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

[El Ramster]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2HBWD3uhAl/?igsh=ZWI2YzEzYmMxYg==

[ThatJerkDave]

4 hours ago, SodeeWater_Cheezburger said:

I don't know what happened to them in the playoffs in 2011, but that year, they had one of the best offenses I've ever seen.  In the same league as the '98 Vikings, GSOT Rams, and '07 Patriots, IMO.

That was a really flawed defense that relied on turnovers and teams completely abandoning the run because we scored a lot of points, really, really fast.  The 2010 defense was very good.  The 2011 defense was not.  The Giants could get pressure with only their line, and forced punts.  They lost the turnover battle 4-1, and it was a wrap.  The defense was unable to make a stop if the offense was not putting up points and making the opponent press on offense.  

I think I said that we probably win that game 8 of 10 times.  Well, we certainly picked one of the times that we didn't, when it counted.  Giants kicked our *** that game, and they won.

[redsoxsuck05]

8 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

That was a really flawed defense that relied on turnovers and teams completely abandoning the run because we scored a lot of points, really, really fast.  The 2010 defense was very good.  The 2011 defense was not.  The Giants could get pressure with only their line, and forced punts.  They lost the turnover battle 4-1, and it was a wrap.  The defense was unable to make a stop if the offense was not putting up points and making the opponent press on offense.  

I think I said that we probably win that game 8 of 10 times.  Well, we certainly picked one of the times that we didn't, when it counted.  Giants kicked our *** that game, and they won.

Eli, JPP, and Cruz/Nicks were on another level that year, then the rest of the D plus the running game finally showed up right in time for the playoffs.

From what I remember of the game...Jennings and Finley had some dropsies, Rodgers missed some throws he never missed that year, but ya'll got all the calls in both games against us that year (Driver's fumble should've stood, Osi's "roughing" penalty).

Edited January 15 by redsoxsuck05

[ThatJerkDave]

3 minutes ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

Eli, JPP, and Cruz/Nicks were on another level that year, then the rest of the D plus the running game finally showed up right in time for the playoffs.

From what I remember of the game...Jennings and Finley had some dropsies, Rodgers missed some throws he never missed that year, but ya'll got all the calls in both games against us that year (Driver's fumble should've stood, Osi's "roughing" penalty).

Bunch of fumbles too.  Ryan Grant never fumbled.  Except that game.  Packers fumbled right before half as well and gave up a TD in the last seconds, because that defense was really soft.  

[redsoxsuck05]

10 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Bunch of fumbles too.  Ryan Grant never fumbled.  Except that game.  Packers fumbled right before half as well and gave up a TD in the last seconds, because that defense was really soft.  

The Hail Mary and Bradshaw's run out of bounds immediately before is incredible. That sequence of plays will never ever happen for another 100 years of Giants football.

All the talk in 2007 was Ryan Grant destroying the Seahawks and Favre's dinky little stumble pass. Ended up being way easier to contain than prime Marion Barber. I forget Grant was still a Packer in 2011.

[Tugboat]

5 hours ago, AZ_Eaglesfan said:

There are tiers to this thing and a lot of nuance. If Shanny was fired there would be like 2 teams who shouldn’t try and hire him. Now do that exercise with Mike McCarthy.

This was realistically Dallas’ best chance to win it all. They have a lot less flexibility this offseason and the pretty much have to extend Dak now. It’s probably a good time for them to change regimes. 

 

I don't even think it's necessarily "tiers" to the question of McCarthy vs KyShanny.  The latter has been coaching for a much shorter stretch, and can still boast 3 NFC Championship appearances (including a lost Owl) in 4 years.  With different quarterbacks.  That's about the absolute most a coach can possibly do to illustrate that they're a driving force behind a championship caliber team.  

vs McCarthy has mostly just dithered around and accidentally won a Ring one time because Rogers went rogue at his absolute peak.  Outside of that, his playoff record looks...underwhelming.

