Tearing it Down

[milani]

Back in the day I always felt McCarthy coached not to lose instead of to win. He probably wishes he did that today.

We kind of did that at the end of regulation.

 

[Dantés]

The Falcons have significantly more talent at pass catchers with Kyle Pitts and Drake London than the Packers have.

If you look at the Falcons and Packers and think the reason why the former has been more successful is personnel, that basically tells everyone all they need to know about your understanding of this game.

They have found success at times because they have committed to executing the design of Arthur Smith's offense, despite the fact that it is unconventional by modern standards.

Green Bay is dramatically more talented than they are.

 

[Schultz]

Not at wide receiver/tight end is what he said. Overall roster I agree with you.

 

[AKCheese]

As far as tearing it down. Lets face it we are realistically out of the playoffs already. The only way we have a chance is to run the table and that’s not happening. I see 4 more wins as bring realistically optimistic. Once we are mathematically eliminatec do we give Love some reps? Does he start a game? Play the second half? Does mgmt talk to His Arrogance about it? How do the other Vets feel about Love coming in? Do the coaches REALLY need to see Love play this year? How does the league (or Vegas) look at it if we’re evaluating Love in games that matter to other teams? What a mess.

 

[milani]

As far as tearing it down. Lets face it we are realistically out of the playoffs already. The only way we have a chance is to run the table and that’s not happening. I see 4 more wins as bring realistically optimistic. Once we are mathematically eliminatec do we give Love some reps? Does he start a game? Play the second half? Does mgmt talk to His Arrogance about it? How do the other Vets feel about Love coming in? Do the coaches REALLY need to see Love play this year? How does the league (or Vegas) look at it if we’re evaluating Love in games that matter to other teams? What a mess.

Tough call. 2 WC teams will come out of the NFC East unless they run the table the other way. The last WC could be Atlanta or from the NFC West. We would need help. But we need to help ourselves.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you look at the Falcons and Packers and think the reason why the former has been more successful is personnel, that basically tells everyone all they need to know about your understanding of this game.

I didn't mention anything about the Falcons having more talent than the Packers overall. There's no doubt that both Pitts and London are more talented than any wide receiver or tight end on the Packers though.

As far as tearing it down. Lets face it we are realistically out of the playoffs already. The only way we have a chance is to run the table and that’s not happening. I see 4 more wins as bring realistically optimistic.

I think the Packers would have a pretty good chance making the playoffs at 10-7, it might be good enough to finish 9-8 as well. With that being said I don't expect them to win enough games the rest of the season to end up securing a spot in the postseason though.

Once we are mathematically eliminatec do we give Love some reps? Does he start a game? Play the second half? Do the coaches REALLY need to see Love play this year?

I would be absolutely in favor of the Packers playing Love once they're eliminated from the playoffs. The front office and coaching staff needs to get as much information about him as possible to make a decision on exercising the fifth year option on him next offseason.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

I do not question going for it. Our D was gassed. On 3rd down all he had to do was pound it once or twice.

I didn't think it was the wrong call either. That would have been a 52-53 yard field goal INTO a pretty good wind.

 

[Mondio]

People can debate the calls for Dallas, they didn't work for them. But I don't think going for it was a bad decision at all at that point. I would have too and would have been chastising our own staff if they'd have tried kicking in the same situation.

 

[PackAttack12]

As far as tearing it down. Lets face it we are realistically out of the playoffs already. The only way we have a chance is to run the table and that’s not happening. I see 4 more wins as bring realistically optimistic. Once we are mathematically eliminatec do we give Love some reps? Does he start a game? Play the second half? Does mgmt talk to His Arrogance about it? How do the other Vets feel about Love coming in? Do the coaches REALLY need to see Love play this year? How does the league (or Vegas) look at it if we’re evaluating Love in games that matter to other teams? What a mess.

The Packers can afford to lose one, maybe two. All depends on who the losses are to.

Definitely cannot afford two conference losses.

Thursday night is a good possibility for a win. And then you get 10 days to get ready for Philly in primetime. Washington showed last night that Philly isn’t invincible.

