2019 Green Bay Packers Season Thread

[wallus]

 

It's also insurance in case they move on from Linsley, who has a $10.2M cap number for 2020 and is in the last year of his deal. Linsley is good, but not sure if he's worth $10.2M. Unlikely, but possible.

 

Excellent catch. I would much rather have Bulaga back then pay Linsley. I thought Patrick played alright when Linsley went out.

[FVBrewerFan]

It's also insurance in case they move on from Linsley, who has a $10.2M cap number for 2020 and is in the last year of his deal.

 

Yikes. Hadn't realized his cap number was that high. Considering they'd only carry a $2mil dead cap number if they cut him, that seems possible if they can't work out an extension to re-work that number.

 

This made me look into cap for next season. They are $32MM under. Add $8MM for Linsley and another $8MM for Graham, and total is $48MM under the cap. So they can be big players in FA again.

[OldHeidelberg]

Not sure who I want to win the Saints/Vikings game, removing the Saints from the field seems the obvious choice but ever since 2007 I sort of stopped wishing for the easier opponent to fall our way. Hawks/Eagles seem like a better matchup for us but in the end I am sure I will be rooting for the Saints to extend the Vikings futility.

[adambr2]

Not sure who I want to win the Saints/Vikings game, removing the Saints from the field seems the obvious choice but ever since 2007 I sort of stopped wishing for the easier opponent to fall our way. Hawks/Eagles seem like a better matchup for us but in the end I am sure I will be rooting for the Saints to extend the Vikings futility.

 

I'm definitely rooting for the Vikings. There's no doubt that the Saints are the toughest possible opponent and avoiding them would definitely be a huge break. I'm not sure we would win even at home, they just have so many weapons on offense. I don't think our defense could slow them down much, and our offense simply isn't built to come from behind or win a track meet.

 

Both the Eagles and Seahawks are beatable opponents. If we draw either one at home and can't take care of business that is on us.

[pacopete4]

I want to see Brees/Rodgers at Lambeau. What a matchup that could be.

[OldHeidelberg]

Not sure who I want to win the Saints/Vikings game, removing the Saints from the field seems the obvious choice but ever since 2007 I sort of stopped wishing for the easier opponent to fall our way. Hawks/Eagles seem like a better matchup for us but in the end I am sure I will be rooting for the Saints to extend the Vikings futility.

 

I'm definitely rooting for the Vikings. There's no doubt that the Saints are the toughest possible opponent and avoiding them would definitely be a huge break. I'm not sure we would win even at home, they just have so many weapons on offense. I don't think our defense could slow them down much, and our offense simply isn't built to come from behind or win a track meet.

 

Both the Eagles and Seahawks are beatable opponents. If we draw either one at home and can't take care of business that is on us.

 

Yeah but then we are rooting for them again next Saturday to get us a potential home game for the NFCC. Do we really want to have to beat a suddenly red hot Viking team with a presumably healthy Cook for a third time? What if we lost to them? That would be devastating for me

[wallus]

It's also insurance in case they move on from Linsley, who has a $10.2M cap number for 2020 and is in the last year of his deal.

 

Yikes. Hadn't realized his cap number was that high. Considering they'd only carry a $2mil dead cap number if they cut him, that seems possible if they can't work out an extension to re-work that number.

 

It always puzzled me why Linsley got a big extension while the Packers let JC Tretter go to the Browns for much less money. Linsley is whatever. He's ok. I think he's pretty replaceable. Tretter is better than Linsley.

 

Also, Bryan Bulaga deserves a shout out. For all the crap he takes, the guy played in every single game this season and played extremely well. He's just completing a 5 year, 33M deal and he was an absolute bargain at that rate even with the missed injury time.

 

Do you make the same exact posts in multiple forums?

[adambr2]

Do you make the same exact posts in multiple forums?

 

Occasionally (though very rarely) yes, why? It's my own original writing, lol. It's like not it's plagiarized.

[adambr2]

Not sure who I want to win the Saints/Vikings game, removing the Saints from the field seems the obvious choice but ever since 2007 I sort of stopped wishing for the easier opponent to fall our way. Hawks/Eagles seem like a better matchup for us but in the end I am sure I will be rooting for the Saints to extend the Vikings futility.

