My main concern with this team is the way they tend to fall apart at the end of seasons, and at the end of games. That doesn't seem like a good sign to me. With Rodgers, the team would have some struggles but usually finish strong. Now it seems to be the opposite. The best the Packers looked was in the first two games.
Matt extended
- Thread starter longtimefan
- Start date
GBkrzygrl
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2012
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 351
I've heard it said over and over that getting to the SB is about getting hot at the right time and Luck.
I preferred a change at HC this offseason as well. MLF has been HC for, I think, 7 years and has never really gotten close to a SB.
In my opinion, after such a long time, a HC has pretty much shown all he's gonna show. I don't have stats to back this up, but his play calling has become predictable - to fans and opponents.
So yeah, here's hoping MLF proves us wrong.
(The whole Bisaccia drama also showed a lack of leadership by MLF. With plenty of candidates available - but not for long - he should have insisted on a retirement decision from Bisaccia in days, not six weeks. This is MLF's fault as well as Policy.)
Yeah I think both the Pats and hags entered the SB relatively injury free.
I think injuries owe more to bad luck than bad conditioning. Guys in the NFL are incredibly-well-conditioned athletes, year round. Injuries just happen, but not because a guy isn't in shape.
Well, we were in the NFCCG his first two years. But that was the peak. As I've said numerous times on here, it's the downward trend that bugs me with MLF. The team seems to have gotten progressively worse during his tenure. Started out promising, but went downhill from there.
CarryTheG14
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2026
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 48
Do you agree or disagree?
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,491
- Reaction score
- 2,545
I think getting hot at the right time can be very important but it can or might not be luck. Like a marathon runner peaking for his race. OTOH I don't think Seattle peaked. They just were playing so well. Especially D. And playing to peak at the right time can be dangerous unless you have a playoff spot wrapped up.
CarryTheG14
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2026
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 48
I agree with that. I believe KC limped in their last SB win.
It would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous. Or maybe that's what makes it funny.
Why does MLF need an OC when MLF calls all the plays? Does he have an assistant to help with play calling and/or clock management? Someone mentioned that McVay has such an assistant(s).
That Golden wasn't more involved in the offense, especially after Reed was injured, is still a mystery to me. Granted, Kraft and Doubs added a lot, up to the point of Kraft's injury. And Watson started the year on IR. So why wasn't Golden used more, especially after such a good TC and PS?
With Doubs almost certainly gone, and Kraft starting the year on IR, I do expect to see more from Golden. The starting WRs will be Watson and Golden on the outside, and Reed in the slot. Musgrave is basically another WR.
That leaves the team light at TE to start the season. I expect that gets addressed in FA, or more likely, the draft.
Both Seattle and NE played consistently well pretty much all season. I don't discount a team getting more serious in December. It's a long season, and even without injuries, guys need some rest before the playoffs and/or a playoff push.
It's certainly better if a team can play consistently well all season, and stay away from injuries.
Agreed. It seemed like the Packers started fast in a lot of games last season, only to fade in the 2H, specifically the 4Q.
Gluten acknowledged as much once the season was over. But SB teams need to do both. I can't imagine the Packers coming back from a 3-possession deficit the way Chicago did in the playoffs. I think it's hard to lose a game, up 21-3 at halftime.
Maybe MLF likes to keep play for rookies limited? Still, you have to consider the overall situation.
That must be the answer rmontro. Other teams will throw their rookie picks right into the action. The only explanation for Golden's low target account has to be that MLF, and probably Gluten. like to bring guys along slowly.
I have no idea if the stats support that. That just sees to be the best reason. And the Packers weren't lacking for receiver talent, even with Reed and Watson out for big parts of the season. Kraft continues his rapid ascent, Doubs was ever reliable, and Watson didn't miss a beat when he returned.
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,491
- Reaction score
- 2,545
Imo that just is not a good reason. Some players may need seasoning. But just not playing them much because they are rookies? Well it's simply not changing with the times imho. Like staying with the 3 man rush because so many DCs did it in the past. Not sound reasoning
milani
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 7,890
- Reaction score
- 3,711
I do not think the plan was to get the ball to Golden like he was Davante Adams. Randall Cobb was talented but he was not the main target as a rookie. The Packers planned to integrate Golden into the offense as needed. They had other receivers, a solid RB, and a great TE. And Golden does not have the body type of an Adams or Jordy Nelson. So you cannot run those type of passes with him. But he does match the Randall Cobb physique and should be used that way, if you recall how MM and Rodgers used him.
Oh I agree with you gopkrs. Golden should have had 100 plus targets last year, at least when considering the losses of Reed early in the season, Watson unavailable to start the season and then Kraft in early November.
The Bears had no trouble giving prominent roles to rookies Loveland (TE) and Monanghai (RB). Those two did a lot of damage in their rookie years, even more amazing because Monanghai was a 7th round pick.
Anyway, I don't agree with holding a guy back just becasue it's his rookie season. And that gets amplified with a first round pick.
Yeah milani I do remember how MM used Cobb early on. And as I recall, Adams didn't get a lot of snaps either in his first two years. He had a drop problem, but everything came together for him in his thrid year.
