be clear I actually like him as a player, but we are trying to get him to be something he's not, a #1 corner. He cannot play on the outside. He doesn't have the talent. 

[adambr2]

1 minute ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Recency bias of what? This season?

Nixon, Valentine and Hobbs have combined for 1 interception this season. Nixon grades the highest as the 28th corner per PFF. So a fringe bottom starter/nickel. Those are atrocious numbers for the pressure we generate. The safeties are decent, the corners suck. 

Of course you can't be great across the board, but when you spend like we did on Hobbs you better get a better result. 

I would also argue that Parsons being a constant disruptor has made the corners look better than they are, and they’re about to look a lot more mediocre without him.

[yourout]

While it's highly unlikely who would probably have the tiebreaker if it came down to us and the cowboys for the last playoff spot if we were both tied with 10-6-1 records?

[adambr2]

3 minutes ago, yourout said:

While it's highly unlikely who would probably have the tiebreaker if it came down to us and the cowboys for the last playoff spot if we were both tied with 10-6-1 records?

Us, Dallas has a terrible conference record.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Dallas lol. The far more likely thing is Detroit winning out, we fall on our face and they're the 7th seed. 

Even that isn't likely. It's very hard for us to miss the playoffs. It's just that the playoffs are going to be depressing and lame. 

[yourout]

2 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Dallas lol. The far more likely thing is Detroit winning out, we fall on our face and they're the 7th seed. 

Even that isn't likely. It's very hard for us to miss the playoffs. It's just that the playoffs are going to be depressing and lame. 

I agree the far more likely scenario is Detroit winning out and getting in but was just wondering how the tie would play out if the long shot came in 

[adambr2]

1 minute ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Dallas lol. The far more likely thing is Detroit winning out, we fall on our face and they're the 7th seed. 

Even that isn't likely. It's very hard for us to miss the playoffs. It's just that the playoffs are going to be depressing and lame. 

I mean, probably, but we’ve known all season there’s so much parity in the league and there isn’t like a slam dunk #1 in the NFC that’s just going to completely take over in January.

Maybe it’s the Rams. I don’t know. It’s hard not to see them putting up 35+ on our D now. 

But it’s still probably a better chance of a flukey run in this league than say winning a 7 game series against the Dodgers. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I mean, probably, but we’ve known all season there’s so much parity in the league and there isn’t like a slam dunk #1 in the NFC that’s just going to completely take over in January.

Maybe it’s the Rams. I don’t know. It’s hard not to see them putting up 35+ on our D now. 

But it’s still probably a better chance of a flukey run in this league than say winning a 7 game series against the Dodgers. 

I think this defense is going to get obliterated. We can say we were solid without Parsons last year, but we're worse now. Hobbs isn't close to what Stokes was last year. Clark is gone. Slaton is gone. Wyatt is gone. We have nothing along that DL right now, which was supposed to make those corners passable. It's just not going to work. We'll be bowing out in the Wild Card, probably to the Bears. 

[adambr2]

2 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I think this defense is going to get obliterated. We can say we were solid without Parsons last year, but we're worse now. Hobbs isn't close to what Stokes was last year. Clark is gone. Slaton is gone. Wyatt is gone. We have nothing along that DL right now, which was supposed to make those corners passable. It's just not going to work. We'll be bowing out in the Wild Card, probably to the Bears. 

I think there’s a path, but it pretty much involves Jordan Love going MVP mode, unlocking Reed, Watson, Golden, and Wicks all at the same time, and winning 40-37 track meets. A lot to ask.

[yourout]

Seems like there's been an awful lot of injuries today League wide.

[HarveysWBs]

Forget the draft positioning, I don’t care about that at this point. But if this season is now all about clawing our way to the postseason where we have a decent chance of getting boat raced by a divisional opponent in the first round, count me all the way out. I’m down for missing the playoffs just to avoid that utter indignity. I felt immense relief that the Crew didn’t blow it against the Cubs in October. Losing to this year’s Bears team somehow feels like it would undo that achievement for me.

