Game 5: Packers @ Buccaneers - Sunday, October 18th, 3:25PM

[nodakfan17]

About 5 years ago, I saw a guy in a Wisconsin bar with a Houston Texans neck tattoo. It just struck me as odd that loyalty to a recent expansion team would run that deep.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I actually thought the 2nd pick was fine, Rodgers makes a lot of those throws. That was an amazing play from the defender and then it bounced, anything can happen on those. I think it was Davis; he had to make a hell of a play to get his hand in there and he did with little to no contact.

[pacopete4]

 

Here is you, 2 hours before Week 1 kickoff, saying you don't watch the NFL anymore:

 

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=39908&p=1313941&hilit=NFL#p1313941

 

I'm just glad I got to click on that and see my post of "Sogard go away" once again. Made me chuckle. Anyways, carry on...

[adambr2]

I can't just chalk this up to a bad day at the office. Not until we see us even compete in these types of games.. We haven't lost many games in the MLF era. But it is becoming a bit disturbing how poorly things escalate for us any time we face adversity.

 

Bad things happen to NFL teams and it is important to remain composed and respond positively. Seemingly any time the tide turns against us, we absolutely crumble. I don't know if this just speaks to poor player leadership, a lack of adjustments, fear, or just a few bad incidences of circumstance, but it happened in San Diego, it happened twice in San Francisco, and it happened again yesterday. When we face adversity, we get absolutely crushed. There shouldn't be any reason for the sudden non-competiveness, but it is happening nonetheless. We moved the ball just fine in Q1 yesterday and then when things went wrong it's like watching an entirely different team.

 

We also haven't done anything to change the narrative that a team with an elite defensive front, stout pass rushers and a decent ground attack can completely control a game against us.

 

I think they'll win next week. I think they'll win a lot of games this year. But the potential for this type of game in January against this type of team isn't going to go away, even if we win 13 or 14 games.

 

This team had plenty of close games and adversity on their way to 13 wins last year. The majority of those wins were close and ugly. It's just that we seem to remember those that didn't go their way, and those that, for whatever reason, they let get away from them in a major way.

 

There is no dominant team this year. I think any team can beat any other team at any time. The team that avoids mistakes and costly turnovers typically wins. The Packers couldn't do that yesterday, and they ended up getting curbstomped. How they respond now is the important thing.

 

I guess to me there is a difference between playing in close games and rallying from adversity. Yeah, they played in close games last year. About the only time I saw them face some real adversity and respond positively in 2019 was against the Detroit Lions and that speaks more to how bad of an organization the Detroit Lions are than anything positive we did.

 

We're a good football team, but perhaps more than any other team in the league it seems that we are quite susceptible to bad matchups that force us out of our gameplan. One aspect of a Mike McCarthy offense was that things seemed to go brilliantly for us as long as we were able to stick to the script and didn't have to adjust or improvise. It doesn't feel like that has changed much.

 

Coming into yesterday I believed it had. I felt that Rodgers was playing at an MVP level again and there wasn't a defense in the NFL that was going to stop our offense from rolling, especially in this era of NFL where defense is more just slowing down the opponent than stopping them.

 

Obviously, I was wrong. So I'm definitely quite a bit less optimistic about our chances to go to the Super Bowl than I was 24 hours ago.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't really but that 'adversity' is a problem. But it's hard to ignore they fold against very physical teams. It's been their m.o. for years under many coaches and they've done nothing to help it under MLF. Once Tampa adjusted to our opening sequences on both sides, they absolutely owned us. That was the 2018 Packers after the first pick.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I don't really but that 'adversity' is a problem. But it's hard to ignore they fold against very physical teams. It's been their m.o. for years under many coaches and they've done nothing to help it under MLF. Once Tampa adjusted to our opening sequences on both sides, they absolutely owned us. That was the 2018 Packers after the first pick.

 

It is my hope that the team we saw on the field yesterday was an aberration, and not what is representative of what we'll see on the field come January. If they come out looking flat again against an inferior opponent in the Texans next week, I'll be concerned. This is the first real adversity this team has had this year. I expect them to come out with guns blazing next Sunday.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I dunno. Blowing out HOU won't really do much to change my perception. That's exactly what everyone expects them to be. If they play well in SF and Indy I'd be a bit more at ease. Until they beat one of these defense-first physical, fast teams, it's a valid concern.

