adambr2

I have to think when the pick was made that they were planning on this year being more of a transition year than a contending year. So they went with who they saw as having the most upside rather than necessarily who they saw helping in 2020. I think had they seen 13-3 coming this year, they might have gone in a different direction. Just my own speculation, nothing else.

Vrabel should have challenged that spot. Jackson's knee clearly came down before the 1st down.

Tennessee really lost a lot of momentum by how that half ended. Giving up that 3rd and 16 deep in Baltimore territory was devastating. Not only did they lose an almost certain scoring chance but ended up giving up one of their own. At least it was only 3, but it could easily be 17 or 20 to 3 instead of 14-6. Big swing.

Saints are thinking, "how did we lose to these guys?"

Sherels is hot garbage.

This is going to take a little bit of the fun out of tomorrow's game for me. It would still be a nice improvement to get back to the NFC title game, but I don't think we have much of a shot of getting past the 49ers. Maybe in Green Bay I'd give us a punchers chance, but not on the road. Our offense is dicey enough when we face mediocre defenses.

Vikings are just sleepwalking. This game shouldn't even be as close as it is.

Vikings are just sleepwalking. This game shouldn't even be as close as it is.

There is no way it could have not had legs. There was no way it was going to be pretty. Based on Favre's choice, here were the Packers' options: 1) Welcome Favre back with open arms. Consequence: Almost assuredly have to trade away a future HOF QB early in his career for another year or two of an aging legend. 2) Have a QB camp competition. Consequence: Enormous locker room distraction all year no matter who wins. Likely forced to trade the loser anyway. 3) Grant Favre his outright release. Consequence: he goes straight to Minnesota. Also, we get nothing for Favre (we used the pick we acquired for him to trade up and draft Clay Matthews who was an essential part of our Super Bowl team in 2010-11). 4) Trade Favre. The consequence was a split fan base, which would have likely happened under any of these scenarios anyway. Could the Packers have said things, done things differently? Maybe a little bit? But the larger drama, the split of the fanbase, it just wasn't avoidable doing something like this. Ultimately the decision was correct and the fallout was inevitable.

There is no way it could have not had legs. There was no way it was going to be pretty. Based on Favre's choice, here were the Packers' options: 1) Welcome Favre back with open arms. Consequence: Almost assuredly have to trade away a future HOF QB early in his career for another year or two of an aging legend. 2) Have a QB camp competition. Consequence: Enormous locker room distraction all year no matter who wins. Likely forced to trade the loser anyway. 3) Grant Favre his outright release. Consequence: he goes straight to Minnesota. Also, we get nothing for Favre (we used the pick we acquired for him to trade up and draft Clay Matthews who was an essential part of our Super Bowl team in 2010-11). 4) Trade Favre. The consequence was a split fan base, which would have likely happened under any of these scenarios anyway. Could the Packers have said things, done things differently? Maybe a little bit? But the larger drama, the split of the fanbase, it just wasn't avoidable doing something like this. Ultimately the decision was correct and the fallout was inevitable.

I almost look at them like Boomer vs Millenial. Favre was the old boomer who was quiet and very old school about some things but demanded respect (i.e, I'm not here to babysit Rodgers or whatever he said) back when Rodgers was drafted. Rodgers was the cocky, brash young millennial. I don't mean this in a negative way toward either, just pointing out the contrast. I think over the years they have come to both appreciate each other more and I think there is probably a good deal of mutual respect from both sides.

I almost look at them like Boomer vs Millenial. Favre was the old boomer who was quiet and very old school about some things but demanded respect (i.e, I'm not here to babysit Rodgers or whatever he said) back when Rodgers was drafted. Rodgers was the cocky, brash young millennial. I don't mean this in a negative way toward either, just pointing out the contrast. I think over the years they have come to both appreciate each other more and I think there is probably a good deal of mutual respect from both sides.

That situation was a mess 99% because of the player you loved. Eh, that’s just simply not true. He was a part of it, sure, but this is just not correct. How not? I appreciate very much what Favre did for the Packers over the years and think he's a good man now in perspective, but the will he/won't he retirement saga had been going on for years every single offseason where he would drag it out long into the offseason. No matter the legacy, a team cannot be held hostage like that by a player every offseason. Team planning, including free agency, drafting, and other budgetary decisions must be made. We put up with it for years and after he announced his retirement we had to plan in that direction. The heir apparent had been here 3 years and we were at the point where if we welcomed Favre back with open arms we were going to need to trade Rodgers and start over our future QB search from scratch. What specifically should the Packers have done differently?

