Packers Front Office Under Fire

[Mondio]

Excellent! Then one of them is covering Lazard or Adams out of the slot then? Either way, that would have allowed the Packers' offense to mess with the Tampa defense a lot more than they seemed capable of Sunday.

what they needed was a replacement for Jones and 2 tackles. Just 1 more WR with no time to throw anyway, excellent strategy Cotton

 

[Sanguine camper]

I think your argument is a little short-sided. Great QB play absolutely helps more than it hurts in playoff football. But it's more to it than HOF QB + GOOD ROSTER = SB.

Besides Brady, how many HOF QBs recently have been able to get back to win another SB?? Peyton Manning had to leave Indy to captute his second Lombardi and he did no heavy lifting to get it done. Brees couldn't get it done with the Saints. It isn't just a Rodgers/GB issue.

Championship football comes down to coaching and match-ups imo.

I wasn't the biggest McCarthy fan. As an outsider, I always felt he leaned on the Rodgers magic a little too much. I saw him oversee some very talented teams that didn't play up to their talent level, far too often. I also thought he rode with Capers far too long and that led to a few playoff exits as the defense didn't hold up their end of the bargain. So this is not soley on the FO.

Rodgers is irritated and I get it. He's lost his second straight NFCCG...and as a #1 seed no less. But once he takes some time and looks at it objectively, I think he sees there's no better place for him than GB. Besides maybe Linsley, you dont lose much from a MVP offense next year. Jones might sting a little but RBs are a replaceable commoditiy in today's game unless you're a Saquan or a Derrick Henry. Jones's skillset can be replicated in your offense by a cheaper alternative imo.

TB was just a bad match-up for your offense. You give your FO a chance to maybe retool some of the defensive personnel. Get rid of Pettine and dump some draft resources at getting faster, more athletic LB as well as shore up your interior D-Line and you D is should be able to cause more havoc to QBs like Brady. MLF needs to learn and evolve. Use how Bowles was able to bottle up some of his offensive concepts and finds counters. He also needs to be a little more aggressive and assertive with his offense in certain instances. But he is a young coach who is just getting started. His time will come.

But it nowhere near as doom and gloom as some of you want to paint it. You all will once again be SB favorites next year in the NFC. There are ALOT of fanbases that would literally die to be where you all are for just a couple of seasons. Chasing that trophy can definitely grind on a fanbase...I know. We've been chasing #6 for 26 years and counting. We went from being 4-0 in the SBs to being 0-2 in our last two tries. You think it sucks losing in the conference championship?? Try losing your last two SB apparences in gut-wretching fashion. Its all a part of the game though.

We've been getting these type of arguments for 10 years. They have been consistently wrong. The minority of fans on this site who take the more pessimistic side and point out the chronic flaws with the Packers are unfortunately, accurate for ten years running. It's easy to see the soft defenses and terrible special teams. Fixing them, however, seems to be an impossible task for the Packer organization.

 

[GleefulGary]

Excellent! Then one of them is covering Lazard or Adams out of the slot then? Either way, that would have allowed the Packers' offense to mess with the Tampa defense a lot more than they seemed capable of Sunday.

Probably a safety or nickleback is covering the slot. Or the outside CB would travel with, depending on scheme. Tampa typically had Murphy-Bunting in the slot.

LaFleur doesn’t run a lot of 3+ WR sets. Adding a WR doesn’t solve what you think it does.

 

[GleefulGary]

Like...we had Adams in the slot against Tampa. He wasn’t getting covered by a freaking LB lol.

In very basic terms, Tampa was running a 4-2-5 or 3-2-6 the majority of the time. As we almost always have one TE and one RB on the field, guess who the LB’s are covering?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The FO was drafting for the future, not unlike TT did in 2005. We had one of the best offenses in the league this year without drafting one of the young WRs in that class. The offense wasn't great against Tampa but that loss was a team wide effort. In the end Tampa, as a team, out played our Packers on O, D and ST and that is why they are in the SB this year and we are not.

None of which refutes what I said. The FO decided Love was more important than helping the team in 2020 or 2021. I don't agree with that choice, some do, but it's inarguable that other players could have helped more than the 3rd string QB. Hopefully Love can become a HoF player who wins a Super Bowl.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

what they needed was a replacement for Jones and 2 tackles. Just 1 more WR with no time to throw anyway, excellent strategy Cotton

Wow. Just, wow. Yup, the defensive strategy wouldn't have changed a bit with 4 legit receivers forcing the Bucs to play nickel and not be able to discuss blitzes. Offense wouldn't have had better hot reads with another receiver instead of a 3rd string TE on the field either.

 

[longtimefan]

None of which refutes what I said. The FO decided Love was more important than helping the team in 2020 or 2021. I don't agree with that choice, some do, but it's inarguable that other players could have helped more than the 3rd string QB. Hopefully Love can become a HoF player who wins a Super Bowl.

So how is you always forget this was historically one of the best offense the nfl has seen

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Probably a safety or nickleback is covering the slot. Or the outside CB would travel with, depending on scheme. Tampa typically had Murphy-Bunting in the slot.

