Devin Funchess has opted out of the 2020 season

[Pugger]

I think the team saw a specific type of WR as a big need, but that it never materialized in the draft.

The Packers pulled the trigger on trading up and taking Love only after the 49ers moved up for Aiyuk (who was the 6th WR off the board). My assessment is that Aiyuk was the last guy that they liked at the position in round 1, and that with him gone Love was the last guy they really liked in the first round overall. LaFleur has also talked this season about how they held Reagor in high regard prior to the draft.

They openly talked, after the draft, about how they had targets at WR in mind in the 2nd round, and tried to move up, but nothing materialized.

If you look at the WR corps, and the skill sets there, the thing that's clearly missing is the yards after catch threat. And this offense clearly has a place for such a player (look how Shanahan uses Samuel and Aiyuk, or how LaFleur has brought in and wants to use Austin). I think they saw that as a big need, but weren't able to make it happen.

So they instead chose to invest in players they liked for the future, and some posters still haven't gotten over it.

But yeah, to your point, the team felt like they had certain roles within the WR corps taken care of. And they were right.

1) This offense uses WR's about as little as any offense in the league. Some would argue that that's because they don't have enough talent at the position, but that's obviously not true because the same thing has happened in this basic system elsewhere (e.g. SF, MIN, TEN).

2) MVS has served his purpose to provide a vertical threat to the offense. He's tracking to finish the season near 20 YPR on somewhere from 35-40 catches. He leads the league in air yards per target by a big margin. And when your average depth of target is 17.6 yards down the field, a 52% catch rate is totally normal. He's not a perfect player, but he's fulfilled his role.

3) Given how much he likes to use condensed formations, LaFleur clearly had his eye on bigger players who can work from the slot, like both Funchess and Lazard. And again, the assessment of the latter's potential was correct-- his 16 game pace is 820 and 6.

So the position was not the black hole that a lot of people thought that it was. Gute/Petals understood better than us what they had, and what they wanted to do on offense. There's work to be done there, to be sure. But at this point fans are having to get pretty creative to justify all the pissing and moaning that's gone on since May.

I have often stated in other threads here and on other Packers forums that this past draft just didn't fall for us to take a WR where we were picking and couldn't find a partner to enable us to move up in subsequent rounds. I was also speculating earlier than had Funchess played perhaps some of this WR talk wouldn't still be discussed.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Quick question - if the Seahags win the West and have a record identical to the Packers, say 12-4, who would get the bye? Thanks all.

 

[Pugger]

Good comments on what all was involved in the Packers' last draft. The typical fan, that would be me, saw a WR-rich draft and a need for a #2 behind Adams. As you note, it's not that simple. I think if Aiyuk had lasted a little longer they may have tried to get him in RD 1. But it makes no sense to take a guy too high simply because of need.

And this WR group has been good enough. To me, MVS has improved a bit and Lazard has stayed about the same. What is pointed out and what is really needed is a WR who can bring YAC. Surprisingly, Adams isn't particularly good at it. Maybe that's because he's double teamed so much, but he doesn't seem to be a big threat once he's caught the ball. He makes up for that with excellent route running and excellent hands.

As for Love, still not sure why Gluten thought he needed a QB that badly. If it was done, even in part, to light a fire under Rodgers it's worked. Homeboy opinions aside, I do think #12 is the leading MVP candidate. When he plays well, the Packers win.

On to the next game. A win against the Titans would be big for a lot of reasons - shut up the naysayers, build confidence heading into the playoffs, and lock down the bye. The Packers usually play to the level of their competition, so it should be a good game. IMO they win by selling out to stop or slow Henry. Bring Amos up more often as the dime linebacker, keep Henry under 100 yds. Make Tannehill win it by being better than Rodgers at home. In other words, don't play the Titans like the last match with the Vikes and Cook.

A lot of folks think the Titans might run over us but from what I can gather reading Titan forums and checking team stats their defense is one of the worst in the league - a lot more porous than ours is. If we execute and don't turn it over on offense we should be victorious.

 

[Pugger]

Quick question - if the Seahags win the West and have a record identical to the Packers, say 12-4, who would get the bye? Thanks all.