 

I'm definitely rooting for the Vikings. There's no doubt that the Saints are the toughest possible opponent and avoiding them would definitely be a huge break. I'm not sure we would win even at home, they just have so many weapons on offense. I don't think our defense could slow them down much, and our offense simply isn't built to come from behind or win a track meet.

 

Both the Eagles and Seahawks are beatable opponents. If we draw either one at home and can't take care of business that is on us.

 

Yeah but then we are rooting for them again next Saturday to get us a potential home game for the NFCC. Do we really want to have to beat a suddenly red hot Viking team with a presumably healthy Cook for a third time? What if we lost to them? That would be devastating for me

 

I'll be devastated no matter what losing the NFCCG at home. If circumstances came into play though where we got that chance against the Vikings though, I think that would be our best shot of any at getting to the Super Bowl.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm feeling pretty confident about the Packers chances against anybody besides SF on the road which is the only place they can play them. NO is an opponent where it's night and day based on where you play them. The rest of the teams are not significantly better than the Packers. The Packers could be one and done and it wouldn't surprise me at all but I'm not really throwing in the towel against anyone and that includes the Saints who I think would a lot of trouble in Green Bay.

 

The Packers also have Rodgers which is always the ace in the hole. He's played poorly this year but at any moment he could be the old guy again. It's happened before when he snaps out of it and plays 5-7 games at an insane level. I think that's going to happen again just probably not this year.

[adambr2]

I'm feeling pretty confident about the Packers chances against anybody besides SF on the road which is the only place they can play them. NO is an opponent where it's night and day based on where you play them.

 

How so? The Saints were 7-1 on the road this year. It's not like with the Seahawks a few years ago where they were like 8-0 at home and 5-3 on the road. The Saints are a good road team. Maybe at Brees age he could be affected by the elements, but we don't even know that the weather will be a factor. It could be 35 and mild for all we know 9 days out.

[MrTPlush]

Looks like it should be around 30-35, actually. I’d put high confidence on that temp range. Not much precipitation in the forecast next weekend either...but that can be a little more fluky depending on what the different models are showing.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I wasn't implying they're a poor road team and I'm aware of their W-L splits. I was just saying it's not the same daunting matchup outside their theme park. It'll be a raucous road environment in cold temps, how cold we don't really know yet but it won't be 68 with no wind on their track surface.

 

There are places in the league I just never want to play and @NO is one of them. I wouldn't give the Packers a prayer on the road against that team but it just don't feel like it has the same blowout loss potential at home.

 

I just don't really see the Packers odds shifting drastically one way or another no matter who they play. Philly can beat them at home and so can the Saints but I feel they have a chance against any of their potential opponents. At the same time they aren't a dominant team so I feel like anyone they get will be a game that goes down to the wire.

 

So I just don't really care who they play 2nd round. They're not good enough for anyone to be a shoe-in opponent. The real leap I'd like to see happen is keeping the title game in Green Bay.

[wallus]

Do you make the same exact posts in multiple forums?

 

Occasionally (though very rarely) yes, why? It's my own original writing, lol. It's like not it's plagiarized.

 

Just noticed it and have never seen it before I guess. It is pretty darn efficient.

[Outlander]

I'm feeling pretty confident about the Packers chances against anybody besides SF on the road which is the only place they can play them. NO is an opponent where it's night and day based on where you play them.

 

How so? The Saints were 7-1 on the road this year. It's not like with the Seahawks a few years ago where they were like 8-0 at home and 5-3 on the road. The Saints are a good road team. Maybe at Brees age he could be affected by the elements, but we don't even know that the weather will be a factor. It could be 35 and mild for all we know 9 days out.

The Saints play in the NFC South so have a lot of indoor and warm weather games. The Saints still have more talent IMHO but I don't like the Packer chances at all in NO. I would imagine 30 degree weather would impact them at least somewhat and give the Packers a chance. Just like the weather impacted Favre as he got older it may impact Brees, a 41 year old man.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I just see the Packers as close to 50/50 against anyone. With a bit worse odds against the Saints, but I still think it's a good game in Green Bay. I also doubt it will feel like 35 degrees by 6pm.

[brewcrewdue80]

I'm feeling pretty confident about the Packers chances against anybody besides SF on the road which is the only place they can play them. NO is an opponent where it's night and day based on where you play them.

 

How so? The Saints were 7-1 on the road this year. It's not like with the Seahawks a few years ago where they were like 8-0 at home and 5-3 on the road. The Saints are a good road team. Maybe at Brees age he could be affected by the elements, but we don't even know that the weather will be a factor. It could be 35 and mild for all we know 9 days out.