LaFleur doesn’t run a lot of 3+ WR sets. Adding a WR doesn’t solve what you think it does.

Maybe MLF doesn't run many 3+ receiver sets because he didn't have 3+ receivers worth putting in the field?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So how is you always forget this was historically one of the best offense the nfl has seen

So you're saying it couldn't have been better? Cause that's what it seems like you're saying. It obviously need to be here in the NFCCG.

 

[longtimefan]

So you're saying it couldn't have been better? Cause that's what it seems like you're saying. It obviously need to be here in the NFCCG.

You always side step a question ?
Again why can’t you acknowledge it was one of the best offenses

 

[GleefulGary]

Maybe MLF doesn't run many 3+ receiver sets because he didn't have 3+ receivers worth putting in the field?

Not buying it. He’s talked about it. He runs what he runs. Shanahan is very similar too.

 

[GleefulGary]

Wow. Just, wow. Yup, the defensive strategy wouldn't have changed a bit with 4 legit receivers forcing the Bucs to play nickel and not be able to discuss blitzes. Offense wouldn't have had better hot reads with another receiver instead of a 3rd string TE on the field either.

You should watch the game again.

 

[easyk83]

You should watch the game again.

Maybe some people have receivers mixed up with Offensive Tackles.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So how is you always forget this was historically one of the best offense the nfl has seen

Did they win the Super Bowl? Do they get a trophy for "historically great offense"? Did Love help them this year?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You always side step a question ?
Again why can’t you acknowledge it was one of the best offenses

Cause I'm not arguing that! Obviously it was a PHENOMENAL offense! And what award did they get for that? You can't sidestep a question you were never answering.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You should watch the game again.

Exactly, cause it would have played out exactly the same despite the Packers offense being much different.

 

[GleefulGary]

Exactly, cause it would have played out exactly the same despite the Packers offense being much different.

??

 

[longtimefan]

Didn’t adams have a dropped td?
Didn’t mvs have a td?

 

[Mondio]

Wow. Just, wow. Yup, the defensive strategy wouldn't have changed a bit with 4 legit receivers forcing the Bucs to play nickel and not be able to discuss blitzes. Offense wouldn't have had better hot reads with another receiver instead of a 3rd string TE on the field either.

we played the "just outscore" them game too many times in the past with a younger Aaron Rodgers and 5 WR's on the field. How many Lombardi's did that net us. I've already seen your game play out. Facts are, our Tackles, our RB who's looking for 12+ million per, and a DB cost us this game. We probably would have survived the DB and RB deficits had our Tackles been able to stand in the way a bit better than they did. So keep dreaming.

 

[shockerx]

Go get the big guys early!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

we played the "just outscore" them game too many times in the past with a younger Aaron Rodgers and 5 WR's on the field. How many Lombardi's did that net us. I've already seen your game play out. Facts are, our Tackles, our RB who's looking for 12+ million per, and a DB cost us this game. We probably would have survived the DB and RB deficits had our Tackles been able to stand in the way a bit better than they did. So keep dreaming.

Hold up. I'm arguing that the drafting of Love was a choice by the front office not to help the team this year. Packers could have drafted CB, DE, OT, or WR and that player would certainly have helped more than Love did. Are you disagreeing with that?

 

[Mondio]

Hold up. I'm arguing that the drafting of Love was a choice by the front office not to help the team this year. Packers could have drafted CB, DE, OT, or WR and that player would certainly have helped more than Love did. Are you disagreeing with that?

You hold up, go read your comment on GB having 4 Wrs and forcing Tampa’s hand when it can to defense.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You hold up, go read your comment on GB having 4 Wrs and forcing Tampa’s hand when it can to defense.

Because the discussion was that a receiver would have helped more than Love. Was that not clear? Hopefully now it's clear.

 

[Mondio]

Because the discussion was that a receiver would have helped more than Love. Was that not clear? Hopefully now it's clear.

And I responded, we already played them out score em game, was that not clear. Was it not clear when I said we needed to tackles to play much better than they did and Aaron Jones to play much better than he did.

One of the best offenses in the league and you think they failed because of a WR lol. Go play games elsewhere, it’s getting clear you don’t know this one.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

And I responded, we already played them out score em game, was that not clear. Was it not clear when I said we needed to tackles to play much better than they did and Aaron Jones to play much better than he did.

One of the best offenses in the league and you think they failed because of a WR lol. Go play games elsewhere, it’s getting clear you don’t know this one.

If you don't believe that Higgins or Pittman would have helped the team more than an inactive player then I completely understand why you don't want me in your game; Fantasyland is obviously ruined by bringing reality into it.

Additionally, let me be very clear here, I've stated numerous times that the offense was not the biggest problem in the game, the defense cost us the game. So, imo, a CB or decent interior pass rusher would have been more help than a rookie WR. However, any rookie that had decent playing time would have been more help than a guy who got zero snaps. I'm not sure how else to explain this.