2019 Green Bay Packers Season Thread

[OldHeidelberg]

 

This one isn't as blatantly stupid as some, but I tend to lean toward it being better to get the ball back and run out of time than them get the 1st and you potentially give them more time. In this case, it probably doesn't matter. That TO probably was helpful for the Patriots in calling a more effective play.

 

 

The guys on Packer radio were talking about it after a recent game, maybe last week, but one of them was saying it's really about having a grasp of the game flow. Things like if the opponent D is gassed, has your D been stopping them, who gets the second half KO, etc. Christl at JS used to say you NEVER take a timeout when the other team has the ball before half. MM just did it off a chart regardless of what was going on in that game. I think in the recent Packer game MLF was criticized by the announcers for not taking the timeout on first down but he got it right and took it when it got to third and long

[HiAndTight]

 

This one isn't as blatantly stupid as some, but I tend to lean toward it being better to get the ball back and run out of time than them get the 1st and you potentially give them more time. In this case, it probably doesn't matter. That TO probably was helpful for the Patriots in calling a more effective play.

 

 

The guys on Packer radio were talking about it after a recent game, maybe last week, but one of them was saying it's really about having a grasp of the game flow. Things like if the opponent D is gassed, has your D been stopping them, who gets the second half KO, etc. Christl at JS used to say you NEVER take a timeout when the other team has the ball before half. MM just did it off a chart regardless of what was going on in that game. I think in the recent Packer game MLF was criticized by the announcers for not taking the timeout on first down but he got it right and took it when it got to third and long

 

 

I don't remember him ever doing it where it didn't make sense; not saying he didn't, just none that I can recall, but it just killed them the last couple years. It seemed like every time he did it, they'd hit the Packers with a 20 yard draw play and then use their own TO and end up going from 1st and 20 to them putting up points.

 

I remember one instance, I think it was a divisional rival(Detroit maybe). But the Packers punted to them, they started out on their own 10, they tackled them for a loss on the first play and then the Packers call a TO. They picked up the 1st down on the next play and then scored a TD.

 

Using a TO when you've got a team backed up at the end of the half makes sense to me, but it was really just like McCarthy's career in Green Bay. Everything that worked the first 75 pct of it stopped working the last quarter.

[HiAndTight]

I like the Giants Ogletree. If he was a free agent next year I would certainly take a look.

 

You'd think the Packers would be looking around at players like this, players that could be had for a later draft pick on bad teams.

 

I think Ogletree was projected as a 1st round pick before his final year at UGA...and for some reason ended up falling to like the 7th round.

 

Like I've said though, there are some small tweaks that Gute should be making IMO to this team as the season goes on. Maybe Pennel isn't what he was with the Jets anymore so that's why they're not bringing him in, but they're at least looking around. That's encouraging IMO.

[OldHeidelberg]

 

The guys on Packer radio were talking about it after a recent game, maybe last week, but one of them was saying it's really about having a grasp of the game flow. Things like if the opponent D is gassed, has your D been stopping them, who gets the second half KO, etc. Christl at JS used to say you NEVER take a timeout when the other team has the ball before half. MM just did it off a chart regardless of what was going on in that game. I think in the recent Packer game MLF was criticized by the announcers for not taking the timeout on first down but he got it right and took it when it got to third and long

 

 

I don't remember him ever doing it where it didn't make sense; not saying he didn't, just none that I can recall, but it just killed them the last couple years. It seemed like every time he did it, they'd hit the Packers with a 20 yard draw play and then use their own TO and end up going from 1st and 20 to them putting up points.

 

I remember one instance, I think it was a divisional rival(Detroit maybe). But the Packers punted to them, they started out on their own 10, they tackled them for a loss on the first play and then the Packers call a TO. They picked up the 1st down on the next play and then scored a TD.

 

Using a TO when you've got a team backed up at the end of the half makes sense to me, but it was really just like McCarthy's career in Green Bay. Everything that worked the first 75 pct of it stopped working the last quarter.

