Jump to content


Veteran Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

81 Starter
  1. No one is saying the OGs we're good, you keep hammering that point like someone is disagreeing when they're clearly not...
  2. I'm on the money while you clearly aren't... as you're creating lies about me being blind, when you're the one clearly ignoring important factors such as scheme and play calls. The OGs struggled, I'm not blind to that by why did they struggle? Because when the defense knows what coming and you consistently ask the OL to pass block for 5+ seconds you are putting maximum pressure on them.... if you don't put maximum pressure on them then they'll play better. The rookie WRs, who didn't have maximum pressure put on them, struggled just as much as the OGs, as they often didn't do what Rodgers or the scheme wanted them to do. Rodgers missed WRs but the WRs also failed to understand the scheme and react correctly to what was going on. But you stupidly want to give all the credit to the flashy position and all the blame to linemen when that is completely bull****. Most NFL OGs can't handle 4.5+ second in pass protection when you're passing it 70% of the time, if they could they probably be at OT instead... While most groups of WRs are expected to have someone open in that time frame and Adams was getting double and open faster than the rookies on single coverage at times. So yes a healthy talented WR who understood the system and QB, would of been more helpful last year than a talented OG... did you not notice the offense struggled once Allison and Cobb went down? They do need to upgrade OG talent but more importantly they need to stop putting max pressure on the pass protection/QB and need the WRs to mentally understands the system that the QB is running. Sorry if you can't understand how the players being on the same page would help the system, or how different scheme/play calling put different pressures on different positions.
  3. You are very correct, also all those veterans are well coached in the scheme, where the Packers rookies coaching was questionable last year as they clearly didn't get the full picture. Of course it's a read/react system so asking them to read defense before the snaps (on the same page as Rodgers) and then read the defense mid snap (and same page as Rodgers), and react to Rodgers scrambling is a lot for a rookie to take in unless they did something similar in college. It doesn't matter how talented you are, not being on the same page as the veterans hurts ... and MVS talked about that... that the Vets all had multiple years in the system and we're well ahead and getting a new coach/system will help them all get on the same page as they're all learning it together. But the difference between the Packers and Patriots are more coaching and scheme based which should NOT be ignored... to only look at pure talent... as the Packers passed the ball more often than any team, while the Patriots ran the ball among the most and even in the passing game got their RB involved a lot, while the Packers had the RB involved very little. That is really the big difference in a lot of these new successful schemes including what LaFleur has talked about, take pressure off the QB by getting your RB more involved... The Packers did the complete opposite of that.... got their RB involved among the least and paid the price while at least 3 of the final 4 got their RBs involved a TON! (I don't know about the Chiefs).
  4. Which just proves your ignorant to anything that doesn't agree with you... If the facts don't agree with you then you ignore the facts. And that's just an ignorant lie based on you ignoring the facts. The Packers we're in the top 2 of yards per run average... But I'm sure your head stuck in the sand attitude will keep ignoring the facts. You completely ignore the rest of the team? Your head is clearly in the sand or up your .... You completely missed the point, the problem was with the QB/WR not being on the same page and the scheme... You're completely ignoring that fact... Wrong the difference is Brady had one of the shortest release times in football and Rodgers had one of the longest... and the Patriots were actually willing to run the ball both of which took pressure off the OL.... while the Packers put max pressure on their OL. Brady could find guys open quickly because of great scheme and willinness, to take the short stuff, Rodgers couldn't because he was on a different page than the rookies and if you pull you head out long enough to listen to Rodgers he was blaming the WRs. But keep ignoring the facts, the scheme, the play calls and Aaron Rodgers himself... I'm sure your simple world where you're always right, facts by damned, feels a lot better than the truth.
  5. You don't have to image the OL keeping Rodgers clean because they did it just last year, at least when he would get the ball out of his hands in a timely manner. Packers had the highest percentage of passing plays last year (so defenses knew what was coming) and the Packers still provided the 4th longest pass protection time allowed with the 6 least amount of pressures, that pretty damn efficient pass blocking! They really should of run the ball more to keep defenses guessing more. Most of Rodgers pressures were coverage pressures... because either the WRs weren't getting open or Rodgers wasn't finding them... the OL take the blame because Rodgers got touched but they we're the least responsible for a number of those pressure and hits... there is only so much time you can stall and QB needs to get rid of the ball which is why he had so many dang throw aways. So yes last year a WR to step up was needed more than an OG and if you noticed the offense worked with WR Allison playing and started to fail once he was injured. That being said the bigger problem was that Rodgers and the rookie WRs were clearly on different pages, more than lack of talent of WR... Where the OL problem could be more lack of talent and pass blocking all the time, puts the max pressure on them because pass blocking is harder than run blocking and if the defense knows it's coming that's even worse. Example some we're ranting and raving about the Rams OL.... a very talented run blocking OL, but when teams stopped the run and forced them to pass, they struggled a lot more. So assuming the QB/WR get on the same page, a new scheme should help the WRs get open sooner and just calling more running plays should help the OGs, and that's even before upgrading them.
  6. No, it doesn't mean that... and I saw where some fans were talking about the Packers haven't played on Thanksgiving since 2015... when before it was every 2 years Packers played on Thanksgiving... and the last two years the NFL has put a rookie coach against the Blue/Sliver (Lions or Cowboys) and it just so happens the Packers have road games against both the Lions and Cowboys.... so a Thanksgiving game (or another Thursdays game) is certainly possible as well, even if this happens). Edit: Since 2001, the Packers have usually played in the Thanksgiving game in odd years, 2005 and 2017 were the only odd years that they haven't done it this century. In other words the Packers have played in Thanksgiving 7 of the 9 (77.78%) odd years this century... so historic schedule wise, there seems to be a strong change the Packers will get a Thanksgiving game. Of course, historic schedule wise, there is a strong chance the Super Bowl Champions will be hosting the season opener too. If the Packers win, then we already have a lead on everyone opening Sunday, and that don't matter! ... of course... if they lose... the opposite would be true.
  7. https://lombardiave.com/2019/02/03/packers-bears-2019-thursday-kickoff-game-report/ I'm not sure whether to believe this or not, as it's usually always the Super Bowl team hosting someone, but they're saying it's likely for the NFL's 100th year anniversary they put that on pause and open with the Packers and Bears instead. But it sounds like it would be a cool opener, and that game was just voted as moment of the year this year... Also maybe they're considered giving it to the Patriots (again) or Rams with the Saint stuff hanging over and want a different headline? And two of the oldest teams playing each other in a division rival match to start the year.
  8. I see Oliver being a huge X-factor, but given that he ceiling compares well to DT Aaron Donald and his floor is back-up pass rusher only... but I think some team is really gonna roll the dice and draft him in the top 10, because his raw potential even if he might have problem developing to his full potential. I haven't noticed Ferrell going low at all... I know he doesn't have the flashy outside moves, but he has the power that he can battle and enough athletic skills. I think he's a better Shaq Lawson in a worse draft.... and I think he's gonna be top 10 too.
  9. And in 2017 they had a chance to grab Patrick Mahomes and Deshaun Watson and passed... shot at Lamar Jackson last year and passed.... The chances of a QB being picked in the top 6 picks is normally very high... Though picking at #7 means they have a high chance that one of the elite DL, that they're ALWAYS going after will fall to them. Nick Bosa, Quinnen Williams, Josh Allen, Ed Oliver, Clelin Ferrell. Or the first CB either.
  10. As a Packers fan, this might be a great draft for them, though I'm not sure if Ferrell is gonna fall out of the top 8 much less to 15.
  11. Pre-Superbowl Mock