 

Im not sure at 1 or 2 losses at home or on the road makes a huge difference when the matchup is of a team that lost 1 at home and 2 on the road. I think the impact would be relevant at an 8-0 5-3 or 4-4 record Home vs away as a playoff team. Obviously 8-0 and 3-5 on road type. I do believe that certain dome stadiums have bigger impacts to overcome vs a home team playing outdoors. NO and Seattle for instances. Colts? Trying to think of another AFC dome team. Houston and Dallas but I dont think of their Home Field as big an advantage.

Lambeau field there's an advantage imo on team makeup and of course kickers. Though in the last half? Dozen years seems opposing kickers don't have as much a yardage impact. Like it used to be 43yards you'd have no problem attempting but 45 and above you wouldn't even try. Hasn't there been a number booted beyond 50 more recently?

 

That all said, I have 0 faith GB could beat NO on the road this season. I feel its more a 5050 playing in GB at least. How Aaron Jones performs vs NO's Defense is what tips the Packers over NO. I see no way currently Rodgers can best Brees in a QB throwdown. One QB has confidence in more than 1WR and the other has trouble giving his WRs chances to make a play, seemingly its either a perfect throw or nobody will catch it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't think the Lambeau advantage is all that great. They've dropped quite a few duds in my presence, playoffs included. The advantage to me is simply that they don't have to play in New Orleans. I wouldn't bet a cent on them to win down there. Same thing with SF. But I think their defense might be too fast anywhere.

 

Like I said above though, Rodgers could have a legendary game at any minute. He's due.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Also, Seattle isn't a dome, but I agree with your point. New Orleans has always been a difficult place to play. Kansas City, Minnesota, Seattle, Philadelphia. Some places just have a better atmosphere for their teams than the Atlantas and Tampas of the league.

[Fear The Chorizo]

That all said, I have 0 faith GB could beat NO on the road this season. I feel its more a 5050 playing in GB at least. How Aaron Jones performs vs NO's Defense is what tips the Packers over NO. I see no way currently Rodgers can best Brees in a QB throwdown. One QB has confidence in more than 1WR and the other has trouble giving his WRs chances to make a play, seemingly its either a perfect throw or nobody will catch it.

 

Based on Brees' performance yesterday, I'm pretty sure I'd take Rodgers - New Orleans has proven quite frequently in recent years that their high powered offense that scores at will just doesn't translate into the postseason.

[CheezWizHed]

$1.8M/year isn't expensive for a good backup. It's insurance in case Taylor has to kick out to tackle and Madison isn't ready to start the season. We're not far removed from complaining about UDFA's as backups.

 

It's also insurance in case they move on from Linsley, who has a $10.2M cap number for 2020 and is in the last year of his deal. Linsley is good, but not sure if he's worth $10.2M. Unlikely, but possible.

 

Actually, that isn't bad. I mis-read the contract as $3.6M/year. I feel better about that extension now.

[nodakfan17]

A few predictions on the eve of kickoff:

 

1) The Packers finish 9-7 and narrowly miss the playoffs

2) Aaron Rodgers is still a Pro Bowl QB (30 TD, 8 INT)

3) Kevin King plays in fewer than 10 games

4) Dexter Williams or Tra Carson start at least 1 game at RB

5) Jake Kumerow has at least 4 TDs: cements folk hero status

6) Darnell Savage impresses; Rashan Gary disappoints

7) Elgton Jenkins finishes the year as a starter on the OL.

8) The Packers lose at least one game to the Lions.

9) Vikings also finish 9-7; Mike McCarthy is their next HC.

Here were the predictions I made before Week 1.

 

The team’s health probably accounts for most of the difference between their 13-3 record and my 9-7 prediction. Not dropping a close game to the Lions also helped. That seemed to be a characteristic of recent underachieving Packer teams.

[nodakfan17]

A few predictions on the eve of kickoff:

 

1) The Packers finish 9-7 and narrowly miss the playoffs

2) Aaron Rodgers is still a Pro Bowl QB (30 TD, 8 INT)

3) Kevin King plays in fewer than 10 games

4) Dexter Williams or Tra Carson start at least 1 game at RB

5) Jake Kumerow has at least 4 TDs: cements folk hero status

6) Darnell Savage impresses; Rashan Gary disappoints

7) Elgton Jenkins finishes the year as a starter on the OL.