 

I guess you could always argue it makes sense but MM ALWAYS called a timeout after an opponent gets a short run on first down inside their 30 at the end of the half. It was so predictable I think teams started to take advantage of it, show run on 2nd and play action to get an easy first. In my opinion you don't stop the clock for them until you are at a high percentage chance of stopping them, either third down or sometimes 2nd and long.

 

But in the end probably the biggest flaw in how he handled it was that his defenses were bad. As a coach you have to be honest with yourself about your chances of making a stop. If you are the 85 Bears hell yeah you call timeouts.

[homer]

I think it's one thing to do it when you have a great defense and are confident they'll get the ball back but most Packer defenses under McCarthy were bad. It was pretty dumb most of the time.

[HiAndTight]

I think it's one thing to do it when you have a great defense and are confident they'll get the ball back but most Packer defenses under McCarthy were bad. It was pretty dumb most of the time.

 

 

I don't think you need a great defense, you need a competent one. When you're running Gunter out there as your #1 CB, it doesn't really work.

 

Like I've said, I could be wrong, but I don't recall him doing it many times it didn't make sense. He USUALLY did it when they were backed up and didn't get anything on 1st down.

 

But I think the larger issue with McCarthy is he just stayed too long. If he'd have done all the same things he did but had just left before that vaunted 10 year period, he'd be considered up there with Holmgren. But he didn't. It'll be interesting to see if he's back coaching next year or whenever he gets another job and see how he does. He left Green Bay with similar fanfare to how Andy Reid left Philly.

[nodakfan17]

I think it's one thing to do it when you have a great defense and are confident they'll get the ball back but most Packer defenses under McCarthy were bad. It was pretty dumb most of the time.

 

 

I don't think you need a great defense, you need a competent one. When you're running Gunter out there as your #1 CB, it doesn't really work.

 

Like I've said, I could be wrong, but I don't recall him doing it many times it didn't make sense. He USUALLY did it when they were backed up and didn't get anything on 1st down.

 

But I think the larger issue with McCarthy is he just stayed too long. If he'd have done all the same things he did but had just left before that vaunted 10 year period, he'd be considered up there with Holmgren. But he didn't. It'll be interesting to see if he's back coaching next year or whenever he gets another job and see how he does. He left Green Bay with similar fanfare to how Andy Reid left Philly.

 

Longtime MM apologist here to weigh in:

1) Andy Reid never won a Super Bowl in Philadelphia.

2) Lombardi and Holmgren left GB for different jobs. McCarthy only wanted to coach the Packers.

 

I’d argue the roster was devoid of talent because Mark Murphy failed to “offer a gold watch” to Ted Thompson when signs of cognitive decline were obvious even to the fan base. However, I’ll acknowledge that McCarthy had gotten stale and it was time for a change due to the many aforementioned reasons.

[MrTPlush]

Everyone scared of that Chiefs game...I’m not. They were embarrassed last week at home and they should be losing today. The Texans missed an extra point, missed a field goal cause the holder can’t get the laces out, and then Watson threw a terrible pass Rodgers would never throw into the end zone. That’s only the major stuff too.

 

Chiefs are good, but haven’t looked that incredible...especially at home two weeks in a row. A lot of people just assume that is a likely loss...looks more like a winnable game to me.

[nodakfan17]

Nothing really broke the Packers way in today’s early games:

 

- Vikings over Eagles

- Seahawks over Browns

- Saints over Jaguars

 

It would have been nice to get one of those.

[HiAndTight]

Everyone scared of that Chiefs game...I’m not. They were embarrassed last week at home and they should be losing today. The Texans missed an extra point, missed a field goal cause the holder can’t get the laces out, and then Watson threw a terrible pass Rodgers would never throw into the end zone. That’s only the major stuff too.

 

Chiefs are good, but haven’t looked that incredible...especially at home two weeks in a row. A lot of people just assume that is a likely loss...looks more like a winnable game to me.