    Packers fan here - I don't understand why Jacai Polite has risen up draft boards so much, seems like Sweat is better than him, and just because there is an elite group ahead of them, doesn't mean they should rise too... if all the elite edge rushers are gone, then go to a different position... like DT Jeffery Simmons, WR AJ Brown, S Deionte Thompson or CB Byron Murphy (who is a lot like the Packers last year first round pick) As for WR Marquise Brown... the Packers seem to have size minimums especially for higher round picks, and Brown wouldn't make that minimum by the numbers I've seen for him... though there is a chance his athletic skillset could over ride that... it's much more likely another team grabs him... just trying to be realist.
  12. The Mock: Kyler Murray Edition (With Trades)

    I don't see why the Packers would use a 1st round pick on a QB... unless they're planning on trading Rodgers away, which seems very unlikely. Packers have some of the best back-ups that they have ever had since (now Eagles head coach) Doug Pederson was backing up Favre in the early 2000s.
  13. Also one of the top play callers.... But the Jaguars are trying that same formula, top running game and defense to get them there... with a good/smart QB. Just Bortles really sucks... I'm not sure Foles is the answer either... but I do believe Bortles is a lot worse than Foles... they're just looking for their Eli Manning like Coughlin had with the Giants. Just no mistakes, and ones in a while make a big play while relying on your running game and defense. I agree with you, not the smartest move.... but I think almost everyone would agree (at the time) giving Bortles that large new contract wasn't the smartest thing either... so they've been willing to do some dumb things.
  14. Seven Rounds, Mr Fluffles V1

    As a Packers fan, I would pass on OL Jonah Williams and QB Tyree Jackson. I'm not sure Williams is athletic enough for OT in the NFL, and while RG is the biggest need, the Packers normally take interior OL from the 4th or 5th round... also they draft defense with the 1st round picks a huge amount of times... and they have big needs at edge and DB... and not a single DB has been taken yet... Packers GM, loves athletes and would probably take the 1st DB off the board... though already covered Safety at #30, they could still use an elite CB as neither starting CB (King nor Alexander) have a track record for staying healthy during an entire season. Also the Packers have QB Kizer as a back-up who the GM is said to have loved coming out of the draft, and the 3rd string QB Boyle looked extremely raw but had a number of tools that you can't teach... if he developed at all he could be a future #2 QB for sure. But everything else, I really liked for the Packers!
  15. I agree with you, they should probably go with a cheaper QB.... But it's depleting the extra cap space, not the roster... as DT Malik Jackson and TE Austin Seferian-Jenkins are expected to be gone no matter what... and if you get a vet QB then Bortles is gone... and so you're just getting rid of one other guy on the list. So it's not depleting the roster... just the extra cap space... but if they seriously think they got a run at the Super Bowl do you really want Bortles at QB or do you want an upgrade? ... I agree a cheaper option would be better... though I'm not sure if Jaguars shot caller, Tom Coughlin (who'll be 73 this coming NFL season), wants to wait to develop a rookie QB... But if they trust Teddy Bridgewater, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Tyrod Taylor, Josh McCown, then they might be better options... but do you really trust them?