gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,783
- Reaction score
- 2,744
I don't disagree with that.
All duds panthers
- Thread starter longtimefan
- Start date
This is just a really tough team for me to get an accurate read on honestly.
Because at the end of the day I think there is enough "evidence" to go both ways.
The more optimistic among us will be able to point at all the positives and our W/L record and say that the couple of losses aren't really representative of who this team is or what it can do.
But at the same time the more pessimistic ones can point at all the negatives and bad performances and basically say that our W/L record is misleading and also not really representative of who this team is or what it can do/be.
And I think they both have a decent case honestly. We are probably not as bad as our "lows" have been, but at the same time we are probably not currently as good as the "highs" we have previously shown, either.
Someone in the game thread said it well in quoting that "This is not a great team, it is a good team that COULD become great" and I agree with that. I said it yesterday too, when we are at our best we can hang with or beat anyone. But when we are playing "down," every team in the league could put up a tough fight or even beat us. Maybe that speaks to the overall parity in the league but I honestly believe we could go out and (hypothetically) beat a team like Philly or Buffalo or whoever and lose to the Saints or Jets the next.
BUT, all that to say, at risk of sounding like a broken record, the thing that I find most disheartening is that in spite of the highs and lows, many of my core complaints/criticisms have remained largely the same for literal YEARS now, with no real sign of changing. But it bears repeating, IMO:
- We tend to be "front-runners" who don't deal well with adversity. You may have heard it said by Mike Tyson, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" - we are a team who has a tendency to crumble when "punched in the mouth".
- Similarly, I think most opponents view us as a "soft" team and know if they can impose themselves physically we will probably be unable to respond
- We stress preparation, execution, and discipline all the time, yet consistently appear to be unprepared, unable to adjust in time, sloppy in execution, and playing undisciplined, mentally weak football (penalties, poor execution, bad game-sense, etc)
- We seem to make the same mistakes in game/time management week-in, week-out, year after year, again with no signs of changing
- We "play down" to our opponent, or at bare minimum often are caught feeling like we are "looking ahead" to what appears to be a tougher matchup (Cowboys after Browns, Eagles after Panthers, etc)
I don't want it to turn into just a time to dogpile on LaFleur, but at the same time sometimes I think we tend to talk about him like he's still a new coach in this league or just in his first couple of years as a head coach. But that isn't the case. He's in year SEVEN and as above these same issues have popped up year after year after year. I've said before that in coaching you are either coaching/teaching/encouraging the things your team does OR you are permitting it to happen. I really do like a lot of things that Matt does. I think he's a high-character guy, his players respect him, and I actually do think that from a scheme/X's and O's perspective he is great at the "conceptual" aspect of the game, scheming guys open. But in terms of actually responding to what is playing out on the field in front of his face, it feels like it's far too often a game of "catch up". And at this point with how long and how consistently these issues have existed I am left feeling like he is either unwilling or unable to address them.
Because at the end of the day I think there is enough "evidence" to go both ways.
The more optimistic among us will be able to point at all the positives and our W/L record and say that the couple of losses aren't really representative of who this team is or what it can do.
But at the same time the more pessimistic ones can point at all the negatives and bad performances and basically say that our W/L record is misleading and also not really representative of who this team is or what it can do/be.
And I think they both have a decent case honestly. We are probably not as bad as our "lows" have been, but at the same time we are probably not currently as good as the "highs" we have previously shown, either.
Someone in the game thread said it well in quoting that "This is not a great team, it is a good team that COULD become great" and I agree with that. I said it yesterday too, when we are at our best we can hang with or beat anyone. But when we are playing "down," every team in the league could put up a tough fight or even beat us. Maybe that speaks to the overall parity in the league but I honestly believe we could go out and (hypothetically) beat a team like Philly or Buffalo or whoever and lose to the Saints or Jets the next.
BUT, all that to say, at risk of sounding like a broken record, the thing that I find most disheartening is that in spite of the highs and lows, many of my core complaints/criticisms have remained largely the same for literal YEARS now, with no real sign of changing. But it bears repeating, IMO:
- We tend to be "front-runners" who don't deal well with adversity. You may have heard it said by Mike Tyson, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" - we are a team who has a tendency to crumble when "punched in the mouth".
- Similarly, I think most opponents view us as a "soft" team and know if they can impose themselves physically we will probably be unable to respond
- We stress preparation, execution, and discipline all the time, yet consistently appear to be unprepared, unable to adjust in time, sloppy in execution, and playing undisciplined, mentally weak football (penalties, poor execution, bad game-sense, etc)
- We seem to make the same mistakes in game/time management week-in, week-out, year after year, again with no signs of changing
- We "play down" to our opponent, or at bare minimum often are caught feeling like we are "looking ahead" to what appears to be a tougher matchup (Cowboys after Browns, Eagles after Panthers, etc)
I don't want it to turn into just a time to dogpile on LaFleur, but at the same time sometimes I think we tend to talk about him like he's still a new coach in this league or just in his first couple of years as a head coach. But that isn't the case. He's in year SEVEN and as above these same issues have popped up year after year after year. I've said before that in coaching you are either coaching/teaching/encouraging the things your team does OR you are permitting it to happen. I really do like a lot of things that Matt does. I think he's a high-character guy, his players respect him, and I actually do think that from a scheme/X's and O's perspective he is great at the "conceptual" aspect of the game, scheming guys open. But in terms of actually responding to what is playing out on the field in front of his face, it feels like it's far too often a game of "catch up". And at this point with how long and how consistently these issues have existed I am left feeling like he is either unwilling or unable to address them.
milani
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 8,452
- Reaction score
- 4,101
The fumble was a killer and the inexperience of Williams showed how he needs to learn ball protection. He is not a big TE that he can punish defenders. We had a turnover on our opening drive against Cincy but we overcame that one. Yesterday, it spiraled downhill.
Pugger
Cheesehead
Matt's screen passes often start behind or at the LOS and get blown up because of lousy blocking! Drives me crazy...
Sanguine camper
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,928
- Reaction score
- 1,365
I agree. MLF gets worse as a coach with each passing year. The play calling at the end of the first half was inexcusable.
Curly Calhoun
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 2,312
- Reaction score
- 785
Pugger
Cheesehead
And going for it on 4th and 8 from the 13 yard line was epically stupid, especially when it was totally unnecessary. Wasn't there around 10 minutes to go in the 4th quarter? Talk about amateur hour...
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
You've said it before, as have I. On any given Sunday, there isn't all that much that separates the bad teams from the good teams. A fumble here, an interception there or just a few mistakes, can change the final outcome.
The Panthers aren't a terrible team, but besides the McKinney interception, they played pretty flawless Football. The Packers did not.
Had the Panthers lost that game, their fans would be ultra focused on the poor decision by Bryce Young to throw a terrible pass into the EZ, that was a gift to McKinney and the Packers.
Yup, the Packers lost. Coaches need to get into that film room and clean up their mistakes. Next time MLF has 4th and 8, maybe he does the smart thing, and kicks the FG.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Exactly. Every fan in the stands around me were wondering WTF he was doing in that moment. Some of us thought "maybe they are doing the typical MLF BS play where they try to draw the Panthers offsides and make it a respectable 4th and 3.
On a day when your offense isn't firing on all cylinders and you need every point that you can get, kick the damn FG Matt! I also thought that by going for it, Matt sent a bad message to his Defense, that he didn't trust them stopping the Panthers. Well Matt, on that next drive they did.
Sometimes I think that Matt feels he is playing 3D Chess and needs to outsmart the opponent. When in reality, his coaching sometimes comes off as a guy that is playing a bad game of checkers.
I agree that there is generally a fair amount of parity in the league, and not a TON of difference between the "good" and "bad" teams but at the same time, I think (whether it is intentional or not) we sometimes have a habit of retrospectively talking up our opponents because it can make losses or bad performances feel a bit more palatable.
At the end of the day, the betting houses - who quite literally have MILLIONS of dollars at play - had set us as roughly 14 point favorites. Maybe those got artificially pumped up, maybe they wildly overestimated us or wildly underestimated the Panthers, but this was 100% a game that we were (and should have been) heavy favorites. The "advanced metrics" bear this out as well. We can say they were a tough opponent or a trap game or whatever but by all objective measures heading into this game they were a below-average team who are in the bottom-third, bottom-half *at best* of teams in this league overall. (And the same was largely true of the Browns to albeit to a lesser degree, owing to their elite defense)
Maybe things will look differently a few months from now, but right now my gut says when we get to the end of the season we are going to recognize that these were and are mediocre teams who we simply played down to, not "sneaky good" teams or "trap games" who were actually better than their record and stats/metrics would have indicated.
