Is it time?

[Curly Calhoun]

That's a good summary Curly, thanks. Yeah the talent is in place. That strength is just on paper until the players live up to expectations. I agree that Jacobs and Kraft played very well for the entire 2024-2025 season.

And Reed does need to get the ball more. If Golden can quickly adapt to the NFL, it's gonna be hard for opposing Ds to double up on any WR. And while I'm hoping for good things for the rookie WRs, I'm also looking for the "young" WRs from 2023-2024 to get back to the form they showed that season. Last year was a bit of a regression.

As a fan, there is a lot to look forward to. And the trial by fire starts in week 1 with the Lions coming to Lambeau. A victory for GB will go a long way to set the tone for the season. It won't be easy, but a real contender has to beat the other contenders. Fine with me if they start with the Lions.

That's about as close to a "must-win" as you can have in week one. A victory would send a message that the North is up for grabs and Green Bay is as good as anyone. A loss means playing catch-up right out of the gate.

 

[OldSchool101]

Yeah, this is a prove it year. He was impressive in year one once he got used to being out there (played well in the second half of the season, basically). Then last year he fell off some, although he had some injuries, so that probably played a part. This year he needs to make a big comeback. You'd think a solid running game would boost the pass game, but I wonder if MLF running so much worked against Love getting into a rhythm.

It might be. I looked and we started the first half of the season 18 Passes 11 Runs. We finished that Philly contest in San Paulo
35 Passes 21 Runs
We also led the Eagles at Halftime m, so that tells me we were playing “catch up” or “down multiple scores” etc. As in just throwing it out if desperation, then that game would be understandable at a 3:2 ratio Passing.
Then Jordan went down

Across the remainder of the season Love had 411 Passes. Yet we also had 415 Runs or near exactly 1 Pass to 1 Run ratio.

So I guess what I’m getting at is it’s possible MLF was trying to protect Love by the Mix of Pass to run? Idk

 

[OldSchool101]

It won't be easy, but a real contender has to beat the other contenders. Fine with me if they start with the Lions.

It’s a challenge but eventually we’ve got to come out on top of those closer 2-3 point contests.

As you’ve said we’ve got the talent. In Eagles review Week1 I had totally forgotten that Love nailed a TD to Reed. It was nullified by penalty. If you look at the very Top I think it was our TE standing half on the chalk and half on the grass. That erased 7 points. Mental mistakes are costly. Then Walker commits penalty and it backs us to the Eagles 43. We went from 7pts to 3pts to punting in our first drive.

Yet we led 19-17 at Half-time. Imo that game goes different if we’re 26-17 HT
Those are mistakes that have nothing to do with talent. We likely lost our seeding over an TE indecision getting off the field. Just one example of how a small mental error can cost us

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Heyjoe4]

It’s a challenge but eventually we’ve got to come out on top of those closer 2-3 point contests.

As you’ve said we’ve got the talent. In Eagles review Week1 I had totally forgotten that Love nailed a TD to Reed. It was nullified by penalty. If you look at the very Top I think it was our TE standing half on the chalk and half on the grass. That erased 7 points. Mental mistakes are costly. Then Walker commits penalty and it backs us to the Eagles 43. We went from 7pts to 3pts to punting in our first drive.

Yet we led 19-17 at Half-time. Imo that game goes different if we’re 26-17 HT
Those are mistakes that have nothing to do with talent. We likely lost our seeding over an TE indecision getting off the field. Just one example of how a small mental error can cost us

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

I really hope, and expect, that MLF will put a much greater focus on avoiding penalties this year. I don't like attributing a loss to the refs, and my intuition is that this rarely happens. The larger blame rests with the coaches and players. Even rookies need to understand how penalties are called to avoid the easy ones, like lining up off sides, or holding when the ball carrier is on the other side of the field.

I don't have stats comparing last season to prior seasons. It just seemed there were far too many penalties. Overall the refs do a good job. It's the players who need to get better.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That's about as close to a "must-win" as you can have in week one. A victory would send a message that the North is up for grabs and Green Bay is as good as anyone. A loss means playing catch-up right out of the gate.