I checked. If we have an identical W-L record after week 17 we would also have the better conference record. Right now we are 9-2 and they are 7-3. They have to play the Rams at home this Sunday and at SF in week 17. They have to win out and we have to lose to Chicago to lose the #1 seed.

https://www.nfl.com/standings/conference/2020/reg/

 

[Mondio]

The problem is, when teams keep Rodgers off the field with the run game, large chunks of game time disappear and keeps the offense from finding its flow.

we’ve seen this offense when it doesn’t get going and it can stay stuck in a rut for a few possessions in a row. If the other team is eating up game clock suddenly there’s none left. I don’t care how bad their defense is as time off the field hurts our offense too

 

[Heyjoe4]

I checked. If we have an identical W-L record after week 17 we would also have the better conference record. Right now we are 9-2 and they are 7-3. They have to play the Rams at home this Sunday and at SF in week 17. They have to win out and we have to lose to Chicago to lose the #1 seed.

https://www.nfl.com/standings/conference/2020/reg/

Thank you so much Pugger, I really appreciate your quick reply. Things are setting up nicely for the path to the SB to go through Lambeau. I do hope they beat the Titans and shut up some of the naysayers. They may not need the win to keep the #1 seed, but it would be a huge win heading into the playoffs.

 

[Heyjoe4]

A lot of folks think the Titans might run over us but from what I can gather reading Titan forums and checking team stats their defense is one of the worst in the league - a lot more porous than ours is. If we execute and don't turn it over on offense we should be victorious.

I didn't know that, useful info. The key will be to play a full 60 minutes. I still think the game plan should focus on shutting Henry down, or slowing him down, and make Tannehill beat Rodgers in a shootout. I like our odds in that situation.

 

[Poppa San]

Thank you so much Pugger, I really appreciate your quick reply. Things are setting up nicely for the path to the SB to go through Lambeau. I do hope they beat the Titans and shut up some of the naysayers. They may not need the win to keep the #1 seed, but it would be a huge win heading into the playoffs.

Need to know what happens to NO in the 3-way scenario. We have an entire thread devoted to the situation. https://www.packerforum.com/threads/bears-game-matters-titans-not-so-much.83806/

 

[Heyjoe4]

Need to know what happens to NO in the 3-way scenario. We have an entire thread devoted to the situation. https://www.packerforum.com/threads/bears-game-matters-titans-not-so-much.83806/

Need to know what happens to NO in the 3-way scenario. We have an entire thread devoted to the situation. https://www.packerforum.com/threads/bears-game-matters-titans-not-so-much.83806/

Thanks Poppa, I hadn't seen this thread. So we're in the uncomfortable position of rooting for the Queens this afternoon against the Saints? I mean I can do it but it just feels so unnatural.

On the subject of the Saints, I don't know quite what to make of them this year. Our week 3 win seemed easy, and then they went on a tear. Now Brees returns with like 5,000 fractured ribs and one lung and puts them within 3 pts of the Chiefs? Is this gonna be the team nobody wants to play in the post season? IMO that team is the Bucs but there's always room for another. We'll see.

 

[Dantés]

Interestingly those teams you mentioned lack talent after the top two receivers at the position as well.

Rodgers is the Packers' best player. The issue being that an opponent limiting Adams' contribution results in #12 and therefore the entire offense struggling at times though.

The wide receivers were definitely part of the problem vs. the Bucs. One of the turnovers was a pass Adams wasn't able to hold on to, deflecting it into the hands of a defender.

So do you think it's a coincidence that the teams that run offenses most similar to the Packers don't use a lot of wide receivers?

Can you show me a pattern this season where Adams was out and/or not the leading receiver and that meant Rodgers struggled? Or can you explain why the team has performed so well under that circumstance?

Yes, Adams' drop that led to an INT was a huge part of the problem against the Bucs. But I fail to see how that supports the case that the Packers are crippled by a lack of receiver talent. Are you suggesting that Adams is the problem?

 

[Dantés]

Good comments on what all was involved in the Packers' last draft. The typical fan, that would be me, saw a WR-rich draft and a need for a #2 behind Adams. As you note, it's not that simple. I think if Aiyuk had lasted a little longer they may have tried to get him in RD 1. But it makes no sense to take a guy too high simply because of need.

