2023 Wild Card Round: NFC 7) Green Bay Packers @ 2) Dallas Cowboys

[NoFlyZone]

6 hours ago, Eternal said:

Green Bay's offense was great against Chicago. We never punted the ball. There was a missed FG, fumble, and mismanaged play clock to end half for another FG.

Majority of the drives for both teams were relatively long which is why the score was low.

Being able to punch the ball in for touchdowns is a huge part of assessing performance on offense. 

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, NoFlyZone said:

It’s called calling out bs.. which I’ll do if I feel like. Thanks for your contribution to this thread’s topic. Continued high quality posting around here. 50% of this thread consists of various posters teaming up to make personal attacks, some of it because of personal history. But sure, it’s just a “victim complex” because I bother to respond to the nonsense lol..
One word: Salt

Yes.  I didn't misspeak.  This whole thread is you having a victim complex.  You "complain" that others aren't arguing about the topic at hand.  The reality is you're just as guilty as the people you think are doing that.

[PossibleCabbage]

The failed smack-talk is overall kind of funny.  Like no GB fan is going to be all that disappointed if they lose tomorrow, no matter what the score is.  Basically the entire offensive core is 25 or under, the future is bright.

But at the same time, it's pretty easy to see how the Packers *could* win the game.

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, NoFlyZone said:

It was the Bears. It was a ho-hum one score win. I never said it was a poor performance or anything - I’m simply saying it wasn’t great or worthy of saying the Packers are playing like they’re on fire. They punted 0 times, but didn’t put it in the endzone often.  Again, I’m not saying it was a poor performance worthy of a lot of criticism.. it simply wasn’t great or especially noteworthy. And again.. it was Chicago. 

Yes.  Over the course of the season, the Packers averaged about 2.75 plays per point scored in the regular season.  The Packers in that game against the Bears averaged 3.52 plays per point.  The Packers were 12th in PPG this year.  For comparison, the Chiefs (15th in points per game) averaged 2.91 plays per point.  I'm not arguing it was a great offensive performance, but it was clearly a performance in which they clearly were in command the entire way.  That missed FG actually really hurt their plays per point stat.

And as much as I hate to be wrong, the Bears' defense was substantially better post-trade deadline.  The Bears averaged 17.9 points in the 9 games after the Bears traded for Montez Sweat.  In their previous 8 games, the Bears were giving up 27.3 points per game.  I'm not saying Sweat was the only reason the Bears' defense managed to turn the corner, but they weren't the sieve that they'd been for the previous 1.5+ years.

[NoFlyZone]

28 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Yes.  I didn't misspeak.  This whole thread is you having a victim complex.  You "complain" that others aren't arguing about the topic at hand.  The reality is you're just as guilty as the people you think are doing that.

I’m sure you didn’t misspeak, it was just a laughably ridiculous point. You’re making it about me two posts in a row while telling me I have a victim complex for thinking that this is happening in this thread. You’re defeating your own message by doing exactly what you’re implying isn’t happening. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by inserting yourself into this conversation?

It’s ridiculous to say I have a victim complex simply by responding to posts calling me out, personal attacks, etc. I’m within my rights to simply respond. The fact that I even have to spell this out tells me that these conversations are absolutely pointless. 
 

Again, thank you for your contributions to this thread by continuing to make the topic about a poster at the expense of the intended topic despite said poster simply wanting to discuss the game without having to deal with a bunch of petty people with a personal agenda over football opinions. Maybe don’t insert yourself into the conversation. I don’t care whether I’m just as guilty for keeping things side tracked if it means I’m simply standing up to your nonsense.

Again, maybe I’m giving that nonsense too much credit, though. Perhaps I don’t need to credit it with a response anymore.

Edited January 14 by NoFlyZone

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, NoFlyZone said:

Being able to punch the ball in for touchdowns is a huge part of assessing performance on offense. 

And outside of the early season interceptions for Jordan Love, that's probably been the "red flag" of the Packers offense.  Despite being 12th in PPG, they're 20th in RZ% (51.6%).  However, the Packers are 5th in 3rd down conversion (47.1%) and 8th in yards per play (5.6).  Against the Bears, they were 2-4 (50%) in the red zone, 7-10 (70%) on 3rd down, and 7.2 yards per play.  The Packers were on par for the season with in RZ%, but were significantly better on 3rd down and yards per play than their regular season.  But yeah, you right Green Bay's offense didn't thoroughly beat Chicago because they only scored 17 points.

[NoFlyZone]

24 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Yes.  Over the course of the season, the Packers averaged about 2.75 plays per point scored in the regular season.  The Packers in that game against the Bears averaged 3.52 plays per point.  The Packers were 12th in PPG this year.  For comparison, the Chiefs (15th in points per game) averaged 2.91 plays per point.  I'm not arguing it was a great offensive performance, but it was clearly a performance in which they clearly were in command the entire way.  That missed FG actually really hurt their plays per point stat.

And as much as I hate to be wrong, the Bears' defense was substantially better post-trade deadline.  The Bears averaged 17.9 points in the 9 games after the Bears traded for Montez Sweat.  In their previous 8 games, the Bears were giving up 27.3 points per game.  I'm not saying Sweat was the only reason the Bears' defense managed to turn the corner, but they weren't the sieve that they'd been for the previous 1.5+ years.

Alright, but I’m not sure what this means in regards to my prior post. They weren’t terrible, they weren’t great. I was never acting like they played poorly, it simply wasn’t that noteworthy of a performance in the grand scheme of actual impressive offensive performances this year. It just seems silly to say they ended the year hot when in all reality their only significant overall performance was a beat down of a Vikings team that didn’t know who should start at QB.

Edited January 14 by NoFlyZone

[NoFlyZone]

15 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And outside of the early season interceptions for Jordan Love, that's probably been the "red flag" of the Packers offense.  Despite being 12th in PPG, they're 20th in RZ% (51.6%).  However, the Packers are 5th in 3rd down conversion (47.1%) and 8th in yards per play (5.6).  Against the Bears, they were 2-4 (50%) in the red zone, 7-10 (70%) on 3rd down, and 7.2 yards per play.  The Packers were on par for the season with in RZ%, but were significantly better on 3rd down and yards per play than their regular season.  But yeah, you right Green Bay's offense didn't thoroughly beat Chicago because they only scored 17 points.

It’s probably what this game will come down to. If GB can script long drives that end in 6 they certainly have a chance, especially if Dallas makes a mistake on their end. If GB can slow the game down, maybe take an early lead, things could go their way. Even as a Dallas fan I can acknowledge that Dallas plays much better with a lead. Things tend to snowball fast, so if GB can avoid mistakes and stun Dallas early, it could be interesting. That’s just theory, though.. not sure how likely it is with how strong Dallas has been at home.

[CWood21]

Just now, NoFlyZone said:

Alright, but I’m not sure what this means in regards to my prior post. They weren’t terrible, they weren’t great. I was never acting like they played poorly, it simply wasn’t that noteworthy of a performance in the grand scheme of actual impressive offensive performances this year. It just seems silly to say they ended the year hot when in all reality their only significant performance was a beat down of a Vikings team that didn’t know who should start at QB.

Because you've literally used a SINGLE metric (red zone %) to justify your argument.  The Packers were better on 3rd down than any team was this past season by over 20%.  The Packers averaged more than a half a yard more than any team did this season.  The Packers' offense was really good against the Bears despite your opinion otherwise.  Find me a SINGLE statistic that support your argument aside from RZ%.  I'd be interested to know what you come up with.