[adambr2]

I don't really but that 'adversity' is a problem. But it's hard to ignore they fold against very physical teams. It's been their m.o. for years under many coaches and they've done nothing to help it under MLF. Once Tampa adjusted to our opening sequences on both sides, they absolutely owned us. That was the 2018 Packers after the first pick.

 

It is my hope that the team we saw on the field yesterday was an aberration, and not what is representative of what we'll see on the field come January. If they come out looking flat again against an inferior opponent in the Texans next week, I'll be concerned. This is the first real adversity this team has had this year. I expect them to come out with guns blazing next Sunday.

 

I don't really care how they look against inferior opponents. They've proven they can beat inferior opponents. I'm more concerned how they look against defenses that can make them uncomfortable. They could win in Houston 42-10 next week and it wouldn't make me feel better about yesterday.

 

Go into San Francisco on November 5th, move the ball effectively and win, then that would be a development.

[PeaveyFury]

I dunno. Blowing out HOU won't really do much to change my perception. That's exactly what everyone expects them to be. If they play well in SF and Indy I'd be a bit more at ease. Until they beat one of these defense-first physical, fast teams, it's a valid concern.

 

It seems like the Packers historically have struggled to beat the 'teams they're supposed to beat', especially after a deflating loss like this last one. I think beating Houston and looking competent while doing so shows that under MLF, this team will at least take care of business as they're expected to.

 

But yeah, sooner or later you need to beat a good defensive team on the road.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I dunno. Blowing out HOU won't really do much to change my perception. That's exactly what everyone expects them to be. If they play well in SF and Indy I'd be a bit more at ease. Until they beat one of these defense-first physical, fast teams, it's a valid concern.

 

I get that, but at the same time, you just need to beat the teams on your schedule, one at a time. Kinda hard to look down the road at weeks 8 and 10. A lot can change between now and then. San Fran has had so many injuries this season, who knows who is even going to be available for that game?

 

I'd argue that the Packers already have a win on their record against a tough, fast, physical defense in the Saints.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't even need them to win. Just stop losing by 30 to these teams. Make them sweat in the 4th quarter.

[homer]

Some perspective:

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

One of the replies to that post gets into the weird DL dropping into coverage theme. They need to abandon that, last week. We had a 3-man rush going on Tom Brady where Preston Smith and Montravius Adams, 304-lb Montravius Adams, dropped into pass coverage.

[adambr2]

The offense did him no favors but Mike Pettine was an absolute dud yesterday. The defensive gameplan just flat out sucked. You have the most immobile QB in football and not only do you not scheme anything to pressure him, you don't even try to force him out of the pocket.

 

The most alarming play was that 3rd and goal from the 8, dropping 8 into coverage. Tom Brady has been around way too long to do that, you give him that much time and he is going to find a hole in the zone.

 

I am not saying we need to play cover 0 every play, but my goodness, you have a good secondary, trust them. Let your secondary cover and your pass rushers do what they do and stop scheming guys into roles that set them up for failure.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think it's fair to say the DC is a hot seat, especially considering he was not a MLF guy.

[HiAndTight]

lol

 

Obsession sets in...

 

dude *sigh* Brady brought me back to the NFL, I had to see what would would happen. Like so many others that gave up on the NFL and came back for whatever reason, Brady was my reason.

 

I know a lot of people who claimed to leave the NFL but came back 3 weeks later, or the next season. I stuck to my word for 3 years, and it took a pretty big deal to bring me back. I used to watch every game that was on tv, no matter who was playing, I now only watch Bucs games. I'm back, but in a limited manner.

 

Carry on, if you want, I can give you some more quotes so you have something to post 2 months from now...

 

 

I think you think a bit highly of yourself. Who's obsessed? I DO find it funny that you've been a "die hard" NFL fan since 1977 but you've also given up on watching the NFL so much so that you struggle to be around people who ARE NFL fans because you have "awkward encounters" with fans who ask you why you DON'T watch the NFL anymore.

 

I feel like "diehard" here is a little bit more akin to "every 7 or 8 years when my part time team wins I get to rub it in fellow Brewers fans faces."

