roadcrew3

After last offseason, I think we all are better off not using the cap as an excuse for players not being retained. This time last year, it was a certainty according to the “cap-experts” that Aaron Jones was walking, Preston Smith would be cut, and the team would look somewhat different. None of that ended up panning out. If the front office deems a player is worth it, they will be back regardless of the cap hurdles that need to be jumped. I’m willing to bet that Adams is one of those guy who they deem as worth it and aren’t gonna let walk for free

Part of Chubbs success I think was attributable to the Packers trying to prevent the big pass play in the second half. When you're up two scores in the second half and have #12, giving up a touchdown is alright as long as you force the drive to take 7-8 minutes. Really hard for a team to come back when it takes them half a quarter to score then Rodgers gets to respond and often times milk the clock himself before putting up points.

I think there's to much talk on the mismatches the 49ers present to the Packers and not enough on the mismatches the Packers give them. 49ers secondary is pretty questionable, Adams should have a huge day again and with that, have a hard time seeing how the 49ers slow down this offense. 49ers may experience some success running the ball but they are going to have to score at least 4 touchdowns to win the game. Settling for FGs won't get the job done like it did against Dallas and I have a hard time seeing Jimmy G consistently finishing their drives, especially if they are playing from behind. The 49ers are good and there is a path for them to win, but that path also includes some self inflicted wounds from GB i.e. turnovers, poor special teams etc. Packers are the better team and even a B performance from them should be enough

I don't necessarily agree with the point differential being indicative of anything since that is largely skewed by the 35 point loss to start the season - which I think we all agree has proven to be a large outlier. I also don't think this team has won many games based on luck...maybe they received favorable bounces that led to wins in SF or AZ, but they outplayed both of those teams in those games and any luck associated with those wins could be offset with bad bounces at MN or at KC. I do agree that they haven't dominated this year like maybe they did at times last year, but overall this team seems to be right where they should be and if they play to their potential on both sides of the ball, tough to see anybody beating them.

Packers are the best team in the NFL and I think this is the year we finally make the Super Bowl, but the 49ers and Bucs will always make me nervous. Bucs offense though seems to be worse then it was a year ago and our D also seems to be better, but their pass rush is still nasty and our banged up line (which has held up well) hasn't been tested with anything close to what the Bucs throw at you. Chicago, Minnesota, Cleveland, Balt all were missing key guys when we matched up against them. Regarding the 49ers, call me crazy but I actually hope Jimmy G gets healthy enough to play. He might be better then Lance right now but my nightmare is watching that team come into Lambeau with Trey Lance at QB and having them RPO us to death like Kaepernick did in 2013. Nothing analytical about this, just past wounds I don't want to resurface.

Being eliminated from the playoffs already, I really think they were putting the ball in Baker's hands to further evaluate the guy and help them decide what they're going to do at the position going forward. Feel like this season it has become clear that he isn't the guy, but think they were giving him another chance to prove something before the offseason where a decision likely needs to be made.

Hot debate going on in a 12 man league I'm in with pretty considerable $$ payout to league winner and second place. 6 teams make the playoffs. On Sunday, a player who was not in the playoffs (and doesn't follow football all that closely to begin with) checked his lineup, saw that Adam Theilen was out, so he dropped him to pick up another WR. One of the teams in the playoffs saw and was able to pick up Theilen and have the claim processed ahead of the Monday night game. Last place in league penalty was determined based on regular season standings so the player who dropped Theilen was setting his lineup for a game that was quite literally meaningless, and a top player like Theilen was dropped to waivers and ultimately added by one of the teams still in contention for the $$. Should the team that claimed Theilen be allowed to play him? League is pretty split - half say that when your out of contention for money, you shouldn't be making any waiver claims. Other half says that's just part of being in a league with guys who don't follow all that closely.

And with Bahktiari seemingly close to a return, along with Alexander and Z. Smith possibly coming back before the end of the season, this team could in theory be hitting its stride at the right time. Agreed. Both the offense and defense have shown signs at various points throughout the year of being really really good units but I think its fair to say this team hasn't really put it all together yet. They've been winning games without playing close to what their ceiling could be. A lot of reasons to be excited if we think Jaire, Z, Jones, and Gary all are back heading into the playoffs.

That is absolutely great news on both players if that is the extent of their injuries. Would expect both will be back before the end of the regular season.