8) The Packers lose at least one game to the Lions.

9) Vikings also finish 9-7; Mike McCarthy is their next HC.

Here were the predictions I made before Week 1.

 

The team’s health probably accounts for most of the difference between their 13-3 record and my 9-7 prediction. Not dropping a close game to the Lions also helped. That seemed to be a characteristic of recent underachieving Packer teams.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

A few predictions on the eve of kickoff:

 

1) The Packers finish 9-7 and narrowly miss the playoffs

2) Aaron Rodgers is still a Pro Bowl QB (30 TD, 8 INT)

3) Kevin King plays in fewer than 10 games

4) Dexter Williams or Tra Carson start at least 1 game at RB

5) Jake Kumerow has at least 4 TDs: cements folk hero status

6) Darnell Savage impresses; Rashan Gary disappoints

7) Elgton Jenkins finishes the year as a starter on the OL.

8) The Packers lose at least one game to the Lions.

9) Vikings also finish 9-7; Mike McCarthy is their next HC.

Here were the predictions I made before Week 1.

 

The team’s health probably accounts for most of the difference between their 13-3 record and my 9-7 prediction. Not dropping a close game to the Lions also helped. That seemed to be a characteristic of recent underachieving Packer teams.

 

Relative health doesn't equate to a 4 win difference in record, though. one or two games I could see. Not 4. This team was overall batter than your prognostication. You aren't alone, though. I saw 10-11 wins best case, and I was wrong as well.

 

You nailed many of the other predictions, but clearly missed on several.

 

1) Obviously 13-3 is way better then 9-7.

 

2) He is! And those numbers are pretty close.

 

3) King stayed healthy, and was productive for the most part. He gets a bad rap, but when healthy, the guy is pretty good.

 

4) Nope. Aaron Jones maintained his health all season, and Williams was a capable fill in. Basically a redshirt year for Dexter. Carson is a Lion now.

 

5) Kumerow wouldn't need any TDs to be a folk hero in lily white Wis.

 

6) Yep. Savage was a nice addition. Gary showed flashes, but the health at the edge spot meant he didn't see the field much.

 

7) Jenkins is a stud. Good call.

 

8) Well, they certainly tried. Lions wouldn't let them have it.

 

9) Vikings were better than expected. Not a great team, but have enough talent to surprise.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

A few predictions on the eve of kickoff:

 

1) The Packers finish 9-7 and narrowly miss the playoffs

2) Aaron Rodgers is still a Pro Bowl QB (30 TD, 8 INT)

3) Kevin King plays in fewer than 10 games

4) Dexter Williams or Tra Carson start at least 1 game at RB

5) Jake Kumerow has at least 4 TDs: cements folk hero status

6) Darnell Savage impresses; Rashan Gary disappoints

7) Elgton Jenkins finishes the year as a starter on the OL.

8) The Packers lose at least one game to the Lions.

9) Vikings also finish 9-7; Mike McCarthy is their next HC.

Here were the predictions I made before Week 1.

 

The team’s health probably accounts for most of the difference between their 13-3 record and my 9-7 prediction. Not dropping a close game to the Lions also helped. That seemed to be a characteristic of recent underachieving Packer teams.

 

Relative health doesn't equate to a 4 win difference in record, though. one or two games I could see. Not 4. This team was overall batter than your prognostication. You aren't alone, though. I saw 10-11 wins best case, and I was wrong as well.

 

You nailed many of the other predictions, but clearly missed on several.

 

1) Obviously 13-3 is way better then 9-7.

 

2) He is! And those numbers are pretty close.

 

3) King stayed healthy, and was productive for the most part. He gets a bad rap, but when healthy, the guy is pretty good.

 

4) Nope. Aaron Jones maintained his health all season, and Williams was a capable fill in. Basically a redshirt year for Dexter. Carson is a Lion now.

 

5) Kumerow wouldn't need any TDs to be a folk hero in lily white Wis.

 

6) Yep. Savage was a nice addition. Gary showed flashes, but the health at the edge spot meant he didn't see the field much.

 

7) Jenkins is a stud. Good call.

 

8) Well, they certainly tried. Lions wouldn't let them have it.

 

9) Vikings were better than expected. Not a great team, but have enough talent to surprise.