Well, there's no time quite like now to make a statement. First games for both teams so they should be relatively healthy. And each team will have its share of first-game jitters and mistakes.

Even so, a home game against the Lions to start the season is a huge gift for the Packers from the schedulers. I expect the crowd will be a huge factor so it will be key for the Packers to start fast. (Well that's always true, but against the Lions it would be huge. I'm thinking of the road playoff game in Dallas two years ago when they put up 21 points before the Cowboys knew the game started. THAT kind of start.) There will be no better time to put last season's 1-5 conference record in the rearview mirror than beating the Lions in week 1. It would set the tone for the entire season.

It's a great opportunity. And the Lions' owner comment this offseason about the Packers finishing 2nd or 3rd in the conference should be on every locker.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Well, there's no time quite like now to make a statement. First games for both teams so they should be relatively healthy. And each team will have its share of first-game jitters and mistakes.

Even so, a home game against the Lions to start the season is a huge gift for the Packers from the schedulers. I expect the crowd will be a huge factor so it will be key for the Packers to start fast. (Well that's always true, but against the Lions it would be huge. I'm thinking of the road playoff game in Dallas two years ago when they put up 21 points before the Cowboys knew the game started. THAT kind of start.) There will be no better time to put last season's 1-5 conference record in the rearview mirror than beating the Lions in week 1. It would set the tone for the entire season.

It's a great opportunity. And the Lions' owner comment this offseason about the Packers finishing 2nd or 3rd in the conference should be on every locker.

It's kind of funny to me that a team that has been to exactly zero Super Bowls is suddenly smug.

I guess for Lion's fans, winning the North was the most they ever had to cheer about. I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

 

[Pkrjones]

It's kind of funny to me that a team that has been to exactly zero Super Bowls is suddenly smug.

I guess for Lion's fans, winning the North was the most they ever had to cheer about. I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

Expectations are VERY high by all 4 NFC North teams, with a lot of optimism and talent to back it up... but obviously all 4 won't make the playoffs. There will be many great games, and coaching, weather, & injuries will factor into outcomes. I'm optimistic & excited for the '25 Packers, but also wary of their youth & can gameplanning & in-game decisions help the team prevail?

 

[Heyjoe4]

It's kind of funny to me that a team that has been to exactly zero Super Bowls is suddenly smug.

I guess for Lion's fans, winning the North was the most they ever had to cheer about. I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

Yeah and after being dismantled by the Commanders at home in a one and done playoff, a little humility would have been wise.

 

[Sanguine camper]

I often wonder why more teams don't follow Green Bay's blueprint. Ball and Gutekunst have put together a very good model for how to build and maintain an NFL team, but nobody seems to want to emulate it. Is it just that they don't have the skills to operate that way?

Nobody is going to try and copy Ball and Gute until they win Super Bowl. Building a team to get to the playoffs and falling short isn't going to generate that much interest.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Nobody is going to try and copy Ball and Gute until they win Super Bowl. Building a team to get to the playoffs and falling short isn't going to generate that much interest.

Yeah I think if there is a model to emulate (and I don't think there is), it would be the Patriots or the Chiefs, and going back in history, the Bradshaw Steelers, maybe the Aikman Cowboys and the 60s Packers.

But times change, rules change, athletes change, the cap changes. I don't know that Ball and Gluten do anything much differently than other good teams. It comes down to talent and coaching and evaluation of all personnel involved in the game, on and off the field. There's no blueprint, it's mostly common sense imo.

 

[mradtke66]

Yeah I think if there is a model to emulate (and I don't think there is), it would be the Patriots or the Chiefs, and going back in history, the Bradshaw Steelers, maybe the Aikman Cowboys and the 60s Packers.

Other than the Chiefs and Pats, all of those teams were pre-free agency.

If you want to be snarky, the blueprint is simple. Get a great quarterback and draft well to support that quarterback. I don't know why more teams don't do that.