If anything, last year should also show that for a team like the Bucks, health matters way more than home court advantage or seeding. After a long season last year and short offseason, plus add in the players who played in the Olympics, and you have a team full of guys who have played a lot of intense basketball in the past year. Take it easy now, even if it means dropping more games then usual, and hope it saves the guys from running out of gas in the playoffs this year.

My point was that sure the Packers obviously liked Rodgers but at the time it wasn't the slam dunk or the clear cut pick that sometimes it gets made out to be today. Scouts who viewed him favorably are obviously going to be more vocal today than those who didn't given the way his career has played out. If we went back to the first few years after the pick though, the questioning was as strong as it is today regarding Love. Who knows how Love is going to turn out, but if he does end up following a similar career path as Rodgers, then 12-15 years down the road I'm sure the story will drift to sound like the pick was more positive and supported then it actually is today. That was it. The Love pick seems like a big miss right now, but so did the Rodgers pick if we went back to this point in his career.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2014/05/07/nfl-draft-war-rooms Here is actually a better article highlighting just how close the Packers were to not taking Rodgers.

I think this is a bit of revisionist history...Rodgers was highly debated as the top overall pick in the draft coming out so I'm sure plenty of people told Thompson he had to go see the guy. Packers were picking at 24 and Favre was already doing the retirement song and dance so when the potential top pick falls that far, and is a QB, I'm sure plenty of scouts were lobbying for them to take a swing. I haven't heard anybody say before that the Packers went into the draft 1.) targeting Rodgers and 2.) thinking they had a legit shot at him sitting at 24. It's not revisionist history at all. In fact, the idea that the #1 pick that year was some big debate is more folklore than fact. The vast majority of teams had soured on Rodgers leading up to the draft. There was no debate as to who would be picked #1 for quite some time before the draft. The media sold that, but it was not the case. And that should be apparent based on how far he fell. Once SF didn't take him, there was a very limited number of logical landing spots between 1 and 24. Rodgers contemplated not even coming to the green room at all. Here is an excerpt from Gil Brandt: "I was piecing every bit of information together that I could, and if teams were being honest with me -- and they always had been -- I knew the first 23 picks, and none of them included Rodgers. Pick No. 24 was held by the Packers, who, of course, had Brett Favre on their roster." "My job as a recruiter was to call teams and find out who they were going to select in the first round ... They trusted me to keep the information confidential, and I did. It allowed me to do my job of getting the top players to New York for a week of draft festivities ... 10 days out from the beginning of draft week, I got a commitment from Smith, who I had learned was San Francisco's target with the top overall pick. That information was leaking out everywhere. I knew it, Smith knew it and so did Rodgers, who was non-committal in accepting his invitation." The Packers not thinking they had a shot to get him is probably fair. But they absolutely targeted him and I don't know how they weren't targeting a guy they picked? "One day, weeks before the draft, Cortez called Rossley and begged him to come and watch Rodgers throw. “You need to see this guy,” he said. Rossley hadn’t planned on scouting Rodgers, because he was certain he wouldn’t be available for the Packers. But, out of friendship, he made the trip. “He worked out for an hour, and every ball he threw was caught,” Rossley said. “I watched [former Ravens quarterback] Kyle Boller’s Cal workout, and he got on his knees at the 50 and threw one over the goalpost. It was amazing—and Aaron’s workout eclipsed that. I told Ted, 'This guy Rodgers is special.'” “About three or four days before the draft,” he said, “I was convinced that the best thing to do, if he got to us, was draft Aaron Rodgers.” The Packers really were the first team on the board that LOVED Rodgers. Andrew Brandt, one of the Packers executives when they drafted him, said: "In 2005, we had approximately 20 players rated above the first-round line. When we arrived at our pick, at No. 24, the only name left above that line was Rodgers." That hardly suggests they entered the drafting thinking Rodgers was there guy and they weren't leaving without him. He also is quoted as saying: "Aaron won everyone over soon after arriving in Green Bay, but to this day I sometimes think about how the NFL balance of power could be different if that phone had rang with a trade offer during those excruciating 10 minutes" suggesting that even with Rodgers on the board, if they would have gotten a trade offer they likely would have taken it. I think Rodgers fell into the Packers lap as much as anything, but that is not to discredit them for actually making the selection and then properly developing him into what he is now. I hope the same happens with Love, but if we could go back to these message boards in 2005-2007, we would probably find the overwhelming majority saying the same thing about Rodgers as they are about Love now. Hoping a few years down the road we get to remember these takes more fondly..because that means Love turned out being the real deal. Article with the Brandt quotes here for reference. He is a pretty good twitter follow. https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2014/5/7/5691188/andrew-brandt-reflects-on-the-packers-war-room-drafting-aaron-rodgers