And you managed to scoff at the Bears' defensive improvements.  Another improvement stat I'd like to mention, the Bears had 9 sacks over their first 8 games (1.1 sack per game).  Of those 9 sacks, 5 of them came against the Commanders.  In those other 7 games, the Bears averaged 0.6 sacks per game.  In their final 9 games, they had 22 sacks (2.4 sacks).  Their pass rush was non-existent in the first half of the season.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

It’s probably what this game will come down to. If GB can script long drives that end in 6 they certainly have a chance, especially if Dallas makes a mistake on their end. If GB can slow the game down, maybe take an early lead, things could go their way. Even as a Dallas fan I can acknowledge that Dallas plays much better with a lead. Things tend to snowball fast, so if GB can avoid mistakes and stun Dallas early, it could be interesting. That’s just theory, though.. not sure how likely it is with how strong Dallas has been at home.

If we're being fully transparent, I don't think the Packers can beat the Cowboys as long as the secondary is as banged dup as it is and Joe Barry is still calling the defense.  But it's not going to be the offense that's the issue IMO.  In games where Jordan Love doesn't thrown an INT, the Packers are 8-2.  When Love throws 1+ INTs, the Packers are 1-6.  Fortunately, Dallas is middle of the pack in terms of takeaways.  As for the key for the Packers, it shouldn't come as any surprise but it's Micah Parsons.  In games where he has at least 1 sack, the Cowboys are 8-2.  When he has less than 1 sack, the Cowboys are 4-3.  Offensively, as long as Dak doesn't have a repeat of the San Francisco game, the Cowboys should win pretty easily.

[beekay414]

Packers 31
Cowboys 27

[Louis Friend]

Packers 35

Cowboys 21

[Eternal]

25 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said:

It’s probably what this game will come down to. If GB can script long drives that end in 6 they certainly have a chance, especially if Dallas makes a mistake on their end. If GB can slow the game down, maybe take an early lead, things could go their way. Even as a Dallas fan I can acknowledge that Dallas plays much better with a lead. Things tend to snowball fast, so if GB can avoid mistakes and stun Dallas early, it could be interesting. That’s just theory, though.. not sure how likely it is with how strong Dallas has been at home.

Cowboys are going to be pumped and most likely come out blazing against the Packers. I'll be shocked if Dallas doesn't take a comfortable lead early. I have no trust in Packers D.

An early exit for Packers could finally be the nudge it takes to get our defensive coordinator fired.

I can't see GB or Dallas having a chance against 49ers either way. I'm tired of losing to that franchise and would prefer to lose to a different team, and would be perfectly fine losing to Dallas. I'd like for it to be a high scoring close game.

[4thandInches]

I really hope this isn’t a blowout.

[NoFlyZone]

23 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Because you've literally used a SINGLE metric (red zone %) to justify your argument.  The Packers were better on 3rd down than any team was this past season by over 20%.  The Packers averaged more than a half a yard more than any team did this season.  The Packers' offense was really good against the Bears despite your opinion otherwise.  Find me a SINGLE statistic that support your argument aside from RZ%.  I'd be interested to know what you come up with.

And you managed to scoff at the Bears' defensive improvements.  Another improvement stat I'd like to mention, the Bears had 9 sacks over their first 8 games (1.1 sack per game).  Of those 9 sacks, 5 of them came against the Commanders.  In those other 7 games, the Bears averaged 0.6 sacks per game.  In their final 9 games, they had 22 sacks (2.4 sacks).  Their pass rush was non-existent in the first half of the season.

I’m not fully dismissing the validity of what you’ve said lol. Not all stats are equal, though. You can clap for 3rd down % all you want, but when it ends with your team being in a one score game late in the 4th quarter against a Chicago Bears team that had scored a whopping 9 points there is little room to act like it was a strong performance. Points scored is obviously an incredibly important metric. Before the final field goal, your team was up by less than a TD earlier in the 4th quarter against a team that had only put up 9 points. 

I also never scoffed at the Bears. Of course they improved, but they still weren’t one of the better defensive units in football. 
 

Being effective between the 20s is awesome, but you need to be able to complete the picture. If you’re one score up late in the 4th quarter against a team that had only scraped together 9 points of their own you did not have a notable good day at the office on the offensive side of the ball, efficiency between the 20s or not. I’m not saying it was bad, either.. but they certainly had some thanks to give to their defense.