At the end of the day, the betting houses - who quite literally have MILLIONS of dollars at play - had set us as roughly 14 point favorites. Maybe those got artificially pumped up, maybe they wildly overestimated us or wildly underestimated the Panthers, but this was 100% a game that we were (and should have been) heavy favorites. The "advanced metrics" bear this out as well. We can say they were a tough opponent or a trap game or whatever but by all objective measures heading into this game they were a below-average team who are in the bottom-third, bottom-half *at best* of teams in this league overall. (And the same was largely true of the Browns to albeit to a lesser degree, owing to their elite defense)
Maybe things will look differently a few months from now, but right now my gut says when we get to the end of the season we are going to recognize that these were and are mediocre teams who we simply played down to, not "sneaky good" teams or "trap games" who were actually better than their record and stats/metrics would have indicated.
milani
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 8,452
- Reaction score
- 4,101
The only quirk in that is that he might try the FG from 60 and give the ball to our opponent at midfield when he should have punted.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Right now, I wouldn't trot McManus out there for a 60 yarder, even with no wind. I think he is still injured and fighting through it. Yesterday, that wind was really nasty and swirling. In the stands, it felt like it was coming right to left, but on the field, it was definitely left to right, a stray beachball on the field confirmed it. Anyway, on that 4th and 8, the Packers were inside or near the 10, I can't remember exactly, but McManus makes that FG 90+ out of a 100 times. Picking up 8 yards from that spot on the field, on 4th down, sorry MLF, but you made the wrong decision.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
I get what you are saying and I doubt that maybe besides Panther fans (today), you wouldn't get much argument from any NFL Fans that generally speaking, the Packers are a better team than the Panthers.
However, all that is on paper and in our collective brains. It is the job of the coaching staff each week to study the team that they will be playing and figure out how to get their players in the best position to win, no matter who they are playing.
I think Panther coaches did this extremely well. I said this after the first half of the Steeler Packer game, the Packers can't stop the outside run or draws, the Steelers should just keep attacking them there. The Steelers didn't and we shut their offense down. Panther coaches must have seen that deficiency too, because they carved our defense up doing just that. Their RB's patiently waited for their OL to create a hole and they hit it. When there wasn't a hole, they bounced outside and picked up yards. Now maybe Hafley is aware of this issue, but man, he needs to figure out a way to fix that or other teams are just going to copy the blue print and kill our defense.
I still think Matt needs to hand over play calling to a full time OC. Yes, he may have a brilliant offensive mind, but in game, I think his mind is too busy with everything else, that his decisions on offense aren't made with a clear mind.
mradtke66
Cheesehead
It's always hard to read the forums after a loss. It seems to be human nature to dog pile on the coach for anything and everything and/or bring up stuff that happened years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a commenter who's tracking MLF's outfits each week and trying to correlate that to wins and loses.
Overall, I'd say our defense did their job. 16 points should be enough to win in this league. Carolina had 7 drives my count. 1 interception, 3 punts. We can certainly be mad about the YPC, but on the balance, they did what they had to do.
The offense was...odd. They didn't have a single 3 and out all game. Other than the 4 play interception drive, their shortest drive was 9 plays for 43 yards. They consistently moved the ball, so I'm struggling to blame play calling. I'm not even sure we can blame penalties, as we reliably overcame them as well. We didn't punt the entire game!
We struggled to put the ball in the end zone and we struggled to execute.
• Savion's fumble should have been at least a FG.
• McManus missed a 43 yard field goal. Is he still hurt?
• The 3rd down call that lead to ignoring the field goal: Heath (?) missed his block and Wilson got too wide, making the block harder
• Passing a gimme field goal: this one I'm on board with questioning the decision. I do wonder if the earlier miss has MLF questioning his kicker...which is NOT where I want to be
• Interception...I call it 50 percent bad decision, 50 bad throw due to pressure. Watson beat his double coverage, but the throw ended up way off target due to pressure. Picking Watson--good choice. Throwing anyway with a free rusher in his face--bad choice, leading to a bad throw.
In short, I'm more confused than anything...
Overall, I'd say our defense did their job. 16 points should be enough to win in this league. Carolina had 7 drives my count. 1 interception, 3 punts. We can certainly be mad about the YPC, but on the balance, they did what they had to do.
The offense was...odd. They didn't have a single 3 and out all game. Other than the 4 play interception drive, their shortest drive was 9 plays for 43 yards. They consistently moved the ball, so I'm struggling to blame play calling. I'm not even sure we can blame penalties, as we reliably overcame them as well. We didn't punt the entire game!
We struggled to put the ball in the end zone and we struggled to execute.
• Savion's fumble should have been at least a FG.
• McManus missed a 43 yard field goal. Is he still hurt?