That situation was a mess 99% because of the player you loved. Eh, that’s just simply not true. He was a part of it, sure, but this is just not correct. How not? I appreciate very much what Favre did for the Packers over the years and think he's a good man now in perspective, but the will he/won't he retirement saga had been going on for years every single offseason where he would drag it out long into the offseason. No matter the legacy, a team cannot be held hostage like that by a player every offseason. Team planning, including free agency, drafting, and other budgetary decisions must be made. We put up with it for years and after he announced his retirement we had to plan in that direction. The heir apparent had been here 3 years and we were at the point where if we welcomed Favre back with open arms we were going to need to trade Rodgers and start over our future QB search from scratch. What specifically should the Packers have done differently?

Oof. I've been pleasantly surprised in the end by more Stearns moves than I can count, but this has not been a very exciting offseason on the FA front so far. Would like this a lot more if it were a minor league depth move and not someone they clearly intend to have on their roster.

Sportscenter has been obsolete since the 90s anyway. If I want to see highlights of a game I can do it online rather than watching the whole show to see the one or two highlights that I care about.

I can't imagine spending that kind of coin on Starbucks. If I really want a latte or frappe I'll go into Kwik trip and get a Karuba Gold for $2. $1 if it's Monday. There's nothing superior about Starbucks coffee compared to McDonalds or anywhere else. They're selling their name and their brand. (names like Venti and Grande are an important part of their brand). It's a psychological decision more so than a rational one.

I think when comparing MM to Sean Payton you have to look beyond the side to side resumes, especially when both had HOF level QBs. Look at what Payton has been able to turn Taysom Hill into. That's a big individual win. Is anyone really convinced that Hill would be doing anything more than holding a clipboard if he were here and McCarthy was the HC? Look at how well the Saints' performed with Bridgewater when Brees was out. That's another big individual win for Payton. Part of the problem with McCarthy is that his supposed strength was that of a QB guru, and every time he got a chance to prove himself as such and show the world that this was his team, not Aaron Rodgers', he failed miserably. I can give him a pass for 2013, when they also lost Wallace. They had to call in Matt Flynn and somehow still stumbled to a division title at 8-7-1. So I can give him a pass for that. But when Rodgers' again was lost to a broken collarbone, McCarthy told anyone who would listen that he had years invested in Brett Hundley, and the QB room was exactly where it needed to be. He had a lot of his reputation staked in Brett Hundley, and that was a pretty massive failure for him. It doesn't define his entire career, but it was his chance to step out of the shadow of Aaron Rodgers and prove that he could bring his own things to the table offensively for the Packers, and he failed. I think that was probably the beginning of the end for the relationship between McCarthy and Rodgers as it most likely extinguished the already lowered respect that Rodgers had for his HC, and Rodgers no longer saw MM as anyone but a man riding his coattails for the past decade.

Also, there's nothing special about Pete Carroll. He's not some strategic genius. He's just another head coach among many. If he is one of our four biggest concerns, we should be in good shape. As FTC says, every team at this point is going to have some weapons to concern yourself with. Against the 9ers it would be any of their RBs, George Kittle, and Sanders. Against the Vikings, it would be Cook, Diggs, Thielen, or Rudolph.

1999 was the last time Seattle won in Green Bay. Mike Holmgren vs. Ray Rhodes.

Pick and Save has some really great deals on pizza depending on the coupon offer that week. I've got 5 Digornos in my freezer that were 2.99 each, another week I got 5 screaming sicilian for the same price. I know I've gotten Red Baron under 3 bucks a pie.

Oops, that was supposed to be Vrabel, not Grabel. Edited the title.

Ah. So you might be able to shave 2 minutes but you're not going to really be able to run away with the clock.

Let's say the Packers going into the 4th quarter on Sunday lead the Seahawks in a defensive struggle, 16-7. But the Seahawks have the Packers' backed up in their own territory with plenty of time left. On the first play of the 4th quarter, Rodgers is sacked on 3rd down at his own 1. Suddenly, MLF gets an idea. Since any presnap penalty here is just half the distance to the goal, they're all inconsequential. The Packers take the delay of game and proceed to false start every play all the way down to 5 minutes left in the game. Now Seattle is down 2 possessions with just 5 minutes left. Is this something that could actually occur within the current rules?

To me anyone who doesn't like the matchup might just be afraid because it's Seattle and we have some bad recent memories against them, which I understand. Green Bay matches up fantastically against Seattle compared to Philly, and this is coming from someone who hasn't been optimistic about this team at all. Philly's offensive line can take over a game. If Wentz had played, he could have potentially carved us up especially with two really good TEs. They also stop the run far better than Seattle and get to the quarterback far more often. Seattle is the opposite. The Smith's should have a field day, and Seattle doesn't have any runnings backs to keep you honest with play action, which really plays into our hands. They have a couple solid receivers, but we have good enough corners to match. They dont have TEs like Ertz and Goedert that could give Blake Martinez fits in coverage. On the other side, they also can't stop the run, which is our offensive strength. None of this is any guarantee of victory-- still have to go out and execute. But if we lose, it won't be because the matchup stunk. This is about as good of a matchup as you can have this late in the year.