Studs n Duds vs The Bears

[Firethorn1001]

You're still going to have a hard time convincing me that going to LA or Washington wouldn't have been preferable to going to Philly.

2 other coaches didn't care where they went or who they played. LA rested and dropped to #4 and Washington pulled Daniels at halftime when he could have returned. So.. this isn't just a MLF thing. Other coaches did the same thing so hopefully you disagree with that just as vehemently.

 

[milani]

I guess the d coach just gets scared. Just absurd. 3 man rush and Valentine said he played where he was told. Chicken **** defense

Nothing like the old 4th and 26th defense. It does it every time!

 

[OldSchool101]

And Watson, let's be real...God bless the guy but he was probably just as likely to get injured by a strong breeze on the tarmac upon arriving in Philly as he was getting hurt by suiting up today. I don't know if there's any degree of "load management" that can prevent him from picking up random knocks at this point.

Amen. Not that we ever want to lose a player like Watson. However in the first matchup he had 3 catches for 13 yards. Any substantial affect was only an indirect one as a deep threat. We plugged Reed regular and we out rushed Philly in both yards per and total yards.
Current forecast looks pretty reasonable for this time of year. Around 36 and Mostly Sunny at Kickoff and with a Low of 27 degrees I’d surmise around 33 at the end of the game.

 

[Magooch]

2 other coaches didn't care where they went or who they played. LA rested and dropped to #4 and Washington pulled Daniels at halftime when he could have returned. So.. this isn't just a MLF thing. Other coaches did the same thing so hopefully you disagree with that just as vehemently.

1. Dan Quinn straight up said he wasn’t planning on benching Daniels and only did so out of precaution due to leg soreness. Love “could have returned” too so I don’t know what bearing that has.
2. I do disagree with that approach for LA
3. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy

 

[Firethorn1001]

1. Dan Quinn straight up said he wasn’t planning on benching Daniels and only did so out of precaution due to leg soreness. Love “could have returned” too so I don’t know what bearing that has.
2. I do disagree with that approach for LA
3. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy

1. Determination of both instances meant that the Health of QB > seeding. The game was to be in the playoffs, pretty sure both would have been out there.
2. Good. At least you aren't coming at it that MLF is an idiot for not trying harder for seeding and it was all important whereas the the other were geniuses.
3. No idea how my statement is an appeal to popularity fallacy when I have no idea on which side of the fence the vast majority of the public lies.

 

[pacmaniac]

I'll say this: We're due for a good game.

That's called the gambler's fallacy.

 

[rmontro]

That's called the gambler's fallacy.

Not entirely. This isn't a roll of the dice, there's a human nature factor at play.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Let me ask this question. If GB was at their own 11 yard line needing a FG to Win and they had 3 Timeouts and 30 seconds, would we run up the middle for +4 and then let the clock run down and expire?
Then why did we kneel on it before Halftime?? That’s exactly what happened. We had at maximum 5 plays of 5-6 seconds each and only 3/5 would need to get out of bounds. (2 Timeouts+1 for Teams).

I think MLF did the right thing NOT to push things there right before half. Too many bad things can happen from your own 11 yard line. Pick 6, any turnover, 3 and out and short punt/long return. Unless you are down by multiple scores or have the ball past the 30, I'm fine with sitting on it and not risking giving the other team points.

Asking if the Packers would do things different if it was the 4th Q and they needed a FG to win, is not the same situation, by any stretch of the means.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah, I could see us beating Philly and Detroit, only to lose to the Rams in LA. That would be about our luck.

I would be fine with that, over losing to Philly and being done.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

This has been a reoccurring theme .if the other team has the ball, with under 2 minutes in a close game, the Packers defense will fold!

What I find confusing is that up until this season, for the most part I thought ML called good games. I forget who said it earlier but it I agree, it may be that ML just does not have the skills to call the offensive plays and manage the whole team. I wish he would try giving up control and see what happens. Can they do worse than they are doing now?

 

[pacmaniac]

Not entirely. This isn't a roll of the dice, there's a human nature factor at play.

Humans are more predictable than dice. We've lost 5 straight times to 14+ win teams, there's no reason why we can't lose 6 straight. People thought we were due for a win against the Vikings a couple weeks ago. What about the Bears - weren't they due for a win against us 1 or 2 seasons ago? Weren't the Packers due for a win in the playoffs against the 49ers 3 seasons ago?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'd honestly defend playing Watson in this game. He missed a few games and this was an easy way to ease him into shape before the playoffs.

If it takes playing in a game to "get Watson into shape", the Packer coaches and training staff are really sleeping behind the wheel. I would buy that if he was a rookie and hadn't played in an NFL game before. I just don't see how playing on Sunday was beneficial to Watson's health.

What happened to Watson and Love are the risks you take on every Sunday. Whether it happened against the Bears or the Eagles isn't a given, its an odds thing. So I have to ask which game would you have preferred to have Watson playing in, if you could only pick one?

 

[Pugger]

I am going to disagree, which I did way before the game was played.

Even had the Packers controlled their own destiny with a win, which they didn't, moving up from 7 to 6 for me wasn't worth risking injuries. I would have rested all my top starters and not risked injuries.

Watson was coming off an injury, playing him was plain and simple...stupid IMO. Should have given him another week of rest.

Love's injury, whether it was just a scare or something that will effect his play against the Eagles (if he can play) goes to show you what can happen, on any given play.

Sorry, nobody can EVER convince me that the Packers should have played their most important starters yesterday. The results proved my point and even had the Packers won, my point would have been correct.

Love is most likely going to just fine. Watson hurt his knee in a non-contact move. He could have done that in practice this week. Any player can get hurt in games or at practice. It comes with the territory.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What I find confusing is that up until this season, for the most part I thought ML called good games. I forget who said it earlier but it I agree, it may be that ML just does not have the skills to call the offensive plays and manage the whole team. I wish he would try giving up control and see what happens. Can they do worse than they are doing now?

I've been critical of MLF most of the season when it comes to his clock management, challenges and play calling. Like I have said, brilliant offensive mind and I think a good guy to have as your HC coach, but not wearing all the hats he tries to wear. His inability to get play calls in faster is obvious, just watch the Packers offense and the play clock and compare it to other teams.

Anyway, if he doesn't realize it himself, he needs to be told by Gute, that he has to hire an OC that will take over play calling. He won't like it, so that is the hard part. The new OC can work with Matt on the offense during meetings, practice, film, etc. but he will be the guy/gal calling the shots on offense.

 

[mradtke66]

If it takes playing in a game to "get Watson into shape", the Packer coaches and training staff are really sleeping behind the wheel.

"Shape" as in getting popped, actually playing at game speed. I presume his conditioning is a-okay fine.

I just don't see how playing on Sunday was beneficial to Watson's health.

Playing any football game isn't beneficial to anyone's health.

 

[OOMPA Tailgate]

Williams sacked 68 times this year...What the fewk?

 

[Firethorn1001]

Humans are more predictable than dice. We've lost 5 straight times to 14+ win teams, there's no reason why we can't lose 6 straight. People thought we were due for a win against the Vikings a couple weeks ago. What about the Bears - weren't they due for a win against us 1 or 2 seasons ago? Weren't the Packers due for a win in the playoffs against the 49ers 3 seasons ago?

Agree that there is no such things as 'due' so can't based outcome on that and can't say Packers are 'due', but humans are more predictable than dice? Nah... pair of dice has 36 potential variations with 11 results.

 

[Schultz]

I think MLF did the right thing NOT to push things there right before half. Too many bad things can happen from your own 11 yard line. Pick 6, any turnover, 3 and out and short punt/long return. Unless you are down by multiple scores or have the ball past the 30, I'm fine with sitting on it and not risking giving the other team points.

Asking if the Packers would do things different if it was the 4th Q and they needed a FG to win, is not the same situation, by any stretch of the means.

I also believe that Willis was in by then and Jacobs was sitting also. Me thinks MLF just wanted to get to the locker room, assess the injuries and talk to his staff before making a decision on if Love and or Jacobs would play anymore that game. IMO.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

"Shape" as in getting popped, actually playing at game speed. I presume his conditioning is a-okay fine.