And this WR group has been good enough. To me, MVS has improved a bit and Lazard has stayed about the same. What is pointed out and what is really needed is a WR who can bring YAC. Surprisingly, Adams isn't particularly good at it. Maybe that's because he's double teamed so much, but he doesn't seem to be a big threat once he's caught the ball. He makes up for that with excellent route running and excellent hands.

As for Love, still not sure why Gluten thought he needed a QB that badly. If it was done, even in part, to light a fire under Rodgers it's worked. Homeboy opinions aside, I do think #12 is the leading MVP candidate. When he plays well, the Packers win.

On to the next game. A win against the Titans would be big for a lot of reasons - shut up the naysayers, build confidence heading into the playoffs, and lock down the bye. The Packers usually play to the level of their competition, so it should be a good game. IMO they win by selling out to stop or slow Henry. Bring Amos up more often as the dime linebacker, keep Henry under 100 yds. Make Tannehill win it by being better than Rodgers at home. In other words, don't play the Titans like the last match with the Vikes and Cook.

I think they drafted Love because they really liked him, weren't enamored with the other options left, and don't plan to be picking high enough to grab a blue chip QB prospect any time soon. I think they knew the timing wasn't ideal by any stretch, but the pros outweighed the cons in their own assessment.

I would argue that they beat the Titans by scoring early and often and game scripting the Titans out of their preferred design.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

A lot of folks think the Titans might run over us but from what I can gather reading Titan forums and checking team stats their defense is one of the worst in the league - a lot more porous than ours is. If we execute and don't turn it over on offense we should be victorious.

It's true the Titans defense is worse than the Packers' one but in my opinion that doesn't change anything about their approach on offense. They will try to run the ball, keeping Rodgers off the field to help out their defense.

The Packers need to take an early lead to possible get them out of their comfort zone on offense.

So do you think it's a coincidence that the teams that run offenses most similar to the Packers don't use a lot of wide receivers?

I don't think it's coincidence but that a lack of talent at wide receiver factors into those teams not using a lot of three or more WR sets.

Can you show me a pattern this season where Adams was out and/or not the leading receiver and that meant Rodgers struggled? Or can you explain why the team has performed so well under that circumstance?

Once again, take a look at the Bucs and Panthers games for evidence of the Packers offense struggling once opponent are able to limit Adams' impact.

Yes, Adams' drop that led to an INT was a huge part of the problem against the Bucs. But I fail to see how that supports the case that the Packers are crippled by a lack of receiver talent. Are you suggesting that Adams is the problem?

Adams is part of the wide receiving corps. While he's definitely not the problem he contributed to the entire group being an issue at Tampa.

 

[Pugger]

I'm watching the game in New Orleans (come on MN) and Buck said if the Saints, seachickens and us are all tied he said NO

I think they drafted Love because they really liked him, weren't enamored with the other options left, and don't plan to be picking high enough to grab a blue chip QB prospect any time soon. I think they knew the timing wasn't ideal by any stretch, but the pros outweighed the cons in their own assessment.

I would argue that they beat the Titans by scoring early and often and game scripting the Titans out of their preferred design.

Yes, if we can get a 2 score lead it might force them to have to abandon what they do best and force them into a shootout with Rodgers and friends.

 

[gopkrs]

The Packers need to take an early lead to possible get them out of their comfort zone on offense.

And then keep playing our D. I mean, no prevent crap.

 

[Mondio]

Considering our history, if I'm the Titans, nothing takes me out of my game plan. Early leads disappear with ease when the 2nd half comes around. We give up yards in chunks in the run and pass game. The more they keep the ball, the less effective our offense becomes. Our "make them run a lot of plays and make mistakes" often comes back to bite us when we commit 5 penalties in a drive resulting in first downs (extreme example I know, but you get the point). That's if we're not giving up 8 yards a run to Henry.

I think we'll do ok on defense, but considering recent history, I don't know why a team with an effective running game would ever feel stressed about the score at any point against GB. Early leads are great, but they leave so much time to recover and the Titans are clearly good enough to recover from a 21pt deficit in the 1st quarter. Late in the game maybe? but then that means we've been limiting their offense much of the day I guess, but I don't foresee the Titans leaving their game plan even down 2 scores heading into the 4th.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm watching the game in New Orleans (come on MN) and Buck said if the Saints, seachickens and us are all tied he said NO

I don't believe that is the case and could only happen if we won this weekend and lost next Sunday. The most important game for the Packers to win is the one against the Bears. Even if we lose tomorrow, but beat the Bears and the Seahawks and Saints both win their remaining games, we win the 3 way tie breaker due to our NFC conference record being better than the SeaHags, tied with the Saints, but we win the tie breaker with the Saints due to our one on one win over them.

