Game 10: Packers @ Colts - Sunday, Nov 22nd, 3:25PM CT

[brewcrewdue80]

Per MVS on his Twitter: “ Death threats over a football game? Jesus you people need help. It’s actually sick. I’m good. My team got my back.”

 

Why are people so pathetic? Have we always been this way and now that social media is prevalent, it just comes out more? Disgusting.

 

 

Just going to guess some of these are degenerate gamblers who lost money on this game and have no fandom towards GB whatsoever.

Also, Keyboard warriors. How many of these threats are from accounts where people are real and have their name and face on them? Or something like an Elmer Fudd photo and some bugs bunny twitter name. Trolls suck and gets enough reactions to have a popular comment because so many are going to respond having MVS back. Especially Packer fans.

[MrTPlush]

Yah, that has always happened...and happens after any relevant choke job. If you have ever been on Twitter that is pretty much typical talk. Probably not even the first time MVS has gotten a less than stellar response about his performance.

 

Not saying it is right...but that is Twitter. Teenagers and low life’s on a keyboard.

[RobDeer 45]

I've been frustrated with MVS a lot over the last few years, but now it's flipped, I'm rooting for him. Both because of the death threats and the way the coach just had to stand up for him. I'm hoping for more positive plays as the season goes on.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I've been frustrated with MVS a lot over the last few years, but now it's flipped, I'm rooting for him. Both because of the death threats and the way the coach just had to stand up for him. I'm hoping for more positive plays as the season goes on.

 

I thought it was very interesting how Rodgers continually looked MVS's way in huge spots yesterday. Yeah, the OT fumble was terrible. But the Packers aren't even in that spot had MVS not caught that 43-yard bomb on the last drive of regulation, or drew that huge PI on another bomb. MVS has improved a lot this season, and the adversity, if handled correctly and constructively, will go a long way toward strengthening this team for the home stretch.

 

This Colts game was one that I figured was a toss-up, and that's exactly what it ended up being. The Colts are a very good team ... likely a Top 5 NFL team. And if the Packers play them 10 times, I bet they win 8. The Packers looked like the better team yesterday, but turnovers and an inexplicable defensive game plan in the 2nd half did them in. At the beginning of the season, I saw this team as a 11-5, 12-4-type team, and that's how it's playing out.

[Fear The Chorizo]

People easily forget how much flack Davante Adams got from Packer fans his first 2+ seasons in the league for drops and inconsistencies. The one thing MVS can hopefully glean from all this is the fact that getting that much grief from people means they also see his upside as a player if he gains some consistency.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think this is a 9-10 win team that benefits from playing in a bad division (and they lost one of those gimmes already). They have been pretty bad for several weeks now. A drubbing in Tampa, a loss to the Vikings, Covid joke, a nail-biter against a team with one win and another loss.

 

They are pretty much what they've been most of the last 15 years. I shudder to think about Derrick Henry running against that defense.

 

The most frustrating part of it all is that they did nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to improve upon last year. I'd probably have them somewhere around 10-12 in a Power Ranking. They're not bad, just not that good.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I think this is a 9-10 win team that benefits from playing in a bad division (and they lost one of those gimmes already). They have been pretty bad for several weeks now. A drubbing in Tampa, a loss to the Vikings, Covid joke, a nail-biter against a team with one win and another loss.

 

They are pretty much what they've been most of the last 15 years. I shudder to think about Derrick Henry running against that defense.

 

The most frustrating part of it all is that they did nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to improve upon last year. I'd probably have them somewhere around 10-12 in a Power Ranking. They're not bad, just not that good.

 

The fortunate thing for the Packers is that no NFC team has managed to step up to become the class of the conference. Right now the Saints are probably in the driver's seat, but I think Taysom Hill is going to be exposed against any team with a decent defense. The Seahawks are a juggernaut on offense, but that defense is atrocious ... like think about how bad the Packers defense is, then multiply it by 2. The Buccanneers are a good squad that is held back by a past-his-prime QB. The Rams have been pretty mediocre on both sides of the ball. The Cardinals are exciting, but far from consistent.