And that's fine...

 

 

I would question the "so many others" who quit watching Football...but I just don't care enough and that seems like it's destined to veer off(as if this already hasn't).

[pacopete4]

At this point, I think I'd rather see us play 0 cover and occasionally get burned than sitting back and hoping the other team doesn't connect on their passes after 7 seconds in the pocket.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

At this point, I think I'd rather see us play 0 cover and occasionally get burned than sitting back and hoping the other team doesn't connect on their passes after 7 seconds in the pocket.

 

If the secondary is even decent, which I think it is, it would seem more logical to send more guys and give the strength of the defense a chance to make plays/hold their own. Yesterday we did the exact opposite. Send 3 at 5 and make life hard for our backfield.

[homer]

I brought up the jet sweep action (or lack thereof) during the game. MLF discussed it afterwards:

 

With Tyler Ervin (wrist) out for this game, coach Matt LaFleur used Aaron Jones in the role of the wingback who runs the jet motion that’s such a big part of LaFleur’s offense. That meant Jamaal Williams and Jones were on the field together for a good number of snaps, with Jones at the wing and Williams at halfback. Though Jones is an explosive back, the tactic didn’t work. Jones ran jet motion almost every time he lined up at the wingback, but he didn’t take any jet-sweep handoffs, and from the halfback position he and Williams combined for 49 yards on 14 carries, with 25 of those yards coming on a Williams run in the first quarter. “We’ve got to have a better plan,” LaFleur said, “because losing one guy (i.e., Ervin) can’t have that type of effect on your football team. If it does, then you’re probably not doing things the right way. So we’ve got to make sure we again go back to the drawing board as a coaching staff, take a good hard look at everything and make sure that we’re asking our players to do things they can do.”

[HiAndTight]

As much as I just want to ignore football altogether in the few days after a loss, I figure it worthy to put together some thoughts anyway:

 

1)Obviously, they're not going to win all 16 regular season games, but that doesn't make an ugly loss like that any less painful. I do believe that you can learn more about yourselves as a team from a loss than you can from a win, so hopefully they are able to learn and fix. But wow, do their losses seem horrendous on the rare occasions that they've happened.

2)I think it's disappointing that yet again in the second season under MLF, the Packers came out ultra-flat out of a bye. I said two weeks ago that the bye came at a good time for the team from an injury standpoint, but I do think that a team on a roll like they were would have had more benefit from a later bye. Still, you have to wonder about why they lay an egg like that.

3)Related, I appreciate hearing 'bad week of practice' and such, but still, WTH? First concerns about 'behavior on the west coast trips' last year, now ugly practices out of the bye. A little concerning. Once is an anomaly, twice is the start of a trend.

4)A lot has been noted about the team's success with Adams off the field. I won't in any way advocate that the team is better off without one of the best receivers in the league, but I do think our QB's play is better overall without him. At least one of the INTs yesterday was due to forcing the ball into Davante when the window just wasn't there, and the pick six was even worse- forcing the ball into a window that wasn't there on a route destined to result in a pick six if the ball doesn't get to the receiver. He has to be better at taking what's there, whether the receiver has Adams on the back of his jersey or otherwise.

5)I don't think the Buccaneers are anything close to favorites in the NFC, but I'm confident this won't look like an ugly loss to a bad team at the end of the year. The defense is very good, and likely the best we've played thus far by a large margin, and the offense seems to be starting to click. No reason to think they won't be a playoff team come January.

6)Why does it feel like the team has problems in a particular building? Raymond James has been an ugly place for the Packers to play, seemingly back to the days of Sherman/Favre. It's like the Metrodome through most of Favre's career. It just seems like we lay an egg here, regardless of how good the level of competition is.

7)All of the points about the team's response to adversity are very fair, IMO. It seems like the blueprint for beating us is to A) have a defense good enough to knock us out of our desired offensive gameplan, and B)get us down big, as we can't seem to come back from a significant deficit anymore. TB certainly did a good job on both of those points. Jones was a complete non-factor, which is saying something. They have to figure out how to adjust when the offensive game plan gets disrupted like that.