• The 3rd down call that lead to ignoring the field goal: Heath (?) missed his block and Wilson got too wide, making the block harder
• Passing a gimme field goal: this one I'm on board with questioning the decision. I do wonder if the earlier miss has MLF questioning his kicker...which is NOT where I want to be
• Interception...I call it 50 percent bad decision, 50 bad throw due to pressure. Watson beat his double coverage, but the throw ended up way off target due to pressure. Picking Watson--good choice. Throwing anyway with a free rusher in his face--bad choice, leading to a bad throw.
In short, I'm more confused than anything...
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Well said.
One thing I will disagree with though and just slighty, is the performance of the defense. Yes, giving up 16 points isn't a bad thing, but it wasn't enough to bail out the offense that was having an off day. Due to injuries, The Panthers were playing mostly back-ups on the O-line, yet we couldn't get pressure on their QB or stop the run. The defense was out on the field way too long IMO, especially in the first half. The Panthers stopped themselves on offense with some penalties and that interception. While I give the defense credit for only giving up 16 points, it oddly felt like the Panthers put up a lot more points than they actually did.
At the end of the day, time of possession was almost identical. Packers offense gained 104 yards more than the Panthers. Penalties were almost equal. The Packers had 1 more turnover than the Panthers (fumble by Williams). So how did they lose? I agree with you, the fumble was huge, the missed FG, as well as the not kicking a FG, also huge.
Also, I am wondering the same thing as you are, is McManus playing through an injury and if so, why is MLF/Bisaccia putting him out there when they have a guy that proved his worth, on the roster.
mradtke66
Cheesehead
I guess I don't care about pressures if the pass defense as a whole is working. 11/20, 102 yards, a rating of 48.3, 5.1 yards per attempt. Jacobs was more efficient on the ground than Bryce was in the air. That's winning pass defense.
Run defense, yes, we gave up too much YPC. I don't like it, but without watching All-22, it's hard to point to the why. Could be individuals losing their 1:1s. Could be wrong defense calls against perfect offensive calls. That dude is also a hell of a running back and he gets paid too.
And even with all of that, we do enough if the offense executes. Savion doesn't fumble and gets 0 yards, we kick for 3. McManus doesn't miss his first one, we socre 3 more. With the score difference, MLF probably kicks instead of the goofy 4th down call. Even with the interception, we might be looking at a 9 point lead. Or we force Carolina out of their game plane and make Bryce throw....playing into our strength and their weakness.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Maybe I am expecting too much out of our defense, but I was totally licking my chops before the game, over the fact that the Panthers OL was more injured than the Packers. I was picturing Micah with a 3 sack day and just forcing Young into a lot of bad decisions. Which is also probably why the Panthers chose to run the ball so much; 33 rushes to 20 pass attempts.
Bottom line for me. Our offense needs to get better and more consistent. Because until they do, the defense can't give up 163 rushing yards and expect to win games, when the offense only puts up 13 points against a Panther team and 10 points against a Browns team.
Pugger
Cheesehead
There is a big difference between 43 yards and a 13 yard chip shot, even in that wind. Matt really screwed up there.
El Guapo
Cheesehead
You blamed the coach for playing Jenkins at center. What are his other options? The GM let the previous center walk and there aren't any other half-decent alternatives due to injury and depth.
If you were coach, which player currently on the roster would you have playing center in place of Jenkins?
mradtke66
Cheesehead
The number of attempts (20) mean that a 3 sack day would be astronomical. Not impossible, but very unlikely.
And I think we did force him into bad decisions. Sure, we want the flashy stats, but this is the kind of game that Parsons impacted by merely being on the field.
I want the offense to be better and this all goes away. 16 points is winning defense. 265 total yards is winning defense. Much better than they played might be asking for literal perfection, and that's not fair to them. The offense scoring 10 and 13 points is not winning football. One touchdown on 4 possible drives--fumble, interception, missed FQ, skipped field goal, and the game is never in doubt.
If we can score 20+ points, hold them to 17, I can deal with 4.9 YPC.
mradtke66
Cheesehead
I can defend that point of view. I'd like to know his rationale behind going for it there.
Yeah, I'm with you there for sure. What I'm just getting at is that I see across the web this sentiment where after a loss or ho-hum performance that it's ACTUALLY because our opponent is a lot better than we thought they were or something like that.
Like, we're touchdown favorites vs the Browns and drop a stinker, and immediately it's "Well, they have a great defense!"
We're heavy favorites vs the Cardinals and have an ugly performance and it's "Yeah they only have two wins, but they were close in their other games! They're really good for a two win team!"
We're favored by two touchdowns against the Panthers, take the biggest (betting line) upset in decades for GB, and it's "They were .500 and playing pretty good football with Bryce Young, they're no slouches!"
