Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magooch" data-source="post: 1077490" data-attributes="member: 17987">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)</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

rmontro

Total: 615 (members: 1, guests: 614)

Latest posts

R
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
- Latest: rmontro
- 6 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Today at 8:08 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
- Latest: Heyjoe4
- Today at 7:59 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Today at 7:44 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
- Latest: Pokerbrat2000
- Today at 7:40 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum