Studs n duds Brazil edition

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
1,629
I'm not sold on our backups though, I don't think they are ready/good enough at the moment. I also don't think our backups are as good as most teams' backups.

Even great teams are going to take a step back when losing the starting QB, even most SB contenders if they lost their starting QB are probably hoping to just be a competitive 500 type football team until the starter comes back.

I haven't looked at the records, but I'm guessing most teams that were successful when losing the starting QB signed a veteran free agent like Cleveland did with Joe Flacco last year.

In addition, while I do think we are a good team with talent and not just a good QB like some seem to think (as if you could win with just a QB, I think that's a ridiculous argument), I do think we aren't the type of team built to win primarily with a dominant defense and running game, and a game-manager type QB. I do think we need to have a QB who is at least an average passer.

I tend to think we do need to sign someone like Tannehill, even if it is just for 3-6 weeks, because you don't want to get off to a very bad start.
This is true. In the Favre years our backups were pretty decent but NEVER got to play more than half a game. The only satisfactory back up in the last 15 years was Matt Flynn. Seems like there are no more Josh McCowns.
 

Sanguine camper

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
2,034
Reaction score
629
Teams lose their starting QB all the time and make the playoffs. If youre going to lose all your games when theyre out - you’re not a good football team. Team has got to step up sack up and play football.
The problem is the Packers win their games through offense. If they had a stout defense and great kicking game, losing the starting qb wouldn't be so devastating. Bottom line is Love needs to get back on the field ASAP. I just don't see the Packers winning more than one game if Love is out 3 or 4 weeks.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
1,629
The problem is the Packers win their games through offense. If they had a stout defense and great kicking game, losing the starting qb wouldn't be so devastating. Bottom line is Love needs to get back on the field ASAP. I just don't see the Packers winning more than one game if Love is out 3 or 4 weeks.
Correct. They are not the team that would win with 148 yards offense and the defense and ST taking over like the Bears today.
 

AKCheese

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
790
My point exactly. This will be a test of our team but it clearly can be done.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
4,743
Reaction score
1,361
If they wanted Tannehill to play backup, why didn't they sign him in the first place instead of Willis? If Willis wasn't good enough to be backup, why sign him?
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,529
Reaction score
5,255
If they wanted Tannehill to play backup, why didn't they sign him in the first place instead of Willis? If Willis wasn't good enough to be backup, why sign him?
Tannehill doesn’t want to just be a backup unless perfect scenario. Makes no sense to sign early for a pure backup and likely never play. This scenario he comes in and might save a playoff team and push for a SB.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
1,629
Tannehill doesn’t want to just be a backup unless perfect scenario. Makes no sense to sign early for a pure backup and likely never play. This scenario he comes in and might save a playoff team and push for a SB.
Had Love suffered a season ender I suspect he would have got his wish.
 

LambeauLombardi

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
780
Reaction score
96
Stokes looked like somebody that's barely played the last 2 years. Felt like he consistently was missing tackles and made no impactful plays I saw. If he struggles, I hope they give Valentine/Balentine a shot.
Love's pocket presence bothered me all night. His awareness of where to step into/out of and awareness of where dlinemen are at is not where it should be. My wife is far from a football expert and she even noticed it.
Besides a few long Jacobs runs, I wasn't satisfied with the run blocking, but that never seems to be a huge strength of this team.
If you would have told me Preston Smith stayed home during the game, I would have maybe believed you. Didn't see him all day. Same went for Kenny Clark until that BS hold on him late in the game.
Mental errors/penalties were complete killers! Some complete BS calls especially on Phily's last drive but we need to do better with that.

I have no idea what his stats were but I thought Emanuel Wilson played well enough for a backup RB. He didn't have much to work with but made the most of each of his touches.
 

lambeaulambo

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
2,614
Reaction score
734
Location
Rest Home
Stokes looked like somebody that's barely played the last 2 years. Felt like he consistently was missing tackles and made no impactful plays I saw. If he struggles, I hope they give Valentine/Balentine a shot.
Love's pocket presence bothered me all night. His awareness of where to step into/out of and awareness of where dlinemen are at is not where it should be. My wife is far from a football expert and she even noticed it.
Besides a few long Jacobs runs, I wasn't satisfied with the run blocking, but that never seems to be a huge strength of this team.
If you would have told me Preston Smith stayed home during the game, I would have maybe believed you. Didn't see him all day. Same went for Kenny Clark until that BS hold on him late in the game.
Mental errors/penalties were complete killers! Some complete BS calls especially on Phily's last drive but we need to do better with that.

I have no idea what his stats were but I thought Emanuel Wilson played well enough for a backup RB. He didn't have much to work with but made the most of each of his touches.
Agreed - this is another outrage.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,224
Reaction score
609
He looked to be catching them napping but got run down from behind. Someone picks up the Wr and he had a lot of yards ahead.

Yeah, his was less bad at least it was an ok idea...the wr, Smith baited him into that
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
1,629
Stokes looked like somebody that's barely played the last 2 years. Felt like he consistently was missing tackles and made no impactful plays I saw. If he struggles, I hope they give Valentine/Balentine a shot.
Love's pocket presence bothered me all night. His awareness of where to step into/out of and awareness of where dlinemen are at is not where it should be. My wife is far from a football expert and she even noticed it.
Besides a few long Jacobs runs, I wasn't satisfied with the run blocking, but that never seems to be a huge strength of this team.
If you would have told me Preston Smith stayed home during the game, I would have maybe believed you. Didn't see him all day. Same went for Kenny Clark until that BS hold on him late in the game.
Mental errors/penalties were complete killers! Some complete BS calls especially on Phily's last drive but we need to do better with that.

