Game 15: Packers @ Bears - Saturday, Dec. 20th @ 7:20 PM

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, HarryDoyle said:

There's no doubt in my mind this team is better than the Bears, as I think they are a fraudulent team like they were in 2001 and 2010 and will be one and done in the playoffs, but the difference in why these two teams are in the positions they are in is the Bears find ways to win and the Packers find ways to lose, and it's just so infuriating. This team is capable of more than what they're showing, and they just can't help themselves and just can't get out of their own way. Changes need to be made because all we're doing now is running in place, not being able to take the next step. I think Policy sees this and will take the necessary steps to get where this team can go.

And on a side note, why is Doubs even on the hands team with his concussion history? He looked like he didn't want to have anything to do with the collision that comes with the territory of recovering an onside kick.

What’s Policy going to do? Blow it up and start over? Their cap room is tight and no first round picks for 2 years, and sky high expectations from a fan base where one has to be in their mid to late 40s to even understand what it’s like for the team to actually suck. 

Even assuming they could identify an up and coming GM who would be better than the current GM, said mythical GM wouldn’t find the Packers situation all that appealing. 
 

LaFleur and Gutekunst will both get extensions 

[Outlander]

Horrible loss, the only benefit is it saves me from constantly hearing during playoff week that it is difficult to beat the same team three times in the same season.

[Jopal78]

1 minute ago, Outlander said:

Horrible loss, the only benefit is it saves me from constantly hearing during playoff week that it is difficult to beat the same team three times in the same season.

???

[OldSchoolSnapper]

2 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

What’s Policy going to do? Blow it up and start over? Their cap room is tight and no first round picks for 2 years, and spoiled fan base where anyone under 45 probably doesn’t remember what it’s like for the team to actually suck.

Even assuming they could identify an up and coming GM who would be better than the current GM, said mythical GM wouldn’t find the Packers situation all that appealing. 
 

LaFleur and Gutekunst will both get extensions 

I think this is so off. They've sucked. They had a 4-win season in 2005. They had a 6 win season with Hundley and another crappy year McCarthy got fired. It's such a cliche that they've been this amazing team and we should all be on our knees. As Adam has pointed out, this would be 4x in a row missing the playoffs without expansion. 

And the idea that a top coach wouldn't be interested? That is laughable. It's Green Bay and there are some great players on the roster. You have a top 5 player on your DL playing edge and a plenty serviceable QB. It would arguably be the most attractive opening in the league. 

I don't know where your confidence in extensions comes from either. If it were a slam dunk, he would have done it already. He went out of his way to say neither would be extended this season and there had to be results. There aren't going to be positive results. Their injuries last week don't excuse away all the debacles prior to last week, and they don't excuse what took place last night either. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

4 minutes ago, Outlander said:

Horrible loss, the only benefit is it saves me from constantly hearing during playoff week that it is difficult to beat the same team three times in the same season.

I was literally going to make this post 😂 

[Jopal78]

Just now, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I think this is so off. They've sucked. They had a 4-win season in 2005. They had a 6 win season with Hundley and another crappy year McCarthy got fired. It's such a cliche that they've been this amazing team and we should all be on our knees. As Adam has pointed out, this would be 4x in a row missing the playoffs without expansion. 

And the idea that a top coach wouldn't be interested? That is laughable. It's Green Bay and there are some great players on the roster. You have a top 5 player on your DL playing edge and a plenty serviceable QB. It would arguably be the most attractive opening in the league. 

I don't know where your confidence in extensions comes from either. If it were a slam dunk, he would have done it already. He went out of his way to say neither would be extended this season and there had to be results. There aren't going to be positive results. Their injuries last week don't excuse away all the debacles prior to last week, and they don't excuse what took place last night either. 

You don’t remember the 80s and earlier then. What have they had 4-5 losing seasons in the last 33 years? In the 80s Green Bay is where careers went to die. For context in 1980 the Packers drafted a player 4th overall (Bruce Clark) and he refused to play for the Packers and went to the CFL until the Packers relinquished his rights.

What “great” players? I dare you to name players on the Packers outside of Parsons who are clearly the best at their position in the North Division let alone amongst NFL best. It certainly isn't anyone at  QB, RB, WR, CB.

A flawed team is still going to win 10 maybe more games, and people equate that with sucking. Signs of a spoiled fan base. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

2 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

You don’t remember the 80s and earlier then. What have they had 4-5 losing seasons in the last 33 years? In the 80s Green Bay is where careers went to die. For context in 1980 the Packers drafted a player 4th overall (Bruce Clark) and he refused to play for the Packers and went to the CFL until the Packers relinquished his rights.