Let's just beat the damn Titans, have the Rams win and we lock up the #1 Seed, the Bears game becomes meaningless for us.

I really wish the Vikings had basically eliminated the Bears from contention last week, but they didn't. So next weeks game might be even more important to the Bears than it is for the Packers. I'm pulling for the following teams to win this weekend:

• Packers
• Rams
• Vikings
• Cardinals
• Jaguars

 

[longtimefan]

I'm watching the game in New Orleans (come on MN) and Buck said if the Saints, seachickens and us are all tied he said NO


Yes, if we can get a 2 score lead it might force them to have to abandon what they do best and force them into a shootout with Rodgers and friends.

He did say that..

Normally their stat guys are right on..

 

[PackAttack12]

I think many completely fail to understand the true impact of a ultra sharp Aaron Rodgers. The performance of the offense has a lot to do with LaFleur, but it mostly has to do with Rodgers upping his level of play 3 or 4 notches. The guy basically flipped 2016 around on a dime by a stretch of play that I still think could be the best QB play I've ever seen to end the year. Nothing changed in 2016, except Rodgers went from a really good QB to playing like one of the best ever.

As I've mentioned many times, the offense was always going to look better with another year of seasoning and gaining more familiarity with the scheme. But while Rodgers was good last season, he's kicked into God mode this season. That is the single biggest reason for the transformation of the offense.

This is all a credit to LaFleur's scheme, and Rodgers orchestrating it to perfection. But again, I'll say this:

Adams is a flat out stud. Nothing else to mention here.

Jones is really, really good, but not among the top echelon backs in the game.

Williams is solid and steady.

Tonyan has been pretty good.

Lazard inconsistent. MVS shaky. EQSB almost no impact. Turner serviceable in spots.

Can the Packers win the Super Bowl? Of course. But I really, really worry about certain matchups that include Rodgers getting pressured with 5 or less, teams locking up Adams, and forcing Rodgers into other progressions. This will require guys like MVS, Lazard, Tonyan, etc. to really play big.

For the most part, I have not seen near enough consistent play from those guys that give me confidence in such a scenario. Tonyan has been really solid and quite honestly gives me more hope than the others, but it hasn't been proven in high pressure situations yet.

I'm not completely happy with the WR room, mostly because I feel as if not enough was done to bring in guys that could push Lazard and MVS for more snaps. In fairness, Funchess did opt out, but that was purely a lightening in the bottle type signing with just as much bust potential as boom. That's what the hopes of the position group hinged on as far as more talent to compete.

In my opinion, not enough was done. But...the Packers will have, in all likelihood, two home games to get to the Super Bowl. Catch some good matchups and get some really great contributions from guys who have been inconsistent all year long is a possibility. It's also possible that those guys really have a letdown and are ultimately the demise of the squad. Time will tell.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think many completely fail to understand the true impact of a ultra sharp Aaron Rodgers.

Good post on your part. I would just add this article, which I posted in the AR performance thread.

Opinion: Aaron Rodgers views himself as worthy of MVP honors – and here's why he is right | News Break

I keep trying to imagine what the Packer offense would look like with say a Mitch Trubisky or even a Kirk Cousins and it isn't very good.

 

[Dantés]

I don't think it's coincidence but that a lack of talent at wide receiver factors into those teams not using a lot of three or more WR sets.

Once again, take a look at the Bucs and Panthers games for evidence of the Packers offense struggling once opponent are able to limit Adams' impact.

Adams is part of the wide receiving corps. While he's definitely not the problem he contributed to the entire group being an issue at Tampa.

This is the confirmation bias that I've been talking about.

Teams that run this offense are nearly all using 3 or 4 WR sets less than anyone in the league, which is a clear indicator that it's part of the design of the offense. And yet the manufactured explanation is a lack of WR talent.

The Packers offense, and Rodgers in particular, is exceptionally effective all season when Adams is out or not the leading receiver. And yet the manufactured explanation is a lack of WR talent.