Win those two, and this thing is looking pretty solid at 6-6. You then would have at Chicago which I would expect to win, rams at home after the bye. They are a train wreck. Admittedly, you have at Miami which would be the tallest of tasks.

And then two January Lambeau games.

There’s a decent chance at 10-7 with the only loss being to the Dolphins. That would give the Packers a better than 9 in 10 chance at getting in. Even with a loss to Philly, there’s better than a coin flip chance.

It’s almost moot if we don’t take care of the Titans on Thursday though.

 

[PackAttack12]

People can debate the calls for Dallas, they didn't work for them. But I don't think going for it was a bad decision at all at that point. I would have too and would have been chastising our own staff if they'd have tried kicking in the same situation.

I think people are criticizing it so heavily just because it’s Mike McCarthy. I thought it was a great decision as well. 50+ yard kicks at Lambeau aren’t easy.

 

[Mondio]

I think people are criticizing it so heavily just because it’s Mike McCarthy. I thought it was a great decision as well. 50+ yard kicks at Lambeau aren’t easy.

Masons long FG died well before getting there and there was a PAT on that end that looked like it didn't have much gas either towards the end. Wind didn't seem so strong in the stadium where we were, but one end looked a lot easier than the other. and they would have been kicking in the not so easy end.

and yes, people like to take shots at McCarthy. He isn't/wasn't perfect, but he is a pretty good coach and a very respectable human being. It's a shame others don't possess more of those qualities themselves.

 

[Dantés]

I didn't mention anything about the Falcons having more talent than the Packers overall. There's no doubt that both Pitts and London are more talented than any wide receiver or tight end on the Packers though.

The forum needs to create a tag just for your posts so that you can differentiate between:

"I genuinely disagree"

and

"I agree, but I have a compulsive need to correct every post on the forum"

 

[Magooch]

So for those who find it interesting/care, FiveThirtyEight currently puts our odds of making the playoffs at about 12%. That's up from ~5% before beating Dallas. A decent increase, but of course still a long way to go. Even if we were to win our next three in a row, it would only put us right around 50% to make, before considering anyone else's results.

With Minnesota at 8-1 our odds of catching them to win the division are virtually nonexistent. Even if we win our next three and they lose all three, they would still be favored at roughly 75% to win the division and 25% for us. So practically speaking we are hoping for a wild card spot. As it stands we are the #9 seed, with Giants at 5, Cowboys at 6, 49ers at 7, and Commanders at 8. Our absolute best-case scenario over the next three weeks would involve us winning all three of our games and Cowboys, 49ers, and Commanders losing all three of theirs. That would put us at approximately 80% to make the playoffs and I think would move us up to the 6 seed.

Of course that particular combination is exceedingly unlikely, but I guess it's possible.

With that in mind however, if we go 2-1 in our next three we would be looking at just about 50% odds to make playoffs. If we go 1-2, we're back down to ~5%, and if we were to go 0-3 it officially be time to pack it up for the year. 0-3 would see us at a less than 1% chance to make the playoffs in our best-case scenario and depending on how other teams' results fell might be enough to see us eliminated entirely. Technically I don't think we can be mathematically eliminated in the next three weeks, but could get to a less than 0.1% chance to make playoffs, so it is what it is.

Anyways all that to say that it seems to me like we're going to need to take two wins from the next three weeks at minimum to have much of any realistic shot at things. Chicago should be doable but the other two will be tricky. On current odds Tennessee is favored at -2.5 (538 prediction puts it at 58% Tenn win, 42% GB), Eagles at -7 (73% Eagles win, 27% GB), and actually Chicago very very slightly favored (PK, with 538 giving them the edge 51% to 49%).

 

[Sunshinepacker]

If you look at the Falcons and Packers and think the reason why the former has been more successful is personnel, that basically tells everyone all they need to know about your understanding of this game.

They have found success at times because they have committed to executing the design of Arthur Smith's offense, despite the fact that it is unconventional by modern standards.

Green Bay is dramatically more talented than they are.