8)The annoying thing is that it wasn't really TB that put us out of our game plan, it was two terrible turnovers. 10-0 lead with the ball. You really have to wonder how much differently this game looks if we just control the ball.

9)Beyond all of that, not much good to point to. I guess Krys Barnes seemed to be all over the field defensively. Beyond that and that it sounds like Bakh and Tonyan both avoided any kind of serious injury, there wasn't anything else I can point to as a positive from this game.

 

 

I disagree with a couple points.

 

1st-They didn't come out flat. That's what's the most frustrating. They came out and absolutely dominated. They didn't finish the first drive, but they finished the 2nd. Then Rodgers threw that terrible pick...THEN they started to look flat....which leads me to

 

2-That wasn't a bad window, that was a routine slant to Adams and it hit him in both of his hands for what should have been a 1st down. I can get past both of those because it's Rodgers and Adams. How often does 12 throw a weak ball on a field out and then how often does Adams just have one go right off his hands when he's not trying to run after the catch?

 

3-With regard to Rodgers being better without Adams...I'm not convinced that's the case(though the stats may say otherwise).

 

To me it was just baffling to see our offense SO stagnant. ALL the stuff that's made us look good in the past few weeks just thrown out the window. The pre-snap motion, the mis-direction. This was much more like a Mike McCarthy outdated scheme than the one MLF's been getting praised for.

 

I mention in one of my obnoxiously long posts in the transaction threads, but I think the Packers should take a hard look at John Ross. I don't expect he'll resurect his career as a #1 WR'er, but he looks to me EXACTLY like the type of player you'd want playing whatever hybrid position that Tyler Ervin is.

They can't possibly have pinned so much of their hopes on the play of Tyler friggin Ervin, right? I mean...he's a nice player, but that offense looked totally different yesterday. It looked like last years.

 

Tampa definitely beat us badly, but you're also 100 pct right, they didn't take us out of our game....we did that. You spot that offense 14 points, then you fall further behind against the #1 pass rush in the NFL...bad things are gonna happen!

 

On balance I agree with most of what you said. I don't think this makes the Buccs favorites for the NFC. It'll change this week and it'll be Seattle, TB and then us or even Chicago(which....isn't gonna happen). But this is NOT like the 49'ers loss. We got beat, but we were a drive away from completely taking control of the game. If we lose a game and you can point to Aaron Rodgers throwing picks as the reason, there's a pretty good chance that won't repeat itself.

 

 

Oh, and with regard to the bad weak of practice, what the hell is that? I heard Rodgers complaining(that might be strong, maybe pointing out would be more accurate) how they didn't really get a bye week. So in that sense when you're expecting a bye week mentally and you're coming in every day to get tested and you don't have anywhere to go, I can absolutely see how that would get dull and how the practice could drop.

 

 

Good news, on top of Tonyan and Bahk's injuries not being too bad, I'll throw EQ St. Brown was on the field. He didn't look good(though the 2nd pass that fans were saying he dropped was on Rodgers)...but he was out there and moving well. Rodgers was talking about how much he likes him because he catches with his hands and it gives him a wide catch radius, but he had a bad day, but he played and he was healthy.

 

And Dillon got some run. And he looked good. So...two guys didn't get hurt, a guy who has been hurt played poorly but played and our 2nd round pick got a few carries. Christ...can you find worse "good takeaway's" from a game?

 

 

 

Still, I like our chances, but for the love of God Gute, get on the phone. Don't let another D-Hop get traded for a 4th rounder! Maybe show a little initiative. I don't expect you to ACTUALLY trade a 1st rounder for the guy I like, but you'd better do something. I think it's a real bad sign if they don't make a fairly significant move between now and the deadline.

[yourout]

This team misses Lazard a lot more than you think.

[HiAndTight]

At this point, I think I'd rather see us play 0 cover and occasionally get burned than sitting back and hoping the other team doesn't connect on their passes after 7 seconds in the pocket.

 

 

I kinda agree with you. You don't literally need to play cover 0. You can play with a single high and then shade him over to Gronk or Evans.

 

On the TD that put the game away, we ran a cover 0 and Brady just threw it up for Gronk for an easy ~20 yard TD.

 

On the deep ball to that little annoying guy named Scotty where Jackson was in perfect position...yet for whatever reason decided he'd rather NOT turn his head around and try and play the ball, they were sending pressure.