 

What Shanahan has, buys him miles of extra leash.  Like someone else said...if both Shanny and McCarthy hit the market today...who would you want your team to hire?  You'd have a line around the block for Shanahan just waiting to fire the extant coach even if you're content with them.  McCarthy...i doubt he even immediately gets a new gig at all if he's actually fired.

 

4 hours ago, Forge said:

Also worth noting that I think this is considered a particularly interesting coaching cycle. Bill? Vrabel? These are guys that some people may consider just straight upgrades on McCarthy 

I honestly think Vrabel might be the guy for Dallas.  A lot of moving parts there, but he seems like the sort of coach who can just roll with what he's given...and very much the opposite style of what McCarthy offers as a stoic nothing man.  If you think you've got a Super Bowl caliber roster there...he's the guy you jump to, trying to bridge that motivation and preparation gap that seems to exist.

 

Just have to make sure you can license an Offensive Coordinator who will work with Dak because like it or not, you're stuck with him.

 

3 hours ago, Soggust said:

Felt kind of like what happened just yesterday with the Browns, right?

QB throws a few picks, defense can't get a stop? 

We firing Stefanski or is it different because he had Flacco who was good until he wasn't and we think Watson will be a difference maker?

I mean, this is just rife with obvious non-parallels to the Cowboys situation.

Yes, a coach is going to get extra leeway for outperforming expectations while their scumbag "megadollar" QB sits around getting "massages" and they somehow crack the playoffs with a hodgepodge including the ghost of Joe Flacco.  That's credit in the bank, in coaching leeway terms.  There's no expectations.  That's just found money.

What the Browns do with that mess...well, who knows.  But that's a mess that really isn't on the coach who made more than what most people thought was there, with what he had.  And has done so before.

 

3 hours ago, Soggust said:

Maybe there is an experience vs athleticism philosophical discussion but Rodgers 2011 or whatever was like top 2 season great, so for purposes of discussion - I totally agree with you.

But remember this isn't about Rodgers being better than his younger self, we were discussing him not winning SBs after McCarthy.

 

It also highlights that you don't need to be in your prime in order to win a SB.

So, once again, a top 5 all time QB should have won without McCarthy, right? Especially when he was playing at an MVP level?

The other wrench to throw into this whole thing is...

 

Maybe Rogers was never actually that great?

We're all eager to throw Russ under the bus for his fall-off.  They're very different QBs, but on the surface...there are a lot of similarities.  They're both fundamentally, "run around and yeet the ball downfield" type QBs who have both always had trouble playing strictly within a "system".

That's not to say Rogers peak wasn't much much higher than Wilson's, or that they're the same at all really.  It's just...Rogers even at his "automatic pro bowl" level on name recognition, never really felt like an all time great sort of QB as he's been touted.  He was like a two trick pony.  He was so darn good at navigating the pocket and launching bombs, nobody ever cared.  The signs were there however, that he was tough to work with for coaches, because like Russ...he had these specific ideas of how the offense should operate...and they weren't always consistent with a reliable chain-moving coach-friendly offense.  Like say...Brady or Manning.

But i think it stands to reason that Rogers later years should probably be considered in a similar light to the way people view Wilson's game as having dropped off.  Not as extreme because he was always far and away the better pure passer.  But would it not track that there's a similar decline in real effectiveness at some point there?

[ukjets21]

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

Maybe Rogers was never actually that great?

We're all eager to throw Russ under the bus for his fall-off.  They're very different QBs, but on the surface...there are a lot of similarities.  They're both fundamentally, "run around and yeet the ball downfield" type QBs who have both always had trouble playing strictly within a "system".

That's not to say Rogers peak wasn't much much higher than Wilson's, or that they're the same at all really.  It's just...Rogers even at his "automatic pro bowl" level on name recognition, never really felt like an all time great sort of QB as he's been touted.  He was like a two trick pony.  He was so darn good at navigating the pocket and launching bombs, nobody ever cared.  The signs were there however, that he was tough to work with for coaches, because like Russ...he had these specific ideas of how the offense should operate...and they weren't always consistent with a reliable chain-moving coach-friendly offense.  Like say...Brady or Manning.