 

I'd probably put the Packers in the Top 10 (probably 7-8) in the power rankings, but every NFC team has its warts, and they should all be ranked very similarly right now. The conference is there for any of these teams that gets hot over the next 6 weeks. This is the year that a 12-4 record will probably get the #1 seed.

[homer]

 

I think this is a 9-10 win team that benefits from playing in a bad division.

 

"This is a 9, 10 win team that is only going to win 11 or more games."

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Stick this team in the NFC West and they are 8-8 is the point I'm making. This division has mostly sucked and the Packers have benefited from it for decades. Similar to how, despite being a great dynasty, part of New England's path was always easier because their division was arguably the worst in football throughout it. Pittsburgh made the playoffs for like a decade straight, which is lovely, but a lot easier when you play Cincinnati and Cleveland twice.

 

You may want to pump the brakes on the Packers winning 11 games though. Not sure where the confidence is stemming from on the Packers finishing 4-2.

[homer]

Stick em in the NFC East and they might have 1 loss. You are what your record is.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Stick this team in the NFC West and they are 8-8 is the point I'm making. This division has mostly sucked and the Packers have benefited from it for decades. Similar to how, despite being a great dynasty, part of New England's path was always easier because their division was arguably the worst in football throughout it. Pittsburgh made the playoffs for like a decade straight, which is lovely, but a lot easier when you play Cincinnati and Cleveland twice.

 

You may want to pump the brakes on the Packers winning 11 games though. Not sure where the confidence is stemming from on the Packers finishing 4-2.

 

I'm not sure where the confidence is coming from that they'll finish 3-3 or worse. The Packers have the Bears twice, Eagles, Lions, Panthers and Titans. The Bears have looked terrible of late after peaking early, the Eagles are 3-6-1 and look bad, and the Lions got shut out by a 3-7 Panthers team missing their starting QB and all-world RB. The Titans are a bad matchup for the Packers, but even if you chalk up that as a loss, the Packers are likely to be heavily favored in the other 5.

[CheezWizHed]

I didn't watch the game until late last night (living in Viking land I had to wait for the game to be done and watch it on NFL Replay). A few observations:

- Despite MVS's fumble, I thought he had a good day. Wouldn't have been in the situation to lose the game if he doesn't make that big catch on the last drive. I'm thinking MVS as the third WR causes many more matchup issues than as a second WR.

- Welcome back Lazard.

- Time to move on from Darrius Shepherd. I was a big believer that he would make a second year jump, but he hasn't. He provides zero as a WR, no wiggle as a returner, made at least one bad decision - taking the ball out of the endzone, and the fumble. Time to find someone else.

- Gary should be starting over P-Smith. He is the only OLB that can set the edge against the run (Z-Smith doesn't do it well either). Preston can come in when Z moves inside.

- Rodgers missed a wide-open Tonyan in the endzone on 3rd down of the last drive in regulation. Should've been an easy win and he is going to kick himself for that one. But we played well overall. That interception was very uncharacteristic though.

- Runyan at LG. I only recall one play where he allowed a pressure up the middle early (maybe his first drive?). He was sound the rest of the time. Maybe a preview of next year's OL?

- Nice to have Jones back this week. Yes, he was came back before, but he looked like full-speed Jones this week.

- DB really had some blown coverages today. Very unusual. I wonder if the group was a bit rusty with Alexander and King back this week? King also looked very poor - hopefully it is rust and not injury.

- DL actually looked good outside a couple drives. Lancaster was surprisingly good. Clark starting to look more like 2019 Clark. Lowry was still absent. Keke was active, but not impactful.

- Kirksey - after a week of attacking the football, he went back to being tentative. Lots of tackles, but downfield. Martin looked good again, but was out late with Summers.

- Sternberger looked good - route running, pass catching, blocking. He and Tonyan could be really good together.

- Lafleur - There was some brilliant play design/play calling (Tonyan/Sternberger route for the Tonyan TD) and some really "blah" play calling. We had a lot of success attacking the middle of the field in the first half, and nearly abandoned it in the second half (except the last drive). I lay 1/2 the blame of MVS's fumble on him too. Just not a great call for MVS - not his strength. I kept waiting for the MVS jet-sweep which never happened either.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Stick em in the NFC East and they might have 1 loss. You are what your record is.