Based on draft capital the defense should be, but it's not. On offense they are more talented everywhere but receiver, where there is a GIGANTIC difference in talent. That might indicate to some (including me) just how much the void at the receiver position is hurting the Packers' offense, while for others, it just means the Packers should run a 1960s offense and they'll be just fine.

Insisting on running the ball 50+ times a game completely ignores just how difficult that is to do AND field a good offense. Without huge chunk plays, the offense is forced into 13+ play scoring drives and that gives a lot of chances for a false start or oline holding and, when you can't throw it, that torpedoes the drive. Additionally, as I, and others, have pointed out multiple times, when an offense has zero threat of passing the ball more than 5 yards downfield, the running game becomes REALLY, REALLY inefficient. Against the Jets the Packers running backs averaged something like 1.5 yards on 1st down and 2 yards on second down. That same pattern emerges against most other teams as well.

This offense has terrific personnel at QB, oline, and RB, but it has awful personnel at WR. MLF, Gute, Rodgers, most other NFL teams have flat out stated or shown how important it is to have a reliable receiver who can either stretch the field or provide yards-after-the-catch. Doubs seems like he can provide some of the YAC once he improves his strength and Watson seems like he'll be able to provide both but neither can reliably do so at this point and that's a hugely limiting factor for the offense right now. Just look at how much better the offense was against the Cowboys with Watson's addition and performance.

 

[gopkrs]

I didn't think it was the wrong call either. That would have been a 52-53 yard field goal INTO a pretty good wind.

I assume you are talking about their last possession. That was a long way to go for it imo. The alternative was not to kick it but to punt it. They gave us a very short field only needing a field goal. Too many people want to go for it, seems like always. The coach needs to stop making those decisions based on how fans and media are going to react.

 

[Magooch]

I understand the rationale behind going for it, although it looks like the analytics very slightly favored kicking it...

But with that said, maybe I'm projecting or something, but I don't know...it felt to me like that was more of an emotional decision rather than a rational one on McCarthy's part. Playing his old team, a chance to really stick it to them... Going for it looks a bit more bold, aggressive, confident, etc.

Like I said, maybe it was the right call at the end of the day, but I get the sense that McCarthy wasn't weighing up the numbers and probabilities and decided the data he had todl him to go for it...it really felt like more of a "heart" decision rather than a "head" one. But I could just be imagining that...

In whatever case it's one of those situations where you look like a genius if you make it and a fool if you don't. So it is what it is. But I will say that I was perfectly happy to see Dallas lined up to go for it, and obviously that worked out for us.

 

[Dantés]

Based on draft capital the defense should be, but it's not. On offense they are more talented everywhere but receiver, where there is a GIGANTIC difference in talent. That might indicate to some (including me) just how much the void at the receiver position is hurting the Packers' offense, while for others, it just means the Packers should run a 1960s offense and they'll be just fine.

I strongly disagree.

The gap between a rookie Drake London and Lazard or even Watson when he plays, if there is one, is small. The rest of the receiving corps in Atlanta is probably worse than Green Bay's if that's to be believed. .

Pitts is obviously a phenom and head and shoulders above Green Bay's tight ends. So if, on the basis of him alone, one wanted to give an edge to the Falcons, I wouldn't argue. But the difference is modest, not GIGANTIC.

And it makes absolutely no sense to point to that small disparity in talent as the reason why Atlanta is 12th in scoring offense and Green Bay is 25th when the Falcons use their pass catchers less than anyone in the entire league.

 

[tynimiller]

I strongly disagree.

The gap between a rookie Drake London and Lazard or even Watson when he plays, if there is one, is small. The rest of the receiving corps in Atlanta is probably worse than Green Bay's if that's to be believed. .

Pitts is obviously a phenom and head and shoulders above Green Bay's tight ends. So if, on the basis of him alone, one wanted to give an edge to the Falcons, I wouldn't argue. But the difference is modest, not GIGANTIC.

And it makes absolutely no sense to point to that small disparity in talent as the reason why Atlanta is 12th in scoring offense and Green Bay is 25th when the Falcons use their pass catchers less than anyone in the entire league.

Agree...and to that last point - sure it makes sense, IF you want to justify a narrative.