The Packers' elite WR causes an interception two months ago and that's used as evidence that the WR corps was the problem, which makes no sense at all.

 

[Dantés]

I think many completely fail to understand the true impact of a ultra sharp Aaron Rodgers. The performance of the offense has a lot to do with LaFleur, but it mostly has to do with Rodgers upping his level of play 3 or 4 notches. The guy basically flipped 2016 around on a dime by a stretch of play that I still think could be the best QB play I've ever seen to end the year. Nothing changed in 2016, except Rodgers went from a really good QB to playing like one of the best ever.

As I've mentioned many times, the offense was always going to look better with another year of seasoning and gaining more familiarity with the scheme. But while Rodgers was good last season, he's kicked into God mode this season. That is the single biggest reason for the transformation of the offense.

This is all a credit to LaFleur's scheme, and Rodgers orchestrating it to perfection. But again, I'll say this:

Adams is a flat out stud. Nothing else to mention here.

Jones is really, really good, but not among the top echelon backs in the game.

Williams is solid and steady.

Tonyan has been pretty good.

Lazard inconsistent. MVS shaky. EQSB almost no impact. Turner serviceable in spots.

Can the Packers win the Super Bowl? Of course. But I really, really worry about certain matchups that include Rodgers getting pressured with 5 or less, teams locking up Adams, and forcing Rodgers into other progressions. This will require guys like MVS, Lazard, Tonyan, etc. to really play big.

For the most part, I have not seen near enough consistent play from those guys that give me confidence in such a scenario. Tonyan has been really solid and quite honestly gives me more hope than the others, but it hasn't been proven in high pressure situations yet.

I'm not completely happy with the WR room, mostly because I feel as if not enough was done to bring in guys that could push Lazard and MVS for more snaps. In fairness, Funchess did opt out, but that was purely a lightening in the bottle type signing with just as much bust potential as boom. That's what the hopes of the position group hinged on as far as more talent to compete.

In my opinion, not enough was done. But...the Packers will have, in all likelihood, two home games to get to the Super Bowl. Catch some good matchups and get some really great contributions from guys who have been inconsistent all year long is a possibility. It's also possible that those guys really have a letdown and are ultimately the demise of the squad. Time will tell.

I don't think anyone is completely happy with the WR room. And I don't think anyone was thrilled that more was not accomplished in the off-season.

But the failure to spend a high draft pick on the WR position just has not hurt the Packers the way a lot of people thought it might. Their offensive design doesn't use a lot of WR's, and the supporting cast guys have been fine. Rodgers has bought into the system and is executing it at an extremely high level. They've scoring 434 points this season, which is 3rd (the Chiefs have scored 435 and the Titans 436).

Rodgers is playing at an elite level, but he also has advantages working for him. The scheme is efficient, the play calling is strong, the offensive line is among the league's best, the running game is top 10, and the backfield is very QB friendly (Jones and Williams both strong receivers and pass protectors).

And people also just don't seem to want to admit that the supporting receivers, while all certainly flawed, have made significant contributions to the offense. Lazard has been targeted 11 times on 3rd down this season and had 9 catches for 9 first downs and over 24 yards per catch. MVS leads the league in air yards per target (17.6) and yards per reception (19.5). He's undoubtedly a low volume player, and has real weaknesses in his game, but that vertical element really matters to the offense.

And yet there are posters with the same refrain every week, talking about the receivers and predicting the team's demise based on the receivers. They're shoe-horning whatever happens into that narrative. It's silly.

 

[Heyjoe4]

A lot of folks think the Titans might run over us but from what I can gather reading Titan forums and checking team stats their defense is one of the worst in the league - a lot more porous than ours is. If we execute and don't turn it over on offense we should be victorious.

One way to beat them is to build a three score lead and force them out of the run game. Not easy to do but it's one way.

Or sell out to stop Henry, thinking Rodgers beats Tannehill in a shootout.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I don't think anyone is completely happy with the WR room. And I don't think anyone was thrilled that more was not accomplished in the off-season.

But the failure to spend a high draft pick on the WR position just has not hurt the Packers the way a lot of people thought it might. Their offensive design doesn't use a lot of WR's, and the supporting cast guys have been fine. Rodgers has bought into the system and is executing it at an extremely high level. They've scoring 434 points this season, which is 3rd (the Chiefs have scored 435 and the Titans 436).