 

[rmontro]

Get a great quarterback and draft well to support that quarterback. I don't know why more teams don't do that.

And our great quarterbacks have been beaten by teams that were good in the trenches. Especially with the Eagles recent dominance, I'd say there's a blueprint there. I recall a playoff game with San Francisco where I think they would have beaten us even if they wouldn't have thrown a single pass.

 

[mradtke66]

Especially with the Eagles recent dominance, I'd say there's a blueprint there.

"Why don't more teams do that," is meant to be tongue in cheek. Applying the same thing to the Eagles, "All you need to do is draft three Pro Bowl Linemen. That way, when your all-pro center retires, you have another solid pro bowler replace them. Why don't more teams just do that?"

Getting the great quarterback is hard. Getting a good offensive line is hard. You can put more resources there, but you can still get it very wrong.

 

[rmontro]

Getting the great quarterback is hard. Getting a good offensive line is hard. You can put more resources there, but you can still get it very wrong.

Sure, but teams still try to follow the blueprint. Especially of recently successful teams. We picked up MLF partly based on the then current success of the Rams, I bet. The Bears wanted Ben Johnson because of the success of the Lions.

 

[gopkrs]

"Why don't more teams do that," is meant to be tongue in cheek. Applying the same thing to the Eagles, "All you need to do is draft three Pro Bowl Linemen. That way, when your all-pro center retires, you have another solid pro bowler replace them. Why don't more teams just do that?"

Getting the great quarterback is hard. Getting a good offensive line is hard. You can put more resources there, but you can still get it very wrong.

Very true but I think we are trying harder now on the O line and I love it!

 

[Heyjoe4]

Other than the Chiefs and Pats, all of those teams were pre-free agency.

If you want to be snarky, the blueprint is simple. Get a great quarterback and draft well to support that quarterback. I don't know why more teams don't do that.

Thanks for the added perspective.

Yeah there is no secret sauce beyond common sense, and you articulate it all in 11 words. This is just what the best organizations do. And it's important to include a great QB in the definition. Easy to say, a bit harder to do in practice. But there have been very few SB winners without elite QBs. Tampa Bay did it with Trent Dilfer, and Denver did it with a way-past-prime-time Payton Manning. Those are the only exceptions that come to mind.

 

[mradtke66]

Very true but I think we are trying harder now on the O line

I don't know if I buy that. Going from pro-football-reference and assuming I'm reading correctly:

2025 draft, 2 OL. R2 highest
2024, 3 OL, R1 highest
2023, 0 OL
2022, 3 OL, R3 highest
2021, 2 OL, R2 highest
2020, 3 OL, R6 highest
2019, 0 OL
2018, 1 OL, R5
2017, 0 OL
2016, 2 OL, R2 highest
2015, 0 OL
2014, 1 OL, R5
2013, 2 OL, R4 highest
2012, 1 OL, R6
2011, 1 OL, R1
2010, 1 OL, R1
2009, 2 OL, R4 highest

And I now i'm getting bored. Some years we spend more. Some year less. I don't think there is much of a blueprint. If the players are there, they take them. If not, they don't.

I suspect the difference is perception. When we've hit on players, it feels good. When we miss, we ask why we aren't putting more into the position.

Spending back to back 1st rounders on OL, that's obviously trying really hard. But 2011 was Sherrod who's leg exploded, so we forget about him. 2017-2019 seems lean, but we got Linsley in that block.

 

[gopkrs]

We also paid for a starting L guard this year. It does "feel" like we are trying harder...to me. So important for these past two recent high picks to be good.