Playing any football game isn't beneficial to anyone's health.

See, I don't think any supposed benefits of playing a guy like Watson, in a game like the one Sunday, outweighed the given and possible negatives.

How did the Sunday game benefit any of the Packers? Even had the Bears missed that final FG, Love didn't get injured and Watson was fine, I don't see a lot of benefits coming out of that game. All you have is another game of wear and tear on starters that could have been taking a physical and mental day off to prepare for the playoffs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I also believe that Willis was in by then and Jacobs was sitting also. Me thinks MLF just wanted to get to the locker room, assess the injuries and talk to his staff before making a decision on if Love and or Jacobs would play anymore that game. IMO.

Good point, but even had the Packers had all their offense healthy and on the field, I think you let the clock run out in that situation.

 

[milani]

That's called the gambler's fallacy.

Bears were do for a win. But not THIS season.

 

[mradtke66]

See, I don't think any supposed benefits of playing a guy like Watson, in a game like the one Sunday, outweighed the given and possible negatives.

All you have is another game of wear and tear on starters that could have been taking a physical and mental day off to prepare for the playoffs.

My point of view is that we are a young team. Watson has missed time and isn't a "trustworthy veteran," or however you'd like to spin it. We also played like crap against the Bears, so I can respect using the game as an opportunity to get things right. To not play the game is to risk coming out flat in the WC round. If we were as old as the Vikings, I wouldn't have even dressed some players.

You have to lead the team in front of you and sometimes there just isn't a good answer.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My point of view is that we are a young team. Watson has missed time and isn't a "trustworthy veteran," or however you'd like to spin it. We also played like crap against the Bears, so I can respect using the game as an opportunity to get things right. To not play the game is to risk coming out flat in the WC round. If we were as old as the Vikings, I wouldn't have even dressed some players.

You have to lead the team in front of you and sometimes there just isn't a good answer.

If MLF thought this team was young and needed more experience, an almost meaningless game 17 isn't the place to do it. Maybe he should have played all the starters during the final preseason game? Maybe they win that 1st game against the Eagles, with less rust, more experience and momentum? Laugh, but I would rather rest my playoff bound team in week 18 than in week 0.

Anyone thinking that game 17 is for "knocking the rust off", "getting on track", "gaining momentum", "fill in catchy phrase here", is overstating the value of that game, which really is just nothing but a game for a W or an L.

 

[adambr2]

If MLF thought this team was young and needed more experience, an almost meaningless game 17 isn't the place to do it. Maybe he should have played all the starters during the final preseason game? Maybe they win that 1st game against the Eagles, with less rust, more experience and momentum? Laugh, but I would rather rest my playoff bound team in week 18 than in week 0.

Anyone thinking that game 17 is for "knocking the rust off", "getting on track", "gaining momentum", "fill in catchy phrase here", is overstating the value of that game, which really is just nothing but a game for a W or an L.

To be fair, we didn’t know til the very end that the game was meaningless. Up until then it still had potential implications — 6th seed at Tampa or 7th seed at Philly. I can’t say how much that factored into the decision-making but it clearly had some factor or they would have just straight up rested starters.

Seems like MLF kind of tried to hedge his bets between playing a meaningful game and a meaningless one, playing most starters but giving significant rest to Jacobs and holding Love out when he could have played. Didn’t turn out to be a very good strategy as they didn’t win nor did they escape without major injury.

 

[milani]

My point of view is that we are a young team. Watson has missed time and isn't a "trustworthy veteran," or however you'd like to spin it. We also played like crap against the Bears, so I can respect using the game as an opportunity to get things right. To not play the game is to risk coming out flat in the WC round. If we were as old as the Vikings, I wouldn't have even dressed some players.

You have to lead the team in front of you and sometimes there just isn't a good answer.

MLF is trying to teach this young team " how " to win. You do rest some players or spell them. But winning becomes a habit for great teams. Lombardi did sit or shorten playing time when the team fate was decided but he still went out there to win.