Rodgers is playing at an elite level, but he also has advantages working for him. The scheme is efficient, the play calling is strong, the offensive line is among the league's best, the running game is top 10, and the backfield is very QB friendly (Jones and Williams both strong receivers and pass protectors).

And people also just don't seem to want to admit that the supporting receivers, while all certainly flawed, have made significant contributions to the offense. Lazard has been targeted 11 times on 3rd down this season and had 9 catches for 9 first downs and over 24 yards per catch. MVS leads the league in air yards per target (17.6) and yards per reception (19.5). He's undoubtedly a low volume player, and has real weaknesses in his game, but that vertical element really matters to the offense.

And yet there are posters with the same refrain every week, talking about the receivers and predicting the team's demise based on the receivers. They're shoe-horning whatever happens into that narrative. It's silly.

It's even more silly for a team with an 11-3 record and an all-but-assured first round bye.

 

[PackAttack12]

I don't think anyone is completely happy with the WR room. And I don't think anyone was thrilled that more was not accomplished in the off-season.

But the failure to spend a high draft pick on the WR position just has not hurt the Packers the way a lot of people thought it might. Their offensive design doesn't use a lot of WR's, and the supporting cast guys have been fine. Rodgers has bought into the system and is executing it at an extremely high level. They've scoring 434 points this season, which is 3rd (the Chiefs have scored 435 and the Titans 436).

Rodgers is playing at an elite level, but he also has advantages working for him. The scheme is efficient, the play calling is strong, the offensive line is among the league's best, the running game is top 10, and the backfield is very QB friendly (Jones and Williams both strong receivers and pass protectors).

And people also just don't seem to want to admit that the supporting receivers, while all certainly flawed, have made significant contributions to the offense. Lazard has been targeted 11 times on 3rd down this season and had 9 catches for 9 first downs and over 24 yards per catch. MVS leads the league in air yards per target (17.6) and yards per reception (19.5). He's undoubtedly a low volume player, and has real weaknesses in his game, but that vertical element really matters to the offense.

And yet there are posters with the same refrain every week, talking about the receivers and predicting the team's demise based on the receivers. They're shoe-horning whatever happens into that narrative. It's silly.

What's silly at times is straddling both sides of the fence. Admitting that there are serious flaws in the WR room, but because some feel others are too exuberant in their critiques, they are consequently shoehorning and throwing hissy fits. In your critiques, you have to hedge by saying well it isn't great, but let me attempt to show you that it's "fine".

Stats can be cherry picked to death all day long. And then there's something called watching the games and seeing MVS drop bunnies that kill drives. Fumbling the ball when the game is on the line. But thank goodness for his air yards. I'm in no way diminishing his importance as a vertical threat and as a run blocker, but there are far more elements of his game that deserve scrutiny.

So the Packers don't use a lot of wide receivers and the other guys have been fine. But by your admission they liked Reagor, they liked Aiyuk, but since they didn't get one of those two guys the search should be over. The Packers don't use a lot of wide receivers, but they were in the hunt for one at the trade deadline this season. To me that seems to suggest they aren't satisfied with what they have, despite MVS and others performing at a "fine" clip.

But instead of allocating a legitimate resource to improving upon the position group, lets take flyers on Begelton, let's run back the Darrius Shepherd experiment since it went so well last season, let's keep Kumerow on board only to release him before the season starts even though Rodgers likes him and feels he can produce (remember last year when Rodgers said can we get 13 on the field in the Detroit game?), lets sign Funchess, a big time commodity after he sat on the market for over two weeks. Other NFL teams who could've signed him said "nah, we good". But the Packers say hold my beer. Then shop for guys like Taylor and Fulgham on the clearance rack.

Now. With every bit of this being said, I could stand corrected if postseason success is presented to me. I've never had an issue with admitting that I'm wrong about anything. Some people in my life would gladly tell you that I'm never right about much of anything , but I simply believe it's a bigger issue than you do. And that should be okay. But it doesn't mean that it's a silly exercise to dare pointing out the flaws with the WR room and not clinging to an air distance stat to debunk all of the skepticism.

 

[PackAttack12]

It's even more silly for a team with an 11-3 record and an all-but-assured first round bye.

Had that last year and got pantsed in the NFC Championship game. I fail to see your point.