What “great” players? I dare you to name players on the Packers outside of Parsons who are clearly the best at their position in the North Division let alone amongst NFL best. It certainly isn't anyone at  QB, RB, WR, CB.

A flawed team is still going to win 10 maybe more games, and people equate that with sucking. Signs of a spoiled fan base. 

14 teams make the playoffs now.

The floor required to make a change shouldn't be being a league doormat. You don't need to be the Raiders or Jets to see there is a functional problem here. I am so sick this mentality that we should be indentured servants to the Packers because they give us a loss in the Wild Card or divisional consistently. Why this fanbase is content with mediocrity is just astounding to me. I think it's just a way to cope with pretending these chokes are normal and everyone has them. They don't. 

[Recovering Chicagoan]

13 minutes ago, Outlander said:

Horrible loss, the only benefit is it saves me from constantly hearing during playoff week that it is difficult to beat the same team three times in the same season.

If the Packers had won, would they likely have had to play the Bears in the playoffs? 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

6 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

You don’t remember the 80s and earlier then. What have they had 4-5 losing seasons in the last 33 years? In the 80s Green Bay is where careers went to die. For context in 1980 the Packers drafted a player 4th overall (Bruce Clark) and he refused to play for the Packers and went to the CFL until the Packers relinquished his rights.

What “great” players? I dare you to name players on the Packers outside of Parsons who are clearly the best at their position in the North Division let alone amongst NFL best. It certainly isn't anyone at  QB, RB, WR, CB.

A flawed team is still going to win 10 maybe more games, and people equate that with sucking. Signs of a spoiled fan base. 

Ah there it is. The old "spoiled fan base" cliche. Spare me.

Look around the league at the upcoming vacancies. It's very rare that a 10 or 11 win team has a vacancy. Not worth discussing if you genuinely think GB wouldn't be one of the top jobs out there. You are usually talking about a revolving door for the Jets or Raiders. They would have interested parties up the wazoo. Just a completely unrealistic thing to say. That goes for the GM as well. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 minute ago, Recovering Chicagoan said:

If the Packers had won, would they likely have had to play the Bears in the playoffs? 

Bears still are the most likely opponent. The only thing that changes is the venue. 

[Jopal78]

11 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Ah there it is. The old "spoiled fan base" cliche. Spare me.

Look around the league at the upcoming vacancies. It's very rare that a 10 or 11 win team has a vacancy. Not worth discussing if you genuinely think GB wouldn't be one of the top jobs out there. You are usually talking about a revolving door for the Jets or Raiders. They would have interested parties up the wazoo. Just a completely unrealistic thing to say. That goes for the GM as well. 

You’re missing the point. Where is the room for growth in Green Bay. Lack of talent on offense, lack of first round picks, lack of cap space. Those are objective facts. Taking the Packers roster and getting it to a legit contending status within the above parameters is a tough job, especially when there will be pressure from day one as  the fans are going to expect instant results.

And spare me with all the super stars down with injuries sabotaged their season. That’s nonsense, as they’ve been mediocre all year. 

Why did the Bears land the hottest coach candidate last year? Because they had picks, cash, and expectations low enough ownership would allow it to be built the right way. 
 

You’re upset the Packers a fringe playoff team, yet clamor it would be the best job in the NFL you can’t have it both ways. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

You’re missing the point. Where is the room for growth in Green Bay. Lack of talent on offense, lack of first round picks, lack of cap space. Those are objective facts. Taking the Packers roster and getting it to a legit contending status within the above parameters is a tough job, especially when the fans are going to expect instant results.

And spare me with all the super stars down with injuries sabotaged their season. That’s nonsense, as they’ve been mediocre all year. 

Why did the Bears land the hottest coach candidate last year? Because they had picks, cash, and expectations low enough ownership would allow it to be built the right way. 
 

You’re upset the Packers a fringe playoff team, yet clamor it would be the best job in the NFL you can’t have it both ways. 

Irrational take. Both the offense and defense are in the top 10 in the league. They are losing these games in astounding ways that often stem directly from coaching. 

I can have it both ways because the vacancies are vacant because the teams are awful. The good teams don't typically fire their coach. You are saying that Cleveland, Arizona and Tennessee will be more attractive options than Green Bay. You know deep down that is baloney. And I think you also know there would a line around the block to coach in Green Bay. 

I think you are the one not making any sense. They're completely mediocre but both guys should be extended because they can't be any better.  

There's a rational argument to keep LaFleur and Gute. That they couldn't possibly get someone better isn't it. 

So the Browns, Titans or Cardinals would be more attractive to the top candidate than the Packers? Maybe it's time to just admit you exaggerated something?

 

There's a rational argument to not fire Matt LaFleur. The argument that they couldn't possibly get a good candidate to replace him is is anything but rational. 

 

[Recovering Chicagoan]

4 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Bears still are the most likely opponent. The only thing that changes is the venue. 

That’s what I figured. Not ideal to have to play the Bears for a third time even if the Packers had won, especially given the Packers recent track record in the playoffs. This loss still stinks, of course.

If the Packers do end up making the playoffs, it might — might — sting a bit less to lose to the Bears again instead of winning both regular season games but losing to them in the playoffs.

 

[HarveysWBs]

I agree with @HarryDoyle about Doubs being on the hands team, and came here to say exactly that: how does a guy with his history get to be in that spot? He was obviously gun-shy, as his brief glance up to find the tacklers before he could secure the ball would indicate. I feel for the guy, but he should be out of the league. I think (or maybe just hope) that in twenty years, it will be unconscionable that we as a society allowed and encouraged people to destroy their own brains for our amusement.

Losing provides clarity. Today more than most days, it is clear to me that this sport is a dumb one. Attaching any kind of emotional investment in it makes about as much sense as declaring you are a fan of a professional craps player, since that is about as much randomness as this sport involves. Some players and a precious few coaches seem to tilt the table, but for everybody else, we’re cheering for a dice roll and then arguing about how the player threw the dice.

It’s all for the gamblers and panem et circenses now. We’re the idiots for caring about it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

14 minutes ago, HarveysWBs said:

I agree with @HarryDoyle about Doubs being on the hands team, and came here to say exactly that: how does a guy with his history get to be in that spot? He was obviously gun-shy, as his brief glance up to find the tacklers before he could secure the ball would indicate. I feel for the guy, but he should be out of the league. I think (or maybe just hope) that in twenty years, it will be unconscionable that we as a society allowed and encouraged people to destroy their own brains for our amusement.

Losing provides clarity. Today more than most days, it is clear to me that this sport is a dumb one. Attaching any kind of emotional investment in it makes about as much sense as declaring you are a fan of a professional craps player, since that is about as much randomness as this sport involves. Some players and a precious few coaches seem to tilt the table, but for everybody else, we’re cheering for a dice roll and then arguing about how the player threw the dice.

It’s all for the gamblers and panem et circenses now. We’re the idiots for caring about it.

Couldn't say it any better. Merry Christmas. Time to check out of this dumpster fire of a season. Really should have just gone to Avatar. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

57 minutes ago, Recovering Chicagoan said:

That’s what I figured. Not ideal to have to play the Bears for a third time even if the Packers had won, especially given the Packers recent track record in the playoffs. This loss still stinks, of course.

If the Packers do end up making the playoffs, it might — might — sting a bit less to lose to the Bears again instead of winning both regular season games but losing to them in the playoffs.

 

The expectation this time would be a loss which is always easier. But I have no doubt they would string everyone along, play 3 good quarters and then have a FG blocked and returned for a touchdown to lose. I dunno. Something. I would genuinely prefer just an all-out collapse to 9-7-1, no playoffs, whimper finish. They aren't going to the Super Bowl and another nap of a playoff game isn't something I need. 

[GAME05]

9 hours ago, adambr2 said:

The fear of the unknown is why we held onto Dom Capers about 3-4 years too long.

Holmgren, too. The new president doesn't change this, it's established Packers philosophy and not unique to the team. Go until it's painfully obvious. Ideally your GM has the security to make long-term moves instead of just win-now ones, and it's a desirable place for top HC candidates when you finally do have an opening. Ben Johnson didn't go to the Jets for good reason and it wasn't the quarterback. Maybe I'm wrong, but my guess is MlF gets his extension and sees more than just one more year. Granted, I was typing "I think Daboll stays" right as he was walking out the door, too.

No reason 9 or 10 wins is some automatic job security. That's kinda baseline for the talent the team has had most of the season. There's "make bad teams good" coaches and there's "Win the big game" coaches, and MlF is in that first camp. Not a bad coach in the slightest, but a bad coach for this particular team. 

[Jopal78]

1 minute ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

The expectation this time would be a loss which is always easier. But I have no doubt they would string everyone along, play 3 good quarters and then have a FG blocked and returned for a touchdown to lose. I dunno. Something. I would genuinely prefer just an all-out collapse to 9-7-1, no playoffs, whimper finish. They aren't going to the Super Bowl and another nap of a playoff game isn't something I need. 

This post could be in the dictionary next to entitled. Sheesh. 

[GAME05]

4 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

The expectation this time would be a loss which is always easier. But I have no doubt they would string everyone along, play 3 good quarters and then have a FG blocked and returned for a touchdown to lose.

Packers have an uncanny ability to never really be better than any team they play.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Just now, Jopal78 said:

This post could be in the dictionary next to entitled. Sheesh. 

