2020 NFC Championship - Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs. Green Bay Packers

[DoleINGout]

Fournette and Jones have really been impressive and the Buccaneers have a running game potentially to match the Packers own with Aaron Jones. Keeping rhythm passes flowing and consistently stopping the run will be huge keys. The difference maker in this game, like a lot of others, is the best receiver in the NFL - Davante Adams.

[WheatieMan]

Brady played well in KC a couple years back. I think if they get the run game going they will take this, with maybe Suh doing his best Warren Sapp impression and TB getting big things from the defensive backers. Rogers needs the game to cement is legacy or he will be viewed as a rich man’s Farve, another choke artist in Championship games. Gonna be a tight match.

Edited January 18, 2021 by WheatieMan

[Broncofan]

Well, this is a doozy matchup.

Re: the weather, we can argue the details, but in a nutshell - Brady's used to the cold weather.   The OL played in cold weather in college, and the skill positions have played in cold weather.   They just played a game that started at 40 degrees, and ended in the 30's, 2 weeks ago.  Honestly, this comes off as a weak narrative.

If we want to look at the matchups, I do like the Bucs' chances, for the following reasons:

-GB's biggest weakness on D is their run game.    Akers had a field day....and frankly, the Rams getting away from the run game is what hurt them the most (that, and Goff's limitations in the pass game).  

-GB's pass rush is OK, but it's not based on heavy inside pressure.  That helps TB12 a ton.   And while Alexander's a beast - they don't have the personnel to really thrive in man coverage.  Brady facing zone is a huge advantage to TAM O. 

-GB losing Bakhtiari exposes them to EDGE mismatches.   Floyd didn't take advantage, but I believe he's a Robin-type pass rusher (needs others to create the big problem, and he feasts on lesser attention).   Donald was clearly nowhere near 100 percent.  I do think

-TAM's DC Bowles found something with the NO game scheme - normally, they play zone to help protect their CB's, but they went man and ILB/safety help for M-Thomas.  I expect something very similar for Davante Adams, and more importantly, the pass coverage scheme in general.    Much like Brady, A-Rod will carve up D's who play zone and can't get pressure - so rediscovering the TAM D mojo is massive for their ability to limit ARod.

Now, on the flip side, GB can easily flip the script from the earlier game, namely:

-TAM is still having major issues getting going in the 1Q.     Literally 3-and-outs for almost the entire 1Q.  And this is literally the 6th or 7th time in 18 games this has happened.   This can't repeat in Lambeau - GB's O is too good not to take advantage.   And they get out to a lead, it all funnels into GB-heavy gamescript.

-TAM's D played heroically to prevent a 14-0 deficit, and when the O wasted a TD drive to be down 6-3, the D stepped up and basically gave the O the go-ahead TD to get them back on script 10-6...and then same with the key fumble down 20-13, and then the clinching TD.    But this isn't a flawed Brees TAM is facing, it's A-Rod, with a better cast of receivers overall (Adams > MT,  Tonyan > Cook, and the supporting cast has been playing way better than NO's). 

-TAM's run game advantage is lessened with RG Cappa out, and most importantly, Ronald Jones hurting.  He pulled up lame after that big run that was called back - and while he still played, that was with the adrenaline of the big game.  If he's out, that's a major downgrade to TAM's run game advantage.

-Finally, GB got a full look at what TAM does best on D.   A-Rod, Lafleur & co. are great at adjustments next-game.  I don't see that changing.

 Ultimately, I see this as a 1-score game, likely a FG game.   Maybe call it 34-31.   The difference on whether it's a TAM/GB game usually lies in the TO's (duh).  NO was a matchup nightmare for TAM, but TAM won by 10 with a +4 differential (and in reality, it's functionally +3, since TAM just ran out the clock with the 4th TO).   TAM matches up so well with GB.   I think if it's a neutral script, TAM wins by 3.   Either way, I'm so looking forward to this - should be a barnburner.

[Kip Smithers]

Aaron Rodgers is greatest QB ever. Better than Brady. Better than Montana. Now that’s out the way.

Aaron Rodgers is just about done. It could be his next game, it could be even a year from now. He’s going to fall of a CLIFF and Aaron Rodgers will be a bum in short order. 
 

Heard it here first.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

-GB's biggest weakness on D is their run game.    Akers had a field day....and frankly, the Rams getting away from the run game is what hurt them the most (that, and Goff's limitations in the pass game). 

You and I have different idea of what field days are.  The Packers' run game was every bit as effective as the Rams were, and the Rams' D is notably better.  This wasn't the '20 NFC Championship run D.  It's still not a strength, but they're not getting gashed like they did before.

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

-GB losing Bakhtiari exposes them to EDGE mismatches.   Floyd didn't take advantage, but I believe he's a Robin-type pass rusher (needs others to create the big problem, and he feasts on lesser attention).   Donald was clearly nowhere near 100 percent.  I do think

GB's OL has actually been solid without Bakh.  Don't get me wrong, we're better with him on the roster but they only allowed 1 sack against the Bears (Khalil Mack) and Rams combined.  Not sure I really fear the Bucs' EDGE all that much.  They're good, but I don't think they're a group that will capitalize on that mismatch.  I'm more interested interested to see how the IOL does.

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

-TAM's DC Bowles found something with the NO game scheme - normally, they play zone to help protect their CB's, but they went man and ILB/safety help for M-Thomas.  I expect something very similar for Davante Adams, and more importantly, the pass coverage scheme in general.    Much like Brady, A-Rod will carve up D's who play zone and can't get pressure - so rediscovering the TAM D mojo is massive for their ability to limit ARod.

Given the amount of movement the Packers' O does in terms of pre-snap, I'm not sure this isn't going to create some huge lapses in the secondary.

 

[Broncofan]

9 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

You and I have different idea of what field days are.  The Packers' run game was every bit as effective as the Rams were, and the Rams' D is notably better.  This wasn't the '20 NFC Championship run D.  It's still not a strength, but they're not getting gashed like they did before.

The GB run D is definitely improved - but it’s still their biggest weakness.   The TAM power run game with a healthy Jones would be a massive problem IMO.  It may be moot however - if he’s not healthy, Fournette is a pretty significant downgrade.   

Quote

GB's OL has actually been solid without Bakh.  Don't get me wrong, we're better with him on the roster but they only allowed 1 sack against the Bears (Khalil Mack) and Rams combined.  Not sure I really fear the Bucs' EDGE all that much.  They're good, but I don't think they're a group that will capitalize on that mismatch.  I'm more interested interested to see how the IOL does.

Entirely fair that the OL has adjusted well.   My point was that with a limited Donald - we didn’t see the normal potential for pressure LA Front 4 differences.    

Quote

Given the amount of movement the Packers' O does in terms of pre-snap, I'm not sure this isn't going to create some huge lapses in the secondary.

 

Yeah that’s a key wrinkle.   But before the NO game DC Bowles was shying away from using anything but zone.   That change alone gives TAM a fighting chance on D vs. present form GB O.   That was more the point I was making - TAM going zone heavy would get them killed vs.  A-Rod & Adams.  
 

I don’t believe there’s the same mismatch that the TAM-GB first game hints at.  But this is a far better matchup for TAM than NO presented.     It’s not meant to dismiss GB - some matchups are better than others (for example LAC is a major problem for KC - but no one would call them a top 5 AFC team). 
 

In the end I still see this as a pick ‘em game, and those are the reasons (and others in the OP).    A GB W won’t surprise me at all - especially if Jones is out - and TAM comes out slowly for the 1Q as before.  

Edited January 18, 2021 by Broncofan

[indifference]

Tae Adams got locked up v CDIII. Looking forward to R2

[LieutenantGains]

I don't know who wins but I definitely think the Saints were the Buccaneers worst match-up in the entire league

[CWood21]

8 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

The GB run D is definitely improved - but it’s still their biggest weakness.   The TAM power run game with a healthy Jones would be a massive problem IMO.  It may be moot however - if he’s not healthy, Fournette is a pretty significant downgrade.   

I think that goes without saying.  And as much as Pettine and his defensive schemes make Packers fans want to pull their hair out, he's got the right idea.  With Rodgers as your QB, you're probably not going to be trailing in very many games, so you're hoping that your defense doesn't allow a ton of points in a short amount of time, and if a team wants to take 8+ minutes off the clock moving down the field, that's fine by them.  But I think you're overstating the impact the run game is having against this D.  Somehow, they haven't had a 100+ yard rusher since their Week 12 matchup against the Bears.  I think the only way this is a concern is if the game is close, and TB can effectively run the ball.

14 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Entirely fair that the OL has adjusted well.   My point was that with a limited Donald - we didn’t see the normal potential for pressure LA Front 4 differences.

Oh, I'm not downplaying the Aaron Donald injury.  I honestly think it was what gave the Packers the cushion they needed.  But this is a Packers' OL that is playing really, really well.  They've got two guys playing out of their mind (Billy Turner and Lucas Patrick).  Two potential All-Pros (Elgton Jenkins and Corey Linsley) as well.  I mean, even their "backup" OT Ricky Wagner is playing really well.  The Rams' DL scares me a LOT more than the Bucs' DL does.

16 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Yeah that’s a key wrinkle.   But before the NO game DC Bowles was shying away from using anything but zone.   That change alone gives TAM a fighting chance on D vs. present form GB O.   That was more the point I was making - TAM going zone heavy would get them killed vs.  A-Rod & Adams.  

I honestly don't think man or zone really provides an issue for Rodgers and the offense tbh.  Rodgers is playing at an elite level.  He makes a couple of mistakes a game, but besides that he's usually pretty flawless.  And unlike previous years, he's spreading the ball around.  Against the Rams, he had four different receivers (Adams, Tonyan, Lazard, and MVS) with 4+ targets.  When you run more man schemes with young corners, they're going to get burned.  Not sure I trust the Bucs' secondary to run man throughout the game without getting burned multiple times.

18 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

I don’t believe there’s the same mismatch that the TAM-GB first game hints at.  But this is a far better matchup for TAM than NO presented.     It’s not meant to dismiss GB - some matchups are better than others (for example LAC is a major problem for KC - but no one would call them a top 5 AFC team). 

I don't disagree that their first matchup isn't indicative of what's going to happen.  I think it's easy to forget that the Packers were up 10-0 and the Bucs weren't able to get anything going offensively, and the Packers were starting to drive again before the pick-6 followed by another INT.  That was by far Rodgers' worst game of the season.  And not even close.

[Shanedorf]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Well, this is a doozy matchup.

Yes it is - and while you're a very talented handicapper, your loathing of the Packers gives you a blind spot that costs you money -
Tennessee and their # 1 offense came to Lambeau and you talked yourself into taking the Titans and the points- and lost
LA Rams and the # 1 defense came to Lambeau and you talked yourself onto taking the Rams and the points- and lost
Imagine how thrilled I am to see you talking yourself into taking the Bucs and the points here ?  Thank you !

[Broncofan]

8 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Yes it is - and while you're a very talented handicapper, your loathing of the Packers gives you a blind spot that costs you money -
Tennessee and their # 1 offense came to Lambeau and you talked yourself into taking the Titans and the points- and lost
LA Rams and the # 1 defense came to Lambeau and you talked yourself onto taking the Rams and the points- and lost
Imagine how thrilled I am to see you talking yourself into taking the Bucs and the points here ?  Thank you !

For the record, since November I've been on the GB side both times vs. CHI, PHI, CAR (push - teased down), Colts (probably the worst beat this year lol) and SF.    You're just remembering the 2x I went against GB and lost when we discussed it in the Bets thread.    TB is the only NFC team I would take against GB in a straight up game (and even then it's a toss-up) - LAR was all about the points, nothing more, figured it was a 3-4 pt loss (and if Donald was able to play 90+ percent snaps, I think that was a fair play - but that's the way it goes).   My picks against GB have always been about taking the points, not a ML bet (until this week, of course).

GB deserves the 1 seed - but it's more about the match-ups here (just like how TAM - NO was an awful matchup for TAM, that only a +3 TO differential turned in their favor - the 4th just sealed the game, the first 3 are what turned it).   A GB W wouldn't surprise me, but if it's a toss-up, then go with the + money...that's all.  

Edited January 18, 2021 by Broncofan

[Spartacus]

I think a small point that could be the key to the Packers winning is Suh vs interior OL. If the Packers can execute a run game it keeps those great LBs from being able to sell out the pass. They really need to be at least somewhat effective. 

[Shanedorf]

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

You're just remembering the 2x I went against GB and lost when we discussed it in the Bets thread.

that's correct.

[dwaye50327]

I'm not sold on Tampa. Every time this year they got "hot" and things were clicking for Brady and this offense, they lay a goose egg. Win 3 in a row, get hyped up, lose to Chicago. Win 3 more in a row, "this offense is clicking, etc.", get worked by NO. They ended the season by beating terrible teams, squeaked by Washington, squeaked by NO. I just don't understand the hype behind this team.

GB has been more consistent all year even though they did get worked by Tampa earlier in the year. I just think with the way the Packers played the Rams defense and the way the Packers are playing now, I don't see Tampa slowing down that offense much. I think it'll come down to GB's defense vs Tampa's offense, and Tampa's offense didn't look great against NO, they were benefited from 4 turnovers and short fields.

GB - 33

TB - 23

[Coffee & Contemplation]

I really wanted the Saints to win yesterday, because Brees' arm at Lambeau in January would have been a huge advantage for the Packers.

But I suppose if I want to enjoy a potential Packers championship, then old haunts need to be revisited. If they can beat Tom and the Bucs, that will certainly take some of the sting out of that weird outlier from earlier in the season.

I certainly think they can beat the Bucs. Both teams are fairly different than they were at the beginning of the season, and this will be a very different setting to say the least.

But if we lose, well, that won't be very fun. I don't care for losing.

Edited January 18, 2021 by Coffee & Contemplation