I have no idea what his stats were but I thought Emanuel Wilson played well enough for a backup RB. He didn't have much to work with but made the most of each of his touches.
Defensive line was beaten. They graded out low. Kelce had retired and the Eagles new center did not miss much against us.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,181
Reaction score
8,508
Location
Madison, WI
I'm for Clifford starting against the Colts. Not a fan of his overall, but I think he is the better option, at least this coming week. He has been in the system, knows the playbook, and has more continuity with the receivers. Willis hasn't had enough time with the team, to make me think he would give us a better chance to beat the Colts.

I assumed the same as soon as the Packers traded for Willis. However, at the time said it all depended on how fast Willis can get up to speed with the playbook and chemistry with the offense. I think the fact that Willis was dressed and the obvious #2 on Friday night, we have our answer, he's already considered a better option than Clifford. Which tells you just how "good" Clifford is.

We can all P & M about the fact that the Packers don't have a guy like Carson Wentz to step in and play, we don't, at least right now. My only real disappointment in the backup situation is that Gute didn't fix it 4 months ago. Starting a QB, no matter who he is, that has had 2 weeks with the team, is a recipe for disaster.
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
814
Reaction score
780
If I had to guess I would also suspect that Willis was probably seen as an “upside” guy who’d be viewed as no worse than Clifford/Pratt in limited/relief action… but not someone who was meant to be the team's starting QB in week 2. Is it prudent to have your first "backup" QB be a guy who you were hoping wouldn't actually have to play much (if at all!) this season? I don't know, but I don't think it's too uncommon, either. I guess it remains to be seen whether or not they'll ride it out and let Willis take the reigns for the next few weeks, though.
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
954
Studs:
Jayden Reed: I have to say, I think he is inching up to one of the best slot WRs in the league. No sophomore slump for him.
I think that might be it for me. Looking over the numbers and rewatching the highlights, there wasn't what I would say were "studs".
Jacobs had 16 carries for 84 yards giving him a 5.2 avg. That's a solid outing.
McKinney's interception was really nice.
I would say some solid outings, but probably not stud worthy.
Duds:
A huge old dud for Alexander. He continually got burned by AJ Brown. I'm not sure if he was playing out of position or what, but he stunk. Sure, he had a pick, but then decided to put a black eye on that too by bringing it out of the endzone. He needs to step it up. Quit playing hero ball and making it all about him.
McDuffie: I had my qualms with starting this guy to begin with. If they don't start Cooper over him soon it could be a long season of missed tackles and blown coverage. This guy is 2nd team at best.
Love's Injury: Sounds like he could be out for as little as two weeks. It sounds closer to three. The injury news is good from a significance stand point. However, these next three games were very winnable with Love at the helm. Not so much now.

Overall, they could have and should have won this game. One missed FG, missed 2 pt conversion, not cashing in on turnovers, all cost them. I stand by that if you score 29 points you should win the game. Same old sorry defense by the Pack and giving up 34 points. DUD!
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
954
I assumed the same as soon as the Packers traded for Willis. However, at the time said it all depended on how fast Willis can get up to speed with the playbook and chemistry with the offense. I think the fact that Willis was dressed and the obvious #2 on Friday night, we have our answer, he's already considered a better option than Clifford. Which tells you just how "good" Clifford is.

We can all P & M about the fact that the Packers don't have a guy like Carson Wentz to step in and play, we don't, at least right now. My only real disappointment in the backup situation is that Gute didn't fix it 4 months ago. Starting a QB, no matter who he is, that has had 2 weeks with the team, is a recipe for disaster.
It's already been announced that Willis is starting against the Colts.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,181
Reaction score
8,508
Location
Madison, WI
It's already been announced that Willis is starting against the Colts.
Yup. No surprise, since he was the #2 on Friday night. The coaches must think he is ready to go, which tells me that he learned the playbook or at least enough of it, to be ready to go. Says a lot about him and also a lot about Clifford.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,181
Reaction score
8,508
Location
Madison, WI
Actually if you rewatch that, it was GENIUS. If all the DBs around him actually block Smith and he doesn't get him from behind he is easily at the forty or more...guys gotta stop watching and blocking.
It was almost like Nixon's KO return. ;) :roflmao:

I agree with you on what JA was doing there. He was staying "safe" in the EZ, until he saw that he actually had a legit return option. I was hoping that they would replay that from above and show just what he saw.

Most of the rest of the night, I was kind of disappointed in JA. He and A.J. Brown were matched up quite a bit and most of the night, Brown got the better of him. Maybe some of that was the lack of a pass rush, but for what the Packers are paying him, he's been a bit disappointing.
 

AKCheese

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
790
I assumed the same as soon as the Packers traded for Willis. However, at the time said it all depended on how fast Willis can get up to speed with the playbook and chemistry with the offense. I think the fact that Willis was dressed and the obvious #2 on Friday night, we have our answer, he's already considered a better option than Clifford. Which tells you just how "good" Clifford is.

We can all P & M about the fact that the Packers don't have a guy like Carson Wentz to step in and play, we don't, at least right now. My only real disappointment in the backup situation is that Gute didn't fix it 4 months ago. Starting a QB, no matter who he is, that has had 2 weeks with the team, is a recipe for disaster.
to be fair how many people were like “well at least we have Carson Wentz” (or Garner Minshew) … “we’ll be fine”. Time/opportunity for a guy to step up and create another great Packer/NFL story!
 
Top