I think this is a bit of revisionist history...Rodgers was highly debated as the top overall pick in the draft coming out so I'm sure plenty of people told Thompson he had to go see the guy. Packers were picking at 24 and Favre was already doing the retirement song and dance so when the potential top pick falls that far, and is a QB, I'm sure plenty of scouts were lobbying for them to take a swing. I haven't heard anybody say before that the Packers went into the draft 1.) targeting Rodgers and 2.) thinking they had a legit shot at him sitting at 24.

This offense could be even more fun if you have OBJ and MVS taking the tops off defenses while Adams works over the middle and Jones is leaking into the flats. Would be a nightmare to defend. This seems pretty low risk type of move that I wouldn't mind them taking a swing at - if he comes in and doesn't perform or if he causes issues in the locker room, then you can send him out as fast as you brought him in. The upside potential is great. As with all Packers free agency moves though, I'll believe it when I see him actually in GB.

I share these concerns with you. Fields seems to be progressing week to week and I think he's proving he can be a competent QB in the NFL. I find myself actually rooting for them to win some of these close games they are in - they aren't a threat to the Packers this year but if they are able to hang around .500, then maybe Nagy can point to Fields development as an excuse for them to give him another year. Would hate for them to get a Lafleur/Shanahan/McVay type of guy in there.

The immunized / non-vaccinated storyline aside, this really isn’t a bad situation for the Packers. Obviously not ideal for playoff seeding, but the opportunity to evaluate Love in two real games before the offseason decision time comes is going to be huge. His performance against KC will be revealing, but also the way he carries himself next week, goes about his preparation while considered the starter, and the way he gets his teammates to rally around him is going to provide a lot of direction to the front office about which path to head down this offseason.

I don't disagree, but I think you get back the most value trading Love during the offseason. Also, no chance I trade him unless you have reworked a deal with Rodgers and he is for sure here for the long haul. The risk of trading Love and then having Rodgers leave during the offseason would be way worse then Rodgers leaving and Love not panning out.

Would love to see them be aggressive here. You have to feel pretty good about dealing some of your current draft capital because if Rodgers comes back, those 4-7 round picks might not even make the roster, and if Rodgers decides he's done in Green Bay, you're going to trade him for a boat load of picks anyways.

Dillon averaged almost 4 yards per rush AFTER contact yesterday. Really liking how him and Jones compliment one another. Packers have to have one of the top 1-2 RB combos in the NFL. Maybe second best outside of Cleveland

Hill torn ACL. Tonyan sounds like also suffered a serious injury. Wondering what other moves Gute might have ahead of the deadline next week. With the Rodgers uncertainty beyond this year, I think the front office will continue being aggressive. Names like Evan Engram, Brandin Cooks, Kyle Fuller, even somebody like Marlon Mack all could be nice additions.

Well never know…but really wonder how much Rodgers takes over or audibles in the red zone. Just doesn’t make sense to me that this team can put together such great drives down the field then completely flip on their heads inside the 5 yard line. Would not be surprised at all if this is from Rodgers checking into what he likes

Getting Bahk back will be big…slide EJ back inside and probably will give them more confidence running from under center at the goal line. I think MLF/Rodgers probably don’t fully trust Runyon/Newman to get a good push in those goal to go situations when D has loaded the box

If this team can get healthy it could be one of the best teams GB has had in a while… The D tonight was great and they were down 2 all-pro’s. Could be a legit top unit if you get those guys back

That's your takeaway? Wow, seems like a misearable way to be a fan. I mean he's not wrong, Dillon needs to get the rock inside the 5; frankly this game shouldn't have been in any doubt. Bailout by the defense…after they gave up a 75 yard drive to put them in that position…in a game where the Packers were down a number of starters (multiple All-Pros at that)….when some on this thread were suggesting punting the game to prevent further injuries…and your takeaway is what a bailout?!? Man, yeah things can be improved but WHAT A WIN…this team is only getting better too…not sure how you can be anything but excited