But i think it stands to reason that Rogers later years should probably be considered in a similar light to the way people view Wilson's game as having dropped off.  Not as extreme because he was always far and away the better pure passer.  But would it not track that there's a similar decline in real effectiveness at some point there?

Some revisionist history going on here. 

[Soggust]

35 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

 

I don't even think it's necessarily "tiers" to the question of McCarthy vs KyShanny.  The latter has been coaching for a much shorter stretch, and can still boast 3 NFC Championship appearances (including a lost Owl) in 4 years.  With different quarterbacks.  That's about the absolute most a coach can possibly do to illustrate that they're a driving force behind a championship caliber team.  

Strong take imo

 

52 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

What Shanahan has, buys him miles of extra leash.  Like someone else said...if both Shanny and McCarthy hit the market today...who would you want your team to hire?  You'd have a line around the block for Shanahan just waiting to fire the extant coach even if you're content with them.  McCarthy...i doubt he even immediately gets a new gig at all if he's actually fired.

I was picking on Shanahan specifically because I know he's considered to be a much stronger HC (was starting with the polar extremes), but let's make it a bit more interesting - 

Should Matt LaFleur been fired after last year? Or this year if they had missed the playoffs?

That's a guy who had a top 5 all time QB playing at MVP level and couldn't win a championship in 4 straight years. 

Turns out, despite not finishing the job in the playoffs, he still seems like a pretty darn good head coach. I think it's easy to say in hindsight, absolutely not. 

 

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

I honestly think Vrabel might be the guy for Dallas.  A lot of moving parts there, but he seems like the sort of coach who can just roll with what he's given...and very much the opposite style of what McCarthy offers as a stoic nothing man.  If you think you've got a Super Bowl caliber roster there...he's the guy you jump to, trying to bridge that motivation and preparation gap that seems to exist.

 

Just have to make sure you can license an Offensive Coordinator who will work with Dak because like it or not, you're stuck with him.

I don't understand the Vrabel hire because it's like "Hey we are going to fire the guy with the SB ring who took us to 3 straight 12 win seasons because he can't win a SB anymore and we are going to replace him with..... a guy who has never won a SB as a head coach".

Also both Vrabel and Belichick concern me as defensive guys because I think it's easy to see a Dak regression in either of those systems. And if we are saying that the defense was the problem, then why fire McCarthy instead of Quinn?

 

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

I mean, this is just rife with obvious non-parallels to the Cowboys situation.

Yes, a coach is going to get extra leeway for outperforming expectations while their scumbag "megadollar" QB sits around getting "massages" and they somehow crack the playoffs with a hodgepodge including the ghost of Joe Flacco.  That's credit in the bank, in coaching leeway terms.  There's no expectations.  That's just found money.

What the Browns do with that mess...well, who knows.  But that's a mess that really isn't on the coach who made more than what most people thought was there, with what he had.  And has done so before.

Sorry, I'm not trying to compare Stefanski and McCarthy's coaching performances this year. I was just responding to the idea that this was a unique type of loss. I think it's a bad loss, just don't think it's particularly unique.

Other folks have mentioned home/road as a difference, but I don't think I like the idea of "it's cool to get blown out as long as you lost enough games during the season to make sure it didn't happen at home".

 

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

The other wrench to throw into this whole thing is...

 

Maybe Rogers was never actually that great?

We're all eager to throw Russ under the bus for his fall-off.  They're very different QBs, but on the surface...there are a lot of similarities.  They're both fundamentally, "run around and yeet the ball downfield" type QBs who have both always had trouble playing strictly within a "system".

That's not to say Rogers peak wasn't much much higher than Wilson's, or that they're the same at all really.  It's just...Rogers even at his "automatic pro bowl" level on name recognition, never really felt like an all time great sort of QB as he's been touted.  He was like a two trick pony.  He was so darn good at navigating the pocket and launching bombs, nobody ever cared.  The signs were there however, that he was tough to work with for coaches, because like Russ...he had these specific ideas of how the offense should operate...and they weren't always consistent with a reliable chain-moving coach-friendly offense.  Like say...Brady or Manning.