 

 

Yeah, the Chiefs are beatable. But they were just getting I think 3 starters back on offense. Hill being the most important.

 

I think that'll likely be a whole different team by the time the Packers play t hem. But...they don't have a good defense. They're kinda like the Packers before Shields went down. They have a pass rusher, a few good players here or there, but it's not a reliable defense and if you can keep the ball away from them...you've got a good shot.

 

 

I do disagree that the loss last weak was embarrassing. The Colts are a good team. I thought they could win 10 games when Luck announced he was retiring. They've got a dominant OL, a couple great players on D, really good skill players and now Brissett has his own team for the first time.

 

And they have a helluva coach. I could honestly see the Colts coming out of the AFC this year. They need to get healthier on D, but Leonard is a Derrick Brooks type player and with how well they can run it, Brady and or Mahomes could spend very long periods of time with their hands inside those big parka's come January vs the Colts. I wouldn't bet money on it...but they're solid.

[HiAndTight]

I think it's one thing to do it when you have a great defense and are confident they'll get the ball back but most Packer defenses under McCarthy were bad. It was pretty dumb most of the time.

 

 

I don't think you need a great defense, you need a competent one. When you're running Gunter out there as your #1 CB, it doesn't really work.

 

Like I've said, I could be wrong, but I don't recall him doing it many times it didn't make sense. He USUALLY did it when they were backed up and didn't get anything on 1st down.

 

But I think the larger issue with McCarthy is he just stayed too long. If he'd have done all the same things he did but had just left before that vaunted 10 year period, he'd be considered up there with Holmgren. But he didn't. It'll be interesting to see if he's back coaching next year or whenever he gets another job and see how he does. He left Green Bay with similar fanfare to how Andy Reid left Philly.

 

Longtime MM apologist here to weigh in:

1) Andy Reid never won a Super Bowl in Philadelphia.

2) Lombardi and Holmgren left GB for different jobs. McCarthy only wanted to coach the Packers.

 

I’d argue the roster was devoid of talent because Mark Murphy failed to “offer a gold watch” to Ted Thompson when signs of cognitive decline were obvious even to the fan base. However, I’ll acknowledge that McCarthy had gotten stale and it was time for a change due to the many aforementioned reasons.

 

 

Yeah, Reid never won a SB. He got to 1 and played in...5 or 6 Championship games? I said they both left their respective teams with similar fanfare, but obviously not the exact same. He was pretty great in Philly. Thing got ugly when he and McNabb had that spat that ended with McNabb in Washington.

 

 

And Lombardi doesn't really come into play here. I don't think anyone thinks of anyone in Packers history on par with Lombardi. I guess Lambeau because he founded the team(but he also nearly bankrupted them when he went all Hollywood). But very different scenarios. He retired from coaching, then after taking a year off wanted to go back to coaching AND he wanted to.....thwart the control the players were taking as a union I guess for lack of a better term. He thought he could only really do that as an owner. So when he got a big stake in the Redskins in the Nations Capital, he obviously wasn't going to be one(Owner) in Green Bay. Plus coming back to coach when your replacement has only been there for a year...it's not a good look. So the Redskins brought him out and it was the perfect place for him.

Plus his wife was having serious issues with depression and other things. Bottom line, I don't really think Lombardi has anything to do with this.

 

Also, Holmgren WANTED to stay in Green Bay as well. But Wolf said he wasn't stepping down anytime soon. Then he stepped down shortly thereafter, otherwise, Holmgren would have stayed in Green Bay and been the GM/HC and we'd have had him and younger TT instead of Sherman. That may have been good for another SB. Or maybe Thompson has to go elsewhere to make his own picks and he builds a SB winner for another team before a poor run toward the end.

 

 

But all this is really just beside the point. I was defending McCarthy. I was saying if he'd have left a few years earlier and the team hadn't gotten so stale, he'd be viewed in the same lense as Holmgren is and, BUT because both he and Reid stayed a few extra years, they were both run out by their respective fan bases. Many of the same criticisms leveled at McCarthy were leveled at Reid, not being innovative offensively, being too stubborn, too rigid with the players, something he said he needed to change.