 

I think it shows how important it is to have King out there. I think Jackson still can salvage his career, but he was obviously not comfortable. Going against Brady(even a declining Brady) and a couple of elite WR'ers can do that to a guy who hasn't gotten much PT.

 

 

The guy who really has to step up is Savage. He REALLY flashed at times last year...he helped in the run game, he was all over the field. He was making the rookie mistakes you'd expect, but he was flashing. I've seen nothing from him this year. Amos at the other spot was never really expected to come in and be a Sharper/Woodson type player who created turnovers, just a steady, reliable DB. You traded up to get him, he needs to play better.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The Packers in general need to start generating turnovers.

 

They are #1 in the league with 2 giveaways; entered yesterday with 0.

 

They are 15th in differential at +1. A few big plays would make that defense seem way better than it has looked.

[HiAndTight]

I brought up the jet sweep action (or lack thereof) during the game. MLF discussed it afterwards:

 

With Tyler Ervin (wrist) out for this game, coach Matt LaFleur used Aaron Jones in the role of the wingback who runs the jet motion that’s such a big part of LaFleur’s offense. That meant Jamaal Williams and Jones were on the field together for a good number of snaps, with Jones at the wing and Williams at halfback. Though Jones is an explosive back, the tactic didn’t work. Jones ran jet motion almost every time he lined up at the wingback, but he didn’t take any jet-sweep handoffs, and from the halfback position he and Williams combined for 49 yards on 14 carries, with 25 of those yards coming on a Williams run in the first quarter. “We’ve got to have a better plan,” LaFleur said, “because losing one guy (i.e., Ervin) can’t have that type of effect on your football team. If it does, then you’re probably not doing things the right way. So we’ve got to make sure we again go back to the drawing board as a coaching staff, take a good hard look at everything and make sure that we’re asking our players to do things they can do.”

 

 

Ok...cool. So he saw the problem and addressed it. That's refreshing.

 

 

This team misses Lazard a lot more than you think.

 

 

More than who thinks? I think Lazard was playing well...he is a great blocking WR'er and a big target, but I don't think he's making that big of a difference in a game like yesterday. He takes a while to get open on his routes due to the fact that he's slow. We weren't hitting any of those big plays that Lazard got a few weeks ago because those were all plays that Rodgers had to hold the ball for 4 seconds or so. He wasn't able to hold the ball anywhere near that long.

 

 

I think it'd be really nice to get Lazard back. I think the loss of Ervin hurt us far more than the loss of Lazard did...but yes, of course we're missing him. He was a starter. But he shouldn't make that big of a difference.

[HiAndTight]

I think it's fair to say the DC is a hot seat, especially considering he was not a MLF guy.

 

 

Oh Gawd...he'd better be.

 

Honestly, the biggest trade I'd like to make right now would be Williams from the Jets. GREGG Williams.

 

I don't care about Bounty-Gate, he's a hard ass who puts his players in good positions to get the most out of them.

He should be coming on the market after this season. I'd really love to see him and his aggressive 34 over Pettine's.

 

 

On the zone blitz...with Adams and Preston Smith dropping, that's fine to run, but the ENTIRE point of that is you've got other guys coming so that the QB has to get rid of the ball quickly to his safety valve and thus the fat guy doesn't have to cover much ground or maybe he's not even seen by the QB(think Packers-Bears on that Raji TD).

 

 

But hey, can't argue with dropping Preston Smith in coverage, right? I mean, when you've got Derrick Brooks...what, are you NOT gonna drop him into coverage? Clearly the reason we handed out 4/56 to Preston was to come in, get 12 sacks, 32 QB hits, be in the top 10 in pressures...then...and this is key, you REALLY throw the opposing offenses for a loop when you drop him into coverage OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

 

That IS where he thrives. Covering his 3 yard patch of dirt about and dropping into that hook zone.

 

 

I don't recall the last time I really wanted a coach to be fired as badly as I want Pettine gone. I wanted McCarthy gone, but I almost felt bad because I thought he was good and then just got stale. But Pettine...he's never been good. He was gifted three elite players in his front 7, a budding young superstar at CB, a solid secondary and he can't make anything happen with them?