But i think it stands to reason that Rogers later years should probably be considered in a similar light to the way people view Wilson's game as having dropped off.  Not as extreme because he was always far and away the better pure passer.  But would it not track that there's a similar decline in real effectiveness at some point there?

I love the hot take, but I'm having a hard time buying an argument that Rodgers was a declined, shell of himself under MLF lol. 

Because regardless of whether or not he was better in 2011, the fact is he was a two-time LEAGUE MVP which essentially means he was the best player in football that year.

So, to me it doesn't matter if he was a regressed version of himself in 2010/2011 or whatever because he was, quite literally, still the best player in football and you were not getting better production out of anyone else during those years. 

So, the idea that folks are portraying that any old mid coach can get carried to a SB by a top 5 all time QB just doesn't seem to add up to me if he couldn't carry a good coach in MLF to one. 

 

[Tugboat]

48 minutes ago, ukjets21 said:

Some revisionist history going on here. 

Revisionist compared to the mainstream consensus at the time that carried him to automatic ProBowls, yes.

I'm probably on record somewhere way back then, suggesting that Rogers is overrated.  Probably a lot of times and places even.  So not really revising my history i guess.  I've always thought he was a little overrated.

 

Still an easy slam dunk 1st ballot HoFer and all.  But within that realm...overrated.

[Tugboat]

44 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I was picking on Shanahan specifically because I know he's considered to be a much stronger HC (was starting with the polar extremes), but let's make it a bit more interesting - 

Should Matt LaFleur been fired after last year? Or this year if they had missed the playoffs?

That's a guy who had a top 5 all time QB playing at MVP level and couldn't win a championship in 4 straight years. 

Turns out, despite not finishing the job in the playoffs, he still seems like a pretty darn good head coach. I think it's easy to say in hindsight, absolutely not. 

 

I think LaFleur was also a unique case.  He was dealing with a primadonna QB who didn't want to play his way for a lot of that.  His guy was always Jordan Love.  That's his "make or break" and in the first year of it, it looked shaky to start but is clearly finishing strong.

That's not to say coaches aren't constantly fired just because a team has a bad expensive QB they can't get out from under and need to make some sort of change (as the Cowboys are probably facing here).

But ultimately, LaFleur still had all sorts of weird extenuating circumstances around him with the whole AARon shroud over things.  That's where management have to be on the same page, and they're the ones who went out and drafted a 1st round QB over...help that Rodgers was demanding, which ultimately sent him tantruming elsewhere.

 

It's just hard to draw parallels when the circumstances are so different.

 

44 minutes ago, Soggust said:

 

I don't understand the Vrabel hire because it's like "Hey we are going to fire the guy with the SB ring who took us to 3 straight 12 win seasons because he can't win a SB anymore and we are going to replace him with..... a guy who has never won a SB as a head coach".

Also both Vrabel and Belichick concern me as defensive guys because I think it's easy to see a Dak regression in either of those systems. And if we are saying that the defense was the problem, then why fire McCarthy instead of Quinn?

 

Rings aren't everything though.  Everyone who has a Super Bowl ring started off without one, at some point in their career.  That's just the way it works.  It's also not a magic cure all for whatever ails you.  There are plenty of situational, circumstantial wins in Super Bowl history where everything fell just right.  Doesn't discredit those wins...but it also doesn't outweigh overall track record.

Vrabel is a coach who has shown that he can get his teams to battle and scrap.  That's the main ingredient that seems to be missing from this Dallas team right now.  That's why i makes sense to me.  Along with the fact that he's a somewhat "hands off" coach who seems a lot more willing to just "work with what he's given", which is important in a place like Dallas given the Jerrymandering.

 

44 minutes ago, Soggust said:

 

Sorry, I'm not trying to compare Stefanski and McCarthy's coaching performances this year. I was just responding to the idea that this was a unique type of loss. I think it's a bad loss, just don't think it's particularly unique.

Other folks have mentioned home/road as a difference, but I don't think I like the idea of "it's cool to get blown out as long as you lost enough games during the season to make sure it didn't happen at home".