 

That would mean they went 9-1 playing the Rams, Steelers, Ravens and Browns, so, maybe, but seeing their struggles with Minnesota and Jacksonville, I would guess probably not.

 

'You are what your record is' is just an empty sports cliche that dismisses reality. The schedule matters and everybody knew the Packers had an easy path last year and it was reflected when they played SF, twice. I think it's more than fair to say the Packers resume of wins under MLF is pretty suspect especially when juxtaposed with signature wins. They have very few of the latter.

 

Their rep is quite apparent at present. They have a 'soft' reputation and can crush mediocre teams with offense, and really struggle with the top ones, which IMO Indy is not. Indy is a pretty similar team to GB on opposite sides of the ball. But the Packers lack of ability to put pressure on the most statue QB in football was shocking. I think we all knew they would suck against the run, but the guys they have on defense should be getting to the QB. I cannot understand how they've been so bad at it this year.

 

Just a longer way of saying what I've already said. They're good but not great, a playoff team but not an elite one.

[MrTPlush]

A lot of people seem to be blaming the offense for this loss. Which seems crazy considering the fact they scored 31 points in the game. Sure, most of it was in the first half...but 31 points is 31 points. People will point to the 3rd quarter, but that is partially the defenses fault for giving up so many lengthy drives to the Colts. The Colts first two drives in the 3rd quarter took up 11 minutes of the 3rd quarter. The quarter was almost done before we got the ball a second time...

 

The Colts punted the ball two times the entire game. One time in the first quarter and then at the end of the game after the 20 offensive holding calls when they were already in field goal range. That is pathetic and sure didn't help the offense with the terrible field position almost the entire game.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Stick this team in the NFC West and they are 8-8 is the point I'm making. This division has mostly sucked and the Packers have benefited from it for decades. Similar to how, despite being a great dynasty, part of New England's path was always easier because their division was arguably the worst in football throughout it. Pittsburgh made the playoffs for like a decade straight, which is lovely, but a lot easier when you play Cincinnati and Cleveland twice.

 

You may want to pump the brakes on the Packers winning 11 games though. Not sure where the confidence is stemming from on the Packers finishing 4-2.

 

I'm not sure where the confidence is coming from that they'll finish 3-3 or worse. The Packers have the Bears twice, Eagles, Lions, Panthers and Titans. The Bears have looked terrible of late after peaking early, the Eagles are 3-6-1 and look bad, and the Lions got shut out by a 3-7 Panthers team missing their starting QB and all-world RB. The Titans are a bad matchup for the Packers, but even if you chalk up that as a loss, the Packers are likely to be heavily favored in the other 5.

 

I dunno if I'd call it confidence but finishing 3-3 is a very plausible scenario to me. This team has looked beatable to any opponent for a month. They just crapped out a win against the Jaguars and lost to Minnesota. They started out of the gate looking really good and have fizzled since then.

 

Neither 3-3 or 5-1 would surprise me. Depends if the September version or the November version plays in December.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Stick this team in the NFC West and they are 8-8 is the point I'm making. This division has mostly sucked and the Packers have benefited from it for decades. Similar to how, despite being a great dynasty, part of New England's path was always easier because their division was arguably the worst in football throughout it. Pittsburgh made the playoffs for like a decade straight, which is lovely, but a lot easier when you play Cincinnati and Cleveland twice.

 

You may want to pump the brakes on the Packers winning 11 games though. Not sure where the confidence is stemming from on the Packers finishing 4-2.

 

I'm not sure where the confidence is coming from that they'll finish 3-3 or worse. The Packers have the Bears twice, Eagles, Lions, Panthers and Titans. The Bears have looked terrible of late after peaking early, the Eagles are 3-6-1 and look bad, and the Lions got shut out by a 3-7 Panthers team missing their starting QB and all-world RB. The Titans are a bad matchup for the Packers, but even if you chalk up that as a loss, the Packers are likely to be heavily favored in the other 5.

