Official week 7 game thread: at the Washington commodes

[OldSchool101]

Yeah he had a holding call. How the hell does a NT get a holding cal?

Holding his J-strap.

 

[PackerDNA]

The call on Stokes to nullify the bumble return for a touchdown was weak to put it kindly.

 

[tynimiller]

The call on Stokes to nullify the bumble return for a touchdown was weak to put it kindly.

He clearly engaged after 5 and interfered with WR's ability to do his route...if St Juste does that to Lazard our fanbase is screaming bloody murder.

 

[milani]

The defense is partly to blame for being on the field for that many plays as well.

Right. Right. Our Offense had nothing to do with it.

 

[Mondio]

Right. Right. Our Offense had nothing to do with it.

oh, they did. Offense didn't get to run enough plays. But how many 3rd and 6-7+ downs did the defense give up? They had plenty of opportunities to take themselves off the field in that 2nd half and just couldn't do it.

 

[Heyjoe4]

He clearly did it though...such a crazy call

I agree I was just amazed.

 

[milani]

oh, they did. Offense didn't get to run enough plays. But how many 3rd and 6-7+ downs did the defense give up? They had plenty of opportunities to take themselves off the field in that 2nd half and just couldn't do it.

That is true. But anyone in sports knows that the longer and more that a team is on the defensive it is only a matter of time before it cracks. Just like in war there is battle fatigue. The last 5 games our D has been on the field a long, long time especially in the 2nd half. In Tampa one last play ( delay of game ) may have saved us. If it went to OT we probably lose. Against New England we got a terrific punt in regulation to help get us to OT. And the fortune of a 3rd string spur of the moment QB saved us by just a few yards from Nick Folk. The next 3 games our D was gassed. And nothing could save us. For much of 2011-2018 our D did not stop anyone. Our Offense won the games. We did not blame our defense. We just accepted the fact that they were no good.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ok, I'm not a MM or MLF supporter, but I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Has to be the thumb. Till that's healed, Love plays. Let's really see what we have in Love and if MLF can coach without a franchise Qb at the wheel.
Pleeeease win or my tv stations will feature the queens.

The Packers offense would struggle even more with Love starting at quarterback.

I agree, the talent is just not performing. It seems like MLF has lost the team and Rodgers doesn't seem to care much. I don't wanna believe the season is lost this early, but looking at the schedule, that's the conclusion.

As others have mentioned I don't believe MLF has lost the locker room.

What say you about 47 snaps on Offense? Should the Defense be held accountable for an Offense only scoring on 2 drives all Day?

Once again, there's absolutely no doubt the offense is struggling. But the defense, which was considered elite entering the season, doesn't perform up to expectations either.

You continually slight the Defense, yet of the leagues teams playing at least 7 contests, the only Offenses scoring less are Pittsburgh, Denver and Indianapolis

I have no idea where you've got that numbers from but the Packers rank 23rd in points scored in the league. That's definitely not good enough but not as bad as you want to make it look.

and Just 1 other Offense in the entire NFL had less plays per drive.
That was the Jets playing against Denver (5th ranked Defense) 4.08 plays per drive. But even they outscored GB!! This Offense is so bad.. they can make a relatively good Defense look bad!

-The lowly Washington team Offense
(6.55 plays per possession)
-The Packers Offense
(4.7 plays per drive)

Overall the Packers offense ranks 18th in plays per drive with 5.98. Once again, not good enough but not as bad as you suggest.

I mean our defense had two scores if the one hadn't been called back....they essentially had the same amount of scoring drives as the offense...

What's the point of bringing up a play that was negated by a penalty???

Right. Right. Our Offense had nothing to do with it.

I'm not suggesting the offense doesn't deserve any blame for the team struggling but you on the other hand act as if the defense doesn't, something I vehemently disagree with.

Just take a look at the game was the Commanders. Washington faced third and at least eight yards four times and they converted on all of those attempts with one going for a touchdown. With the game on the line with just over two minutes to go the defense wasn't able to get off the field on such a play as well.

There's no reason to blame for the offense for that.

That is true. But anyone in sports knows that the longer and more that a team is on the defensive it is only a matter of time before it cracks. Just like in war there is battle fatigue. The last 5 games our D has been on the field a long, long time especially in the 2nd half. In Tampa one last play ( delay of game ) may have saved us. If it went to OT we probably lose. Against New England we got a terrific punt in regulation to help get us to OT. And the fortune of a 3rd string spur of the moment QB saved us by just a few yards from Nick Folk. The next 3 games our D was gassed. And nothing could save us. For much of 2011-2018 our D did not stop anyone. Our Offense won the games. We did not blame our defense. We just accepted the fact that they were no good.

The Packers defense has been on the field for an average of 59.4 plays per game. That is the third lowest number among all teams in the league. Please tell me how that explains that they supposedly get tired in the second half because of being on the field too much???

 

[milani]

The Packers offense would struggle even more with Love starting at quarterback.



As others have mentioned I don't believe MLF has lost the locker room.



Once again, there's absolutely no doubt the offense is struggling. But the defense, which was considered elite entering the season, doesn't perform up to expectations either.



I have no idea where you've got that numbers from but the Packers rank 23rd in points scored in the league. That's definitely not good enough but not as bad as you want to make it look.



Overall the Packers offense ranks 18th in plays per drive with 5.98. Once again, not good enough but not as bad as you suggest.



What's the point of bringing up a play that was negated by a penalty???



I'm not suggesting the offense doesn't deserve any blame for the team struggling but you on the other hand act as if the defense doesn't, something I vehemently disagree with.

Just take a look at the game was the Commanders. Washington faced third and at least eight yards four times and they converted on all of those attempts with one going for a touchdown. With the game on the line with just over two minutes to go the defense wasn't able to get off the field on such a play as well.

There's no reason to blame for the offense for that.



The Packers defense has been on the field for an average of 59.4 plays per game. That is the third lowest number among all teams in the league. Please tell me how that explains that they supposedly get tired in the second half because of being on the field

The Packers offense would struggle even more with Love starting at quarterback.



As others have mentioned I don't believe MLF has lost the locker room.



Once again, there's absolutely no doubt the offense is struggling. But the defense, which was considered elite entering the season, doesn't perform up to expectations either.



I have no idea where you've got that numbers from but the Packers rank 23rd in points scored in the league. That's definitely not good enough but not as bad as you want to make it look.



Overall the Packers offense ranks 18th in plays per drive with 5.98. Once again, not good enough but not as bad as you suggest.



What's the point of bringing up a play that was negated by a penalty???



I'm not suggesting the offense doesn't deserve any blame for the team struggling but you on the other hand act as if the defense doesn't, something I vehemently disagree with.

Just take a look at the game was the Commanders. Washington faced third and at least eight yards four times and they converted on all of those attempts with one going for a touchdown. With the game on the line with just over two minutes to go the defense wasn't able to get off the field on such a play as well.

There's no reason to blame for the offense for that.



The Packers defense has been on the field for an average of 59.4 plays per game. That is the third lowest number among all teams in the league. Please tell me how that explains that they supposedly get tired in the second half because of being on the field too much???

Your stats average that number. But exclude the Bears game and that number rises. The Bears were on

The Packers offense would struggle even more with Love starting at quarterback.



As others have mentioned I don't believe MLF has lost the locker room.



Once again, there's absolutely no doubt the offense is struggling. But the defense, which was considered elite entering the season, doesn't perform up to expectations either.



I have no idea where you've got that numbers from but the Packers rank 23rd in points scored in the league. That's definitely not good enough but not as bad as you want to make it look.



Overall the Packers offense ranks 18th in plays per drive with 5.98. Once again, not good enough but not as bad as you suggest.



What's the point of bringing up a play that was negated by a penalty???



I'm not suggesting the offense doesn't deserve any blame for the team struggling but you on the other hand act as if the defense doesn't, something I vehemently disagree with.

Just take a look at the game was the Commanders. Washington faced third and at least eight yards four times and they converted on all of those attempts with one going for a touchdown. With the game on the line with just over two minutes to go the defense wasn't able to get off the field on such a play as well.

There's no reason to blame for the offense for that.



The Packers defense has been on the field for an average of 59.4 plays per game. That is the third lowest number among all teams in the league. Please tell me how that explains that they supposedly get tired in the second half because of being on the field too much???

Granted. But take out the Bears game. They were only out there for 41 offensive plays. The other 6 games give us the truer picture.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Granted. But take out the Bears game. They were only out there for 41 offensive plays. The other 6 games give us the truer picture.

Should I take out the game with the lowest number for each other team as well or just for the Packers so it better fits your narrative???

 

[tynimiller]

What's the point of bringing up a play that was negated by a penalty???

Because it was fitting with the discussion being had of course.

 

[gopkrs]

The Packers offense would struggle even more with Love starting at quarterback.

Not sure that is possible.

 

[MadCat]

Not sure that is possible.

It’s possible. I know I’m going to get blasted for saying this, but love him or hate him, and despite the inaccuracy on some of his throws, Rodgers, along with Jones, is probably the only glue holding the offense together right now.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Not sure that is possible.

Then you have a terrifically optimistic view of how Jordan Love would perform throwing the ball to a truly terrible group of receivers. Also, a truly astounding assumption of how the best QB in the NFL just last season fell off in one offseason.

 

[milani]

Should I take out the game with the lowest number for each other team as well or just for the Packers so it better fits your narrative???

One game can skew any team's stats. The Bear game is our one and only close to being a decisive win. The rest of the games give the real picture. And the real picture is that we are 3-4. It can work for the offense as well. What good does a 50 point game do for us if we only score 50 in the next 5 games?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Because it was fitting with the discussion being had of course.

My point is that it doesn't make sense to take any pride in a play negated by a penalty.

Otherwise the offense would look significantly better as well.

One game can skew any team's stats. The Bear game is our one and only close to being a decisive win. The rest of the games give the real picture.

If you take away the Bears game the Packers defense has been on the field for an average of 62.5 plays per game in the other six. Guess what, that still leaves only the Rams and Eagles with a lower average.

And the real picture is that we are 3-4. It can work for the offense as well. What good does a 50 point game do for us if we only score 50 in the next 5 games?

True, but that doesn't refute my point of the defense not being on the field all that
much.

 

[milani]

My point is that it doesn't make sense to take any pride in a play negated by a penalty.

Otherwise the offense would look significantly better as well.



If you take away the Bears game the Packers defense has been on the field for an average of 62.5 plays per game in the other six. Guess what, that still leaves only the Rams and Eagles with a lower average.



True, but that doesn't refute my point of the defense not being on the field all that
much.

You still do not get it. A team is not going to win many games facing 62.5 plays on defense. And we have not. Unless you have a very potent offense. In which case the opponent will not simply try to just move the chains. They will be pressed to either stay in or get back in the game which means they need to strike more quickly.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You still do not get it. A team is not going to win many games facing 62.5 plays on defense.

What??? Do you think the Packers chances of winning games would improve if the defense was on the field for more plays???

 

[milani]

What??? Do you think the Packers chances of winning games would improve if the defense was on the field for more plays???

No. Our Defense could stay off more if our offense stayed on more.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No. Our Defense could stay off more if our offense stayed on more.

Actually you're the one who doesn't get it. There's only one defense in the entire league (Stathead had some data wrong) which has been on the field for an average of less plays per game than the Packers' unit. It's tough to expect to do much better in that regard. Therefore the excuse of them being tired because they're on the field too much is bogus.

 

[PikeBadger]

Actually you're the one who doesn't get it. There's only one defense in the entire league (Stathead had some data wrong) which has been on the field for an average of less plays per game than the Packers' unit. It's tough to expect to do much better in that regard. Therefore the excuse of them being tired because they're on the field too much is bogus.

I have no idea what the stats say but I've found it encouraging that it seems like our defense has quite a few 3 and outs this year. We've had years in the past where we seldom saw teams punt against us.

 

[milani]

I have no idea what the stats say but I've found it encouraging that it seems like our defense has quite a few 3 and outs this year. We've had years in the past where we seldom saw teams punt against us.

This is true because it was a given that if our defense could just make few plays or a few stops that was all that was expected and all that was needed. Our offenses could put up 28 plus. Now that we do not have those offenses any longer someone decided that our defense has to stay on the field for 70 plays and just shut them down. Even the 85 Bears had Walter Payton, Willie Gault, and an outstanding offensive line.

 

[Schultz]

I have no idea what the stats say but I've found it encouraging that it seems like our defense has quite a few 3 and outs this year. We've had years in the past where we seldom saw teams punt against us.

Again that is the defenses fault. We don't want them punting because our punt returner sucks.

 

[milani]

You still do not get it. A team is not going to win many games facing 62.5 plays on defense. And we have not. Unless you have a very potent offense. In which case the opponent will not simply try to just move the chains. They will be pressed to either stay in or get back in the game which means they need to strike more quickly.

Of course the one way to escape that is to force turnovers when you are out there that many plays. Like our 2011 team. They were fundamentally a poor defense but they did have some ball hawkers during the regular season. Opponents knew they had to put up 28 or more so they opened up THEIR game. Unfortunately, when we faced the GMen in the playoffs they out ball hacked US and ended what should have been a SB year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I have no idea what the stats say but I've found it encouraging that it seems like our defense has quite a few 3 and outs this year. We've had years in the past where we seldom saw teams punt against us.

The Packers defense ranks first in the league in three-and-outs forced at 33.8% of the drives. If they don't get off the field after three plays they rank only 18th in the league in forcing a punt afterwards though.

Now that we do not have those offenses any longer someone decided that our defense has to stay on the field for 70 plays and just shut them down.

Of course the one way to escape that is to force turnovers when you are out there that many plays. Like our 2011 team.

I really don't know if there's any way for you to understand it. The Packers defense isn't on the field for many plays compared to other teams. Maybe taking a look at the table below will help you out.

Here's the ranking of defenses in the league based on plays on the field per game this season:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!