 

[Don Barclay]

I don't know if I buy that. Going from pro-football-reference and assuming I'm reading correctly:

2025 draft, 2 OL. R2 highest
2024, 3 OL, R1 highest
2023, 0 OL
2022, 3 OL, R3 highest
2021, 2 OL, R2 highest
2020, 3 OL, R6 highest
2019, 0 OL
2018, 1 OL, R5
2017, 0 OL
2016, 2 OL, R2 highest
2015, 0 OL
2014, 1 OL, R5
2013, 2 OL, R4 highest
2012, 1 OL, R6
2011, 1 OL, R1
2010, 1 OL, R1
2009, 2 OL, R4 highest

I actually think this info shows a dramatic increase in prioritizing OL in the draft recently. Look at this through rolling four-year windows. Let's say you value round 1 and 2 picks at like 3 "points" or "dollars" of investment; rounds 3 and 4 at 2 points; and 5-7 at 1 point each.

The last four-year window is, I think, an investment of 13 points. The previous window (2021-2024) looks like 14 points, I think? Then as you go further back, that investment declines significantly through successive windows.

I might be a point or two off with those exact numbers, and obviously this isn't a scientifically-tuned valuation - but it really looks like a change in draft investment toward OL in recent years.

 

[rmontro]

If you want to be snarky, the blueprint is simple. Get a great quarterback and draft well to support that quarterback. I don't know why more teams don't do that.

What happened to "defense wins championships"? Shoot, add in special teams and you've got the whole team.

 

[melvin dangerr]

Not sure where to put this and if anyone really cares but.... Derek Carr announced that he was retiring today, after 11 years in the NFL. There was a lot of questions as to whether he would even play this season due to the labral tear he suffered in March. Evidently, they also found a significant degenerative changes to his rotator cuff at the same time.

It will be interesting to see how the dead cap is dealt with. Currently, I am seeing that he on the books, he is a $80.132M dead cap hit to the Saints.

Also interesting to note, his contract called for this:

• $30M 2025 salary fully guarantees the 3rd league day of 2025 (injury guaranteed at signing)

Dang they showed him the money

 

[Heyjoe4]

I don't know if I buy that. Going from pro-football-reference and assuming I'm reading correctly:

2025 draft, 2 OL. R2 highest
2024, 3 OL, R1 highest
2023, 0 OL
2022, 3 OL, R3 highest
2021, 2 OL, R2 highest
2020, 3 OL, R6 highest
2019, 0 OL
2018, 1 OL, R5
2017, 0 OL
2016, 2 OL, R2 highest
2015, 0 OL
2014, 1 OL, R5
2013, 2 OL, R4 highest
2012, 1 OL, R6
2011, 1 OL, R1
2010, 1 OL, R1
2009, 2 OL, R4 highest

And I now i'm getting bored. Some years we spend more. Some year less. I don't think there is much of a blueprint. If the players are there, they take them. If not, they don't.

I suspect the difference is perception. When we've hit on players, it feels good. When we miss, we ask why we aren't putting more into the position.

Spending back to back 1st rounders on OL, that's obviously trying really hard. But 2011 was Sherrod who's leg exploded, so we forget about him. 2017-2019 seems lean, but we got Linsley in that block.

I don't have any stats, but it seems the Packers almost always field, at a minimum, a solid group of OL starters. Lack of depth was an issue last year, and it was clearly and painfully evident in the playoff loss in Philly.

As for this year, Gluten has certainly made moves to change that and account for future departures. Added a FA Guard, a 2nd round pick who can play many positions. Good moves, although not very s*exy.

 

[Sanguine camper]

If you look at the Pat's and Chiefs, 6 out of the past 11 Super Bowls were won by those teams with HOF QB's, TE's and coach. The Buccaneers also had the HOF QB and TE in that stretch. The Pat's and Chiefs also lost 3 Super Bowls in that period. That's dominant to say the least. A good O line is necessary since the Chiefs lost 2 recent Super Bowls when they got whipped up front.

The only team to find huge success in the past 10-12 seasons with a different profile is the Eagles. They've been to 3 Super Bowls, winning 2 with the focus on being dominant in the trenches.

Is it harder to find a HOF QB and TE or hit on enough draft picks to build dominant O and D lines?

For the Packers, I think there's a better shot at developing Love and Kraft than they do at being dominant in the trenches.