 

I dunno if I'd call it confidence but finishing 3-3 is a very plausible scenario to me. This team has looked beatable to any opponent for a month. They just crapped out a win against the Jaguars and lost to Minnesota. They started out of the gate looking really good and have fizzled since then.

 

Neither 3-3 or 5-1 would surprise me. Depends if the September version or the November version plays in December.

 

I think that's fair. We'll see if the post-game narrative that painted the loss as a galvanizing opportunity holds true. There was quite a few positives that came out of yesterday's game, but a lot of negatives, too. I think it is fair to say that they are at a low point of the wave of the season. Sunday's Bear game is going to be very telling. Can they respond with a strong performance at home against a team that they should beat?

[homer]

A lot of people seem to be blaming the offense for this loss. Which seems crazy considering the fact they scored 31 points in the game. Sure, most of it was in the first half...but 31 points is 31 points. People will point to the 3rd quarter, but that is partially the defenses fault for giving up so many lengthy drives to the Colts. The Colts first two drives in the 3rd quarter took up 11 minutes of the 3rd quarter. The quarter was almost done before we got the ball a second time...

 

The Colts punted the ball two times the entire game. One time in the first quarter and then at the end of the game after the 20 offensive holding calls when they were already in field goal range. That is pathetic and sure didn't help the offense with the terrible field position almost the entire game.

 

Two three and outs on two consecutive possessions in 3rd quarter. They scored 3 points in the 2nd half. They didn't get it done in the 2nd half. You can play "defense" by controlling the ball on offense and they failed to do that. I'm not excusing the defense, they sucked, but until that last drive the Packers offense was horrible in the 2nd half.

[pacopete4]

Also worth noting that the average NFL score is up to over 50 points a game. So if the Packers offense had done their jobs and at least put some drives together, or ST not fumbled inside the red zone, or lots of things yesterday, the defense more than likely does their job well enough to win that game.

[homer]

The 12 men on the field penalty was intentional:

 

 

That's pretty smart.

[CheezWizHed]

Not sure why we are nit-picking on offense vs. defense... Both were decent/good in the 1st half and poor in the second half. Both can be blamed for the second half regression.

 

The 12 men on the field penalty was intentional:

 

 

That's pretty smart.

 

Interesting. Get them back to 1st and 10 to have a better chance to stop them on 3 downs.

[HiAndTight]

Maybe this is recency bias, but it feels like we get pretty consistently outcoached in the second half on both sides of the ball in the MLF/MP era.

 

 

I don't think it's recency bias with regard to Pettine. He's just an awful DC...and I give a LOT more rope to coaches than others do most of the time.

 

I don't believe that's the case for MLF...or if it is, I don't think it's something he won't at least figure out. He's talked about issues with the defense. That suggests to me he's seeing what we're all seeing(3rd and 9, game on the line and we're playing soft zones for example).

 

 

Here's hoping we fire Pettine and Greg Williams...who will almost certainly will be out of a job next year takes over. I REALLY think if Williams had this talent, we'd be a top 7-8 unit.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

No way Pettine holds onto his job. If he were an MLF hire I'd say you never know, but he isn't.

[HiAndTight]

No way Pettine holds onto his job. If he were an MLF hire I'd say you never know, but he isn't.

 

 

Even if this team somehow goes on to win the Super Bowl, I still hope they get rid of him. It's often pretty hard to evaluate how good a DC is. Normally you just watch how the unit plays and if it's poorly, he gets blamed. In this case, he 100 pct deserves the blame for them playing so far below their talent level.

 

 

I do think picking up Anthony Rush is going to make a HUGE difference for our run defense. I was really hoping when Seattle signed Harrison, we'd be able to grab him as they weren't going to get rid of Reed or Ford, but I think it's about 50/50 Rush is a better run defender at this point than Snacks is. I think he's going to play a pretty significant role this year and the next couple for the Packers.

 

Again, the thing that makes me pull my hair out more than anything is the stupid slanting our DL do or how they try to shoot the gaps. If Pettine tries to make Rush do that, he'll be totally wasting his talent. So hopefully it's back to just occupying blockers and not asking them to penetrate.