 

[MadCat]

I understand the rationale behind going for it, although it looks like the analytics very slightly favored kicking it...

But with that said, maybe I'm projecting or something, but I don't know...it felt to me like that was more of an emotional decision rather than a rational one on McCarthy's part. Playing his old team, a chance to really stick it to them... Going for it looks a bit more bold, aggressive, confident, etc.

Like I said, maybe it was the right call at the end of the day, but I get the sense that McCarthy wasn't weighing up the numbers and probabilities and decided the data he had todl him to go for it...it really felt like more of a "heart" decision rather than a "head" one. But I could just be imagining that...

In whatever case it's one of those situations where you look like a genius if you make it and a fool if you don't. So it is what it is. But I will say that I was perfectly happy to see Dallas lined up to go for it, and obviously that worked out for us.

James Jones had a similar take on it being an emotional decision by McCarthy. He said if the Cowboys settled for a field goal, MM didn’t want to give Rodgers the ball, even with a TD required to win the game.

 

[PackAttack12]

James Jones had a similar take on it being an emotional decision by McCarthy. He said if the Cowboys settled for a field goal, MM didn’t want to give Rodgers the ball, even with a TD required to win the game.

I see where Mike is coming from. He wanted to win the game without giving the ball to Rodgers.

I can’t for the life of me understand why some had an issue with that. McCarthy had a front row seat to a lot of winning Rodgers moments. If Dallas would’ve converted and eventually scored the touchdown, they would’ve bloviated over how smart it was to be aggressive and not give Rodgers a chance.

 

[PackerDNA]

I really don't have any problem with Coach Mike's decision. It would have been a 53-yarder, which is always a tough kick but the ball doesn't travel as well in the cold. And if they don't get the first down we take over on our 43 needing only a field.

 

[tynimiller]

I'm kicking it every time...I however know there are valid reasons for going for it as well. Anyone saying MM was dumb for going for it is only indicating the ignorance of one person, and it isn't MM.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I strongly disagree.

The gap between a rookie Drake London and Lazard or even Watson when he plays, if there is one, is small. The rest of the receiving corps in Atlanta is probably worse than Green Bay's if that's to be believed. .

Pitts is obviously a phenom and head and shoulders above Green Bay's tight ends. So if, on the basis of him alone, one wanted to give an edge to the Falcons, I wouldn't argue. But the difference is modest, not GIGANTIC.

And it makes absolutely no sense to point to that small disparity in talent as the reason why Atlanta is 12th in scoring offense and Green Bay is 25th when the Falcons use their pass catchers less than anyone in the entire league.

I just don't even know what to do with a response that says Drake London is the equivalent of Lazard or Watson; I mean, on contested catches alone London is REALLY, REALLY ahead of Lazard and Watson (also, London hasn't dropped a pass yet this season). Watson could become a much better receiver than London once he learns the nuances of the receiver position but there's a reason Watson was taken in round 2 and London was taken in the top-10.

Yes, the difference in how defenses treat an offense is VERY relevant to a discussion on scoring offense. Believing that an offense that has lacked anything resembling a deep passing game doesn't impact how defenses play against said offense doesn't actually make it a reality.

 

[tynimiller]

I just don't even know what to do with a response that says Drake London is the equivalent of Lazard or Watson; I mean, on contested catches alone London is REALLY, REALLY ahead of Lazard and Watson (also, London hasn't dropped a pass yet this season). Watson could become a much better receiver than London once he learns the nuances of the receiver position but there's a reason Watson was taken in round 2 and London was taken in the top-10.

Yes, the difference in how defenses treat an offense is VERY relevant to a discussion on scoring offense. Believing that an offense that has lacked anything resembling a deep passing game doesn't impact how defenses play against said offense doesn't actually make it a reality.

Lazard and Drake stats:

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

 

[Dantés]

I just don't even know what to do with a response that says Drake London is the equivalent of Lazard or Watson.

I can help you there. Just agree.

To be clear. London is better. But you asserted that the gap is gigantic. It isn't. He's still a rookie. In time, I would expect the gap between London and Lazard to be huge. But it isn't yet.