I think it's somewhat unique as a loss though, in that it was a strong favourite going in and getting absolutely dunked on in every facet of the game, by an underdog.  Underdog wins happen.  Upsets happen.  Lopsided playoff games happen.  But to go in with most of your key players intact and lay a complete egg like that...it's unique.  It stands out.  You don't see that often.

 

44 minutes ago, Soggust said:

 

I love the hot take, but I'm having a hard time buying an argument that Rodgers was a declined, shell of himself under MLF lol. 

Because regardless of whether or not he was better in 2011, the fact is he was a two-time LEAGUE MVP which essentially means he was the best player in football that year.

So, to me it doesn't matter if he was a regressed version of himself in 2010/2011 or whatever because he was, quite literally, still the best player in football and you were not getting better production out of anyone else during those years. 

So, the idea that folks are portraying that any old mid coach can get carried to a SB by a top 5 all time QB just doesn't seem to add up to me if he couldn't carry a good coach in MLF to one. 

 

 

Again, accolades don't outweigh reality.  It's not that AARon wasn't still an elite QB at that point even, but i think it's pretty well established that he was difficult to work with and not really receptive to Lefleur's system or scheme.

Most of the greats are like that.  They're Sinatras.  They do it ~my way~.  But there's something unique about the way Rodgers preferred to do things that has always been a little bit at odds with OCs and HCs even.  Particularly as he got later into his career and fully embraced his MVP Persona.  Guys like Brady and Manning were similarly stubborn on "their system" over everything else, even when they changed teams.  But "their systems" were also very easily compatible with a typical coaching gameplan.  Control the ball, drive the field, dink and dunk, win the game.  Exactly what any coach wants.

 

Rodgers "way" was always much more improvisational and verging on YOLOball.  Not quite the Flacco ball...but a huge amount of Rodgers success was just in baiting that flag and then throwing a 50 yard bomb on the "free play".  That's what made him most feared.  Not dissecting a defense 5 yards at a time until they died.  Takes great awareness and coordination with receivers to make that happen, but it always felt like cheesing to me.  Even when that wasn't the jig, his game was always far more predicated on improvisation outside the system than the others.  Scrambling and evading in the pocket.  Buying time to...eventually launch it downfield somewhere.

 

I don't think it's that farfetched to think that he'd fall off a little earlier, and also be much much harder for a coach to work with, than his other fellow MVP First Ballot compatriots.

[agarcia34]

Bill would never work for a guy like Jerry Jones. Vrabrel gonna do a good job with this Cowboys team next year 

[Manny/Patrick]

Philly really needed this get right game for momentum

[ukjets21]

8 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Revisionist compared to the mainstream consensus at the time that carried him to automatic ProBowls, yes.

I'm probably on record somewhere way back then, suggesting that Rogers is overrated.  Probably a lot of times and places even.  So not really revising my history i guess.  I've always thought he was a little overrated.

 

Still an easy slam dunk 1st ballot HoFer and all.  But within that realm...overrated.

I find it hard to put together "easy slam dunk 1st ballot HoFer" and "never actually that great." Rodgers is probably a top 10 all time QB. But if you think both those things its semantics at that stage, just a jarring read.

Edited January 15 by ukjets21

[beekay414]

2 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Revisionist compared to the mainstream consensus at the time that carried him to automatic ProBowls, yes.

I'm probably on record somewhere way back then, suggesting that Rogers is overrated.  Probably a lot of times and places even.  So not really revising my history i guess.  I've always thought he was a little overrated.

 

Still an easy slam dunk 1st ballot HoFer and all.  But within that realm...overrated.

As someone that watched Rodgers weekly and legit looked forward to it like a giddy school girl going to a T Swift concert, your Rodgers take is insanely off base. There was nothing overrated about his on field play. The man made OMFG throws on the regular. He's what he is off the field now but there was nothing about the man, on the field, that wasn't jaw dropping except his inability to clear mental hurdles in the playoffs. 

As was said, insane revisionist history with zero basis in reality. 

[adamq]

This joke will never not be funny