Game 14: Packers at Ravens - 3:25 - Fox

Post #281 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:39 am

thomchatt3rton · Post #282 » by **thomchatt3rton** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:39 am

th87 wrote:Somewhat concerning regression on defense the last month or so.

It’s funny- the O finally starts firing on all cylinders—esp in red zone….and the D starts to regress.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

rilamann · Post #283 » by **rilamann** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:39 am

WRau1 wrote:Wonder if we sit Rodgers the last game of the season if we have the bye locked up so that he can get his surgery.

We'll probably have to win out to get the #1 seed. I can't see the Bucs losing another game with their schedule. Lions beat the Cards though so you never know. Go Saints.

Treebeard · Post #284 » by **Treebeard** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:43 am

th87 wrote:Somewhat concerning regression on defense the last month or so.

Agreed, but not having Clark hurt big time.

One thing I saw several times was the Edge rushers trying to put pressure on Huntley by going bee-line towards the backfield, leaving the outside open for a really mobile Huntley.

Matches Malone · Post #285 » by **Matches Malone** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:47 am

Read on Twitter

Treebeard · Post #286 » by **Treebeard** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:52 am

Thinking again on the conversion attempt, not surprising that they went to Andrews, but it was surprising (to me) that he'd be going against Stokes, who had played tough all game long.

Post #287 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:06 am

MLF has gone 37-9 (!) in his 3 years as coach but gets no consideration for COY because "he has Rodgers". In the 3 years before MLF the team went 23-24-1. Take out the season when Rodgers missed games and we were 16-15-1. MLF is a great, no not perfect, coach.

Bernman · Post #288 » by **Bernman** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:11 am

MickeyDavis wrote:MLF has gone 37-9 (!) in his 3 years as coach but gets no consideration for COY because "he has Rodgers". In the 3 years before MLF the team went 23-24-1. Take out the season when Rodgers missed games and we were 16-15-1. MLF is a great, no not perfect, coach.

The Jordan Love pick motivated Aaron & we got more time to recover from TT's decline. Those were likely much bigger factors. But LaFleur clearly hasn't hurt the team and may be helping.

Post #289 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:12 am

Bernman wrote:
MickeyDavis wrote:MLF has gone 37-9 (!) in his 3 years as coach but gets no consideration for COY because "he has Rodgers". In the 3 years before MLF the team went 23-24-1. Take out the season when Rodgers missed games and we were 16-15-1. MLF is a great, no not perfect, coach.

The Jordan Love pick motivated Aaron & we got more time to recover from TT's decline. Those were likely much bigger factors. But LaFleur clearly hasn't hurt the team and may be helping.

Bernman · Post #290 » by **Bernman** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:15 am

The win today is probably the difference between having a real shot in the playoffs & not. Because the Packers should win out now, as is the case w/ the Bucs. I don't think beating them on the road was ever realistic.

LikeABosh · Post #291 » by **LikeABosh** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:15 am

Bernman wrote:
MickeyDavis wrote:MLF has gone 37-9 (!) in his 3 years as coach but gets no consideration for COY because "he has Rodgers". In the 3 years before MLF the team went 23-24-1. Take out the season when Rodgers missed games and we were 16-15-1. MLF is a great, no not perfect, coach.

The Jordan Love pick motivated Aaron & we got more time to recover from TT's decline. Those were likely much bigger factors. But LaFleur clearly hasn't hurt the team and may be helping.

There is no escape

Bernman · Post #292 » by **Bernman** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:17 am

ReasonablySober wrote:

What's the problem? Rodgers plays best w/ a chip on his shoulder & his numbers had fallen off before. Plus we hung onto TT out of loyalty & past success, but it depleted talent.

Hilarious that was even controversial. The debate would be over proportionality. And it's a player's league, so talent's going to win out more often than not.

Post #293 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:19 am

Matt LaFleur may be helping. Gonna need some more time to evaluate.

Bernman · Post #294 » by **Bernman** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:21 am

ReasonablySober wrote:Matt LaFleur may be helping. Gonna need some more time to evaluate.

McCarthy had some great years record-wise, and what was the ultimate view on him here?

That's not a comparison of LaFleur to McCarthy, but a point that you can't maximally credit record to everyone. Some impact more than others.

It was a statement of relative agnosticism, because I don't think coaches impact outcomes nearly as much as other things.

Like I don't think the ST coach is necessarily the main problem w/ the ST, but you might as well switch him out at some because it's easier than players (mind you, this is happening under LaFleur, so if he's to credit for good things, he is bad like this as well). Whereas there's no reason to even think about it w/ LaFleur overall, as he's been a fine steward so far, going by the record.

Post #295 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:27 am

The Packers offense looked stagnant and outdated for years by the time MM was fired. LaFleur comes in, wins at a historic level, and in his late 30s Rodgers is playing at an MVP level again.

No one is saying Rodgers isn't incredible, but he's also playing for one of the best offensive minds in the NFL. It's night and day from MM to LaFleur.

Bernman · Post #296 » by **Bernman** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:30 am

ReasonablySober wrote:The Packers offense looked stagnant and outdated for years by the time MM was fired. LaFleur comes in, wins at a historic level, and in his late 30s Rodgers is playing at an MVP level again.

No one is saying Rodgers isn't incredible, but he's also playing for one of the best offensive minds in the NFL. It's night and day from MM to LaFleur.

Rodgers' turnaround wasn't in year 1 of the LaFleur project. He had a marginally worse QB rating than the previous year. His explosion was the 2nd year, after the drafting of Love. And I said beforehand I thought it was the biggest addition of the offseason, because it would motivate Rodgers. So I'm certainly not going to think that wasn't the main reason after it actually happened.

rilamann · Post #297 » by **rilamann** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:33 am

ReasonablySober wrote:Matt LaFleur may be helping. Gonna need some more time to evaluate.

37-9 and 2 NFC Championship games in 2 playoffs. Yeah, I might have to think about this one for a minute too.

:lol:

Post #298 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:35 am

Bernman wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:The Packers offense looked stagnant and outdated for years by the time MM was fired. LaFleur comes in, wins at a historic level, and in his late 30s Rodgers is playing at an MVP level again.

No one is saying Rodgers isn't incredible, but he's also playing for one of the best offensive minds in the NFL. It's night and day from MM to LaFleur.

Rodgers' turnaround wasn't in year 1 of the LaFleur project. He had a marginally worse QB rating than the previous year. His explosion was the 2nd year, after the drafting of Love. And I said beforehand I thought it was the biggest addition of the offseason, because it would motivate Rodgers. So I'm certainly not going to think that wasn't the main reason after it actually happened.

So ignoring the fact that Rodgers just had a season of experience in the system and that may have been a factor, Rodgers was just tanking? The Packers only needed to draft a QB in round one for all those years the offense looked like ****? Okay.

Plossum · Post #299 » by **Plossum** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:40 am

For a very casual fan like me, can somebody explain why the Ravens went for the 2 pointer at the end there? Wouldn't it make sense to take the easier option and go into OT?

Bernman · Post #300 » by **Bernman** » Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:41 am

rilamann wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:Matt LaFleur may be helping. Gonna need some more time to evaluate.

37-9 and 2 NFC Championship games in 2 playoffs. Yeah, I might have to think about this one for a minute too.

Apparently you've never heard correlation doesn't prove causation. And you even ignore, like I said, Rodgers' turnaround wasn't until year 2, after another major variable entered the equation.

My statements were about as high praise I'm going to go for a newer coach that doesn't influence personnel choices. To get greater praise, he'd have to win over time, and after major shake-ups in personnel. Then we can reasonably attribute more causation.

For now, he's clearly not screwing things up, and he may be aiding the outcomes to boot. So he can enjoy that level of credit, as well as a big paycheck. So he'll be doing fine w/out getting primary credit in the interim too.