And there is some shred of truth in all of these explanations but the reality IMO is much, much simpler. These were three matches against inferior opponents that we *should* have been expected to win with relative comfort and instead got beat or played much closer than it should have been. And for whatever reason it seems like some find these performances more palatable if we up-sell the opponent than if we just admit that we played poorly and got beaten by a team that we should've dispatched with ease.
The bottom line for me is that the Packers at their best should absolutely 100% expect to win comfortably against teams like the Browns, Panthers, Cardinals, etc. I don't care if "there's no easy wins in this league" or "there's no pushovers" or whatnot - a close win or narrow loss against these teams doesn't mean they're better teams than their record, stats, metrics, betting odds, etc would suggest - it just means we played worse than we should have. It doesn't make me feel any better to tell myself that the Panthers are actually underestimated when they have Sub-50-passer-rating-Bryce Young starting for them and I sure hope that nobody at 1265 Lombardi is coming in to work and telling themselves that the team they just lost to is actually better than most think or whatnot, lol.
This is kind of where I go back and forth.
Yes, on the whole you should expect to win when you hold your opponent to 16 points. If the offense does their job and finishes drives, we win running away and most of these conversations are at least swept away for a bit longer.
At the same time, while we didn't give up many points (or a ton of yards, for that matter), it never really felt like we were in control, did it? There's not any good way to measure that but I guess what I'd say is that - both defensively and offensively, to a degree - it felt like the Panthers were the ones "dictating terms" and taking the game to us. We were the ones playing "reactionary" football based on what they were offering, rather than proactively taking the game to them and controlling things. And I mentioned it yesterday, but ultimately we found ourselves in a situation where we just needed ONE stop from our defense in crunch time - just don't give them enough to get into field goal range - and they couldn't do it. So while overall it's not like they got absolutely destroyed, at the same time it's hard for me to feel too enthused knowing that a team like Carolina - with a banged up OL and a RB who looked semi-gimpy all day long - was basically able to impose their will on us when all the chips were down.
Yep, I'm totally in agreement on this. I think he does a great job conceptually, and IMO he tends to get the most out of his players which is something that shouldn't be undersold. I think of our WR room for instance. I am honestly probably not as high on a lot of them as many here are, IMO most are probably 2nd or 3rd options on a lot of other teams. BUT at the same time IMO LaFleur's scheme and system gets the most out of them and they are generally quite successful here overall. I don't know that a lot of these guys would be nearly as successful else where. There are a lot of positives that LaFleur brings to the table.
But it also feels like sometimes he is a little TOO married to his scheme/system/setup/ideas. There are some games where it feels like Matt comes in with a gameplan, is absolutely 100% convinced it will work...and then if it doesn't, there's no Plan B (or at least not a coherent one). We just keep after Plan A and believe it will ultimately work out...until suddenly we're tied or trailing and the game's getting away and then it's panic time.
(and I once again have to say that the addition of Bisaccia as assistant head coach seems to have provided zero tangible benefits, beyond a continually spotty track record at ST and a very very mixed record with regards to Raiders acquisitions, but....that's another matter lol)
mradtke66
Cheesehead
I didn't feel like we were getting dictated to. On offense, we moved the ball with ease buy couldn't punch it into the end zone. The bad fumble and missed kick alone makes this go away.
I'm still struggling to say because they got yards at the end of the game, they didn't do their job. Of course you want every drive to be a 3 and out, but our defense won on 4/7 drives. Asking the defense to approach perfection while the offense laid a turd isn't fair.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Agree with your post, but Parson impact on the pass game is one thing, his impact or lack thereof, on the run game is something still up for debate. I see both sides of the argument, and it happens to Gary, LVN and other pass rushers as well.
I guess when the Packers defense finds themselves in a game like yesterday, Hafley needs to figure out how to stop those outside runs, while still maintaining the pass rush. Another question that I have. Was the loss of Clark and now Wyatt's injury so big that Walker and Cooper are not get clean tackling lanes for inside runs?
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Bingo!
Pretty much summed up my feeling as we drove home from the game. Not sure if my feelings were influenced by the fans in the stands, more than what you get on the TV. However, if you didn't hear it at home, Love and the offense and probably MLF, got booed pretty loudly as they were coming off the field after the 4th and 8 play. As a matter of fact, quite a few people left the stadium. I have not heard or seen that in quite awhile. There were 10 minutes left and the Packers were only down 7! How do these people leave right now was my only thought (as I boo'd MLF's decision to go for it on 4th and 8).
Last edited:
