Old Guy Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 2 hours ago, Scoremore said: Well on the bright side this is a perfect opportunity to get the rooks some reps. Why not right? Especially Cooper, Williams, and Lloyd. Hell even rotate in Monk and Hopper for good measure. Are you kidding? We can beat these next two teams and need to play to win the game. That was in my Jim Mora voice. Cooper is going to play anyway. That dude is a dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 3 hours ago, Scoremore said: Well on the bright side this is a perfect opportunity to get the rooks some reps. Why not right? Especially Cooper, Williams, and Lloyd. Hell even rotate in Monk and Hopper for good measure. You're emotionally hedging. None of the Packer's goals have changed with anyone in the organization. They are going to do everything to win, and they are not lessening their chances to do that by just getting some rookies reps just because a group of fans have lost faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 4 hours ago, NFLGURU said: Love will be back before any new QB has a clue about this offense. If you want to get a better backup for the rest of the year that's one thing, getting someone new for 2-3 weeks and expect them to do anything won't work. As piss poor as Clifford is, he's your best shot at this point. True. But you can't go into the game with only 1 QB under contract that is healthy enough to play. Either you sign Clifford to the active roster or you sign a FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brat&Beer Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 8 minutes ago, CWood21 said: True. But you can't go into the game with only 1 QB under contract that is healthy enough to play. Either you sign Clifford to the active roster or you sign a FA. They will sign Clifford to the 53. When Love is back they will either carry 3 QB's or release Clifford and sign him again to the PS. If he's willing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 (edited) 3 hours ago, Scoremore said: Giving the rooks some reps isn't conceding games. Disagree with that premise. I will say though it's unlikely we are going to win with Willis starting at QB. It's going to be rough. Use the opportunity to build out our depth. I for one would like to get a look at some of the young guys. Cooper is already on track to be earning more reps in certain packages and Lloyd will get his chances once healthy but the other guys might not see much action except in sub packages, ST, or of course if depth is called upon. I believe they’ll get their chances but not right away and not in a preasesson mentality of “let’s see what we’ve got there”. Especially on the OL, you roll with your best guys until another one is needed or proves he’s more capable than the guy ahead of him. With that being said, I would not mind a short yardage/goal line package with Monk as a lead blocker. I think he’s got decent quickness and some nasty to his game that he would get a facefull of whoever got in his way. Edited September 8 by Refugee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccecilnosebleed Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 I’d be willing to bet that Clifford is starting next Sunday. Maybe with them swapping in Willis for some plays. I can’t imagine they think Willis is going to run that offense with the little time he’s had with the team. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brat&Beer Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 6 minutes ago, ccecilnosebleed said: I’d be willing to bet that Clifford is starting next Sunday. Maybe with them swapping in Willis for some plays. I can’t imagine they think Willis is going to run that offense with the little time he’s had with the team. Then what were they thinking last night when they didn't activate Clifford? Were they just assuming Love would be able to play the whole game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAH1223 Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 Malik Willis can’t make throws. Atleast when I saw him play with the Titans. Running the ball 75% of the time is gonna be in the cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brat&Beer Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 1 hour ago, FAH1223 said: Malik Willis can’t make throws. Atleast when I saw him play with the Titans. Running the ball 75% of the time is gonna be in the cards. Pretty sure Packers didn't trade for him based on what they saw him do as a rookie in 2022. They do scout teams. https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2024/08/28/packers-saw-progression-from-new-qb-malik-willis-during-2024-preseason/ “Malik is a guy that, in his third year, he’s really shown a lot of progression, particularly in this past preseason,” Gutekunst said. “Just an opportunity for us to add a guy who I think can not only make plays with his arm but with his legs as well. Excited to get him.” “He’s always shown the traits. He’s a really good athlete. Really strong athlete. Strong arm. Able to make all the throws,” Gutekunst said. “You saw the flashes early on in his preseason work. But then I thought this year, the way his patience and the way he was going through his progressions and ability to play from the pocket. When to run, when not to run. Those kind of things progressed.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 15 hours ago, Pack-ManJones said: I’ve been pounding the table for this 3 weeks ago but imagine if Tannahill had 4 weeks in the playbook to play Indy and Tennessee… Coach by his former coach. But everyone called me crazy Listening to Herman, he was not his former coach, it was one leaving, one coming. Re Tannehill, how much would he have cost ? The reality is it was relatively unlikely Love would get a 4-6 week injury. Tannehill might get an extra win or two. Was it worth paying 8m and making your team worse for maybe a 10% chance that you have a chance (and it is only a chance Tannehill isn't Montana) to get an extra couple of wins. No. I don't think it was worth paying him that - just unfortunate that the 10% or so chance Love got the type of injury you want a Tannehill actually came in. If we could have got Tannehill for a couple of million then obviously that would be different but assume he was expecting good money and at the time without hindsight it was not the best use of resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 I am struggling to get why people are angry at Nixon returning that kick. With 27 seconds and no timeouts, the odds of a TD drive were extremely low. I had pretty much given up - it would have needed a miracle. Nixon has returned TDs (albeit with different rules) so I don't the issue with him giving him a go. Re Love. Another concern with his injury is that he was pretty mediocre at best all game. This as almost certainly week 1 rust which Packers seem to specialise in. Him missing time is really not going to help him shake it off. There have to be concerns he takes multiple weeks once he is back, to get back to the level we need him at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 (edited) Tannehills done. He never had a cannon and hes 36. And now hes got a bum ankle that took the one thing he was good at with his mobility, which was gone before the latest injury. Tannehill isnt the dream. Even with the protections not every QB can play til theyre 40. Edited September 8 by HighCalebR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 2 minutes ago, mikemike778 said: I am struggling to get why people are angry at Nixon returning that kick. With 27 seconds and no timeouts, the odds of a TD drive were extremely low. I had pretty much given up - it would have needed a miracle. Nixon has returned TDs (albeit with different rules) so I don't the issue with him giving him a go. Re Love. Another concern with his injury is that he was pretty mediocre at best all game. This as almost certainly week 1 rust which Packers seem to specialise in. Him missing time is really not going to help him shake it off. There have to be concerns he takes multiple weeks once he is back, to get back to the level we need him at. Its the way he caught it. He had no momentum, he was 5 yards deep and his eyes were up. If he caught that moving forward thats one thing but that wasnt going anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 5 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: Its the way he caught it. He had no momentum, he was 5 yards deep and his eyes were up. If he caught that moving forward thats one thing but that wasnt going anywhere. Maybe - I'd have given him a shot regardless. Maybe we should have done laterals or something on the return. Teams normally resort to that on the last play when the other side are ready for it. Maybe doing it earlier might throw them. Had to try something, we weren't going to score 'normally'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 GB fan obsession with Tannehill is just weird. Prior to the Love injury, coming to GB made no sense for Tannehill. Now that Love is diagnosed with a short term injury, it still doesn't. I can at least understand the group that wanted to trade for someone like Heinicke rather than Willis. I kind of agree with that group. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.