Ok guy. The NFL #7 seed is the new NBA #8 seed. I'm glad being the last team in the playoffs is some kind of achievement for you. Some of us would like to actually get to the Super Bowl again, it's been 16 years, it wasn't yesterday. 

We have the reached the excuse-making plateau when people are still saying we should remember the 80s, a period 40-45 years ago, as a reason to be grateful for consistently choking away games with a 90+% win probability. 

We just lost our division championship on a game that reached 99.1% win. And you are giving it the "Aw shucks" treatment. That's not entitlement. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm legitimately convinced that anyone claiming the way the Packers lose games is not unusual is either on their payroll or playing a character of some kind. This is not normal, other teams fans around the league consistently use the Packers as a choking punchline. It's not a spoiled fan base or entitlement. It has become their league wide identity. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

18 minutes ago, GAME05 said:

Holmgren, too. The new president doesn't change this, it's established Packers philosophy and not unique to the team. Go until it's painfully obvious. Ideally your GM has the security to make long-term moves instead of just win-now ones, and it's a desirable place for top HC candidates when you finally do have an opening. Ben Johnson didn't go to the Jets for good reason and it wasn't the quarterback. Maybe I'm wrong, but my guess is MlF gets his extension and sees more than just one more year. Granted, I was typing "I think Daboll stays" right as he was walking out the door, too.

No reason 9 or 10 wins is some automatic job security. That's kinda baseline for the talent the team has had most of the season. There's "make bad teams good" coaches and there's "Win the big game" coaches, and MlF is in that first camp. Not a bad coach in the slightest, but a bad coach for this particula

Holmgren? His second to last season was losing the Super Bowl. He left after the 98 season that ended in a controversial playoff loss in SF. I don't think he fits. If anything, they should have given him the GM job that he wanted rather than letting Mike Sherman have it just a short time later. 

I think LaFleur sucks but I think he will be back. The injuries will earn a mulligan, even though imo they shouldn't, because they still lost a bunch of ridiculous of games prior to then. They can still extend him and then fire him a year later. 

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

1 hour ago, HarveysWBs said:

I think (or maybe just hope) that in twenty years, it will be unconscionable that we as a society allowed and encouraged people to destroy their own brains for our amusement.

Losing provides clarity. Today more than most days, it is clear to me that this sport is a dumb one. Attaching any kind of emotional investment in it makes about as much sense as declaring you are a fan of a professional craps player, since that is about as much randomness as this sport involves. Some players and a precious few coaches seem to tilt the table, but for everybody else, we’re cheering for a dice roll and then arguing about how the player threw the dice.

It’s all for the gamblers and panem et circenses now. We’re the idiots for caring about it.

I severely dialed back my NFL consumption after that loss to the Seahawks in the NFC title game. I'd like to think it was because that was the year the Frontline doc on CTE came out. It probably has just as much to do with the nature of the loss.

I caught the end of the game last night, and, while there was some residual feeling, the biggest thing I focus on is just the nature of the contact. Every play. You have to wonder how sustainable that is, but the cultural reservoir runs deep. It did for boxing way back when too, so who knows.

The real leverage point may come in 2028, with flag coming to the Olympics in LA. Does that sport get on a growth curve that starts to, bit by bit, diminish the NFL? Seems unlikely, but football at all levels feels more and more like a bubble to me. It might take 20 years to pop, but I'd short it long-term if I could.

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, Recovering Chicagoan said:

That’s what I figured. Not ideal to have to play the Bears for a third time even if the Packers had won, especially given the Packers recent track record in the playoffs. This loss still stinks, of course.

If the Packers do end up making the playoffs, it might — might — sting a bit less to lose to the Bears again instead of winning both regular season games but losing to them in the playoffs.

 

No, it will sting insanely bad either way. Losing yesterday won’t take any sting out of having our season ending in Soldier Field next month.

We are approaching a Milwaukee Brewer situation of hoping for one single playoff win against a Chicago team and then anything else that happens is gravy.

This must be what it feels like to be a Bears fan.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

8 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

No, it will sting insanely bad either way. Losing yesterday won’t take any sting out of having our season ending in Soldier Field next month.

We are approaching a Milwaukee Brewer situation of hoping for one single playoff win against a Chicago team and then anything else that happens is gravy.

This must be what it feels like to be a Bears fan.

Playoff loss won't sting me. I am already numb after last night. Honestly it would have been worse. Had they closed it out 16-6 nobody would be overly concerned about playing the Bears, now everyone will expect to lose the game. The Packers would have blown it either way, so at least they prepped us for it. 

Not entirely sure they will even get there though. Baltimore has plenty to play for and Minnesota would love to take us out. And their internal psyche can't possibly be great at the moment.