 

And now the old, stale offensive coach who saw the game pass him by has led one of the best runs in franchise history for the Chiefs the last 4-5 years. He took over a 4 win team, and they've won 65 games in his 6 full seasons there and it certainly appears as though he may be in line for that SB title yet.

 

 

Since you bring up Holmgren though if you compare the three coaches, McCarthy has the higher winning pct, he's won the One SB, same as Holmgren, obviously, Reid hasn't won one yet. But a .618 winning pct for MM, .612 for Reid and .592 for Holmgren. Reid is 2 games under .500 in the playoffs, McCarthy is 10-8, Holmgren is 13-11.

 

So it's not hard to imagine McCarthy getting a pretty good job in the near future and adding to those totals. He's 6 years younger than Reid. I could see him ending up somewhere like Houston next year or even with the Steelers if they do in fact choose to part with Tomlin as has been rumored or suggested.

[yourout]

I like the Giants Ogletree. If he was a free agent next year I would certainly take a look.

 

You'd think the Packers would be looking around at players like this, players that could be had for a later draft pick on bad teams.

 

I think Ogletree was projected as a 1st round pick before his final year at UGA...and for some reason ended up falling to like the 7th round.

 

Like I've said though, there are some small tweaks that Gute should be making IMO to this team as the season goes on. Maybe Pennel isn't what he was with the Jets anymore so that's why they're not bringing him in, but they're at least looking around. That's encouraging IMO.

 

He's by no means Urlacher but he was really all over the field in that game against the Patriots. Definitely a bit of a thumper as well.

[nodakfan17]

I’ve never been one to pound the table for trades, but hear me out:

 

The Packers are 5-1.

They very well may be 6-1 by this time next week.

How many shots at a another title does Rodgers have left?

 

There are a large number of bad teams already out of contention, which should help make more players available via trade. I hope they use some of their 2020 mid and late round picks to upgrade the roster for a run in 2020.

[HiAndTight]

I’ve never been one to pound the table for trades, but hear me out:

 

The Packers are 5-1.

They very well may be 6-1 by this time next week.

How many shots at a another title does Rodgers have left?

 

There are a large number of bad teams already out of contention, which should help make more players available via trade. I hope they use some of their 2020 mid and late round picks to upgrade the roster for a run in 2020.

 

 

Yeah, it absolutely makes sense depending on the position and player. People want us to add a WR'er, not sure that'd help much given how long it'd take to incorporate them into the offense and get some chemistry with Rodgers. A CB, LB'er, RB...those make more sense.

 

I don't think it'd take much.

[PeaveyFury]

Following another great game from the Smiths last night, I went back and dug up this critical writeup of their signings from ESPN.com:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26152205/barnwell-2019-nfl-free-agency-trade-grades-tracking-every-big-signing-move

 

Does anyone ever go back and hold these 'experts' accountable for their takes? The Smiths have been astoundingly good moves for the Packers thus far, and have helped this defense go from laughable to solid enough to win a lot of football games. This really was a vital offseason for the Packers, and the early returns have been glowing.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Following another great game from the Smiths last night, I went back and dug up this critical writeup of their signings from ESPN.com:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26152205/barnwell-2019-nfl-free-agency-trade-grades-tracking-every-big-signing-move

 

Does anyone ever go back and hold these 'experts' accountable for their takes? The Smiths have been astoundingly good moves for the Packers thus far, and have helped this defense go from laughable to solid enough to win a lot of football games. This really was a vital offseason for the Packers, and the early returns have been glowing.

 

Well, he gave the Raiders an A- for their deal for Antonio Brown. So he's a doofus.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

They are in the clickbait business, not the analysis business. I'm telling you, GBP are among the most easily baited, largest in number fans in sports. I remember meeting Don Walker (RIP) and him telling me that a JSOnline story about a back up long snapper coming in for a work out reliably will get more clicks than a presidential election.

 

Most of the figureheads at ESPN are just regurgitating producer talking points with their own character spin on it.

[MrTPlush]

Following another great game from the Smiths last night, I went back and dug up this critical writeup of their signings from ESPN.com:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26152205/barnwell-2019-nfl-free-agency-trade-grades-tracking-every-big-signing-move

 

Does anyone ever go back and hold these 'experts' accountable for their takes? The Smiths have been astoundingly good moves for the Packers thus far, and have helped this defense go from laughable to solid enough to win a lot of football games. This really was a vital offseason for the Packers, and the early returns have been glowing.

 

Skimming his explanation I can't say he was really wrong. We paid more than market rate for some guys than what comparable contracts would say. Both are having career years, which is fantastic.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Following another great game from the Smiths last night, I went back and dug up this critical writeup of their signings from ESPN.com:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26152205/barnwell-2019-nfl-free-agency-trade-grades-tracking-every-big-signing-move

 

Does anyone ever go back and hold these 'experts' accountable for their takes? The Smiths have been astoundingly good moves for the Packers thus far, and have helped this defense go from laughable to solid enough to win a lot of football games. This really was a vital offseason for the Packers, and the early returns have been glowing.

 

Skimming his explanation I can't say he was really wrong. We paid more than market rate for some guys than what comparable contracts would say. Both are having career years, which is fantastic.

 

Who is he to decide what "market value" is? I can throw assumptions out too. Are these guys having career years, or were they identified as players who weren't being used right in their current schemes, and could break out? And we have no clue who else was throwing contract offers at them. The Packers ID'd who they wanted, and were aggressive in making sure they got them.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It makes sense to go "above market" for two ascending players considering you are buying out a bunch of years of FA. They both checked off every box for "good player that has a good chance to get better." You have to factor in potential when you sign a player their age and try to figure out market value. That is the risk of FA. You are buying potential most of the time.

[MrTPlush]

Following another great game from the Smiths last night, I went back and dug up this critical writeup of their signings from ESPN.com:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26152205/barnwell-2019-nfl-free-agency-trade-grades-tracking-every-big-signing-move

 

Does anyone ever go back and hold these 'experts' accountable for their takes? The Smiths have been astoundingly good moves for the Packers thus far, and have helped this defense go from laughable to solid enough to win a lot of football games. This really was a vital offseason for the Packers, and the early returns have been glowing.

 

Skimming his explanation I can't say he was really wrong. We paid more than market rate for some guys than what comparable contracts would say. Both are having career years, which is fantastic.

 

Who is he to decide what "market value" is? I can throw assumptions out too. Are these guys having career years, or were they identified as players who weren't being used right in their current schemes, and could break out? And we have no clue who else was throwing contract offers at them. The Packers ID'd who they wanted, and were aggressive in making sure they got them.

 

You can, he provided information to back his up though. He gave an opinion given the information at the time. He wasn't trying to predict the future.

 

I am just saying it wasn't a terrible take, at least on the Packers players. Overall I bet it is a pretty bad article just because one man decided to do quick summaries of dozens of transactional moves...quality usually isn't great in those type of articles.

[PeaveyFury]

He wasn't trying to predict the future.

 

Isn't that exactly what he was trying to do when evaluating the value of the players' future performance relative to the dollars that would be paid to them in the future, though?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If that's not what he was doing the article was a waste of time. I thought it was generally accepted that you aren't paying FAs a reward for what they've already done.

[MrTPlush]

He wasn't trying to predict the future.

 

Isn't that exactly what he was trying to do when evaluating the value of the players' future performance relative to the dollars that would be paid to them in the future, though?

 

Speaking just towards the Packers signings, not exactly. I think he was more going for the notion we overpaid greatly based on comparable contracts and their production to that point.

 

I'm not saying it is the world greatest article etc....but it had some thought put into it at least. Which is getting very rare.

[nodakfan17]

The Packers lead the league in ‘beneficiary yards’ (opponent penalties) with over 500 yards through six games.