[Brian]

9 hours ago, adambr2 said:

Not that I disagree, but it’s crazy how many people think we’re absolutely toast because of Parsons.

No one on this thread ever isolated Parsons as why are toast.  Just look at tomorrows injury report. What we know right after the game. 

• Micah Parsons: Suffered a non-contact knee injury (feared to be a torn ACL).
• Christian Watson: Left with a chest injury after a hard hit.
• Zach Tom: Left with a knee injury, though early signs suggested no major structural damage.
• Evan Williams: Also left with a knee injury, similar to Tom's.
• Josh Whyle: Left with a concussion after a big hit. 
• 

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

No one on this thread ever isolated Parsons as why are toast.  Just look at tomorrows injury report. What we know right after the game. 

• Micah Parsons: Suffered a non-contact knee injury (feared to be a torn ACL).
• Christian Watson: Left with a chest injury after a hard hit.
• Zach Tom: Left with a knee injury, though early signs suggested no major structural damage.
• Evan Williams: Also left with a knee injury, similar to Tom's.
• Josh Whyle: Left with a concussion after a big hit. 
• 

From what I’m reading, none of these are expected to be season ending injuries besides Parsons.

We are toast because we lost Micah for the season. If Micah had the same injury as any of the above guys we would not be toast.

[adambr2]

7 hours ago, HarveysWBs said:

Forget the draft positioning, I don’t care about that at this point. But if this season is now all about clawing our way to the postseason where we have a decent chance of getting boat raced by a divisional opponent in the first round, count me all the way out. I’m down for missing the playoffs just to avoid that utter indignity. I felt immense relief that the Crew didn’t blow it against the Cubs in October. Losing to this year’s Bears team somehow feels like it would undo that achievement for me.

I don’t know why anyone would care about losing for draft position. It’s really important in the first round which doesn’t apply to us and matters less and less progressively after that.

I’m on the fence. I’m halfway “we’re screwed anyway” and halfway “may as well just get in and see what happens.”

Whatever happens against the Bears next week will probably push me one way or the other.

[BrewerFan]

10 hours ago, adambr2 said:

I see your temper hasn’t changed in the last 20 years. All I was saying is that I thought the context of what I said in the previous post made it apparent that I was including all recent Wisconsin sports team seasons in the discussion. I certainly didn’t know you were going to fly off the handle about it.

Yeah, I do find it annoying when we're talking about the Packers, I make a comment about THE PACKERS and you start talking about the Bucks and the Brewers. What about the Badgers? Marquette? How far does this fanbase extend to in a thread specifically about the Green Bay Packers?

 

Yeah, YOU replied and "made it apparent" you were arguing with me about something entirely different. "Fly off the handle?"
Get over yourself dude. Are you still patting yourself on the back for cracking that HUGE secret I was Fan174 or whatever on the old website? Well Golly! That's super impressive... if you ignore... me specifically saying that, but otherwise, incredible detective work!

40 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

From what I’m reading, none of these are expected to be season ending injuries besides Parsons.

From what you're reading... this morning, right?

Is that from Watson's Dad saying

Quote

 the injury was not as bad as it seemed during the game.

So 15 hours later, you've got more information than we had at the time... but you're REALLY invested in arguing about the "feelings," of fans from DURING the game. 

What purpose is that serving?

And that's how this discussion started. I know we're just kinda changing it up as we go, but that was the entire discussion. 

[young guns]

I absolutely don't want to lose for draft positioning to help the cowboys get a higher pick.

10 hours ago, yourout said:

While it's highly unlikely who would probably have the tiebreaker if it came down to us and the cowboys for the last playoff spot if we were both tied with 10-6-1 records?

Since we would have to lose out and them win out to tie, that would put us 2-3 vs afc and them 4-1, which means we would have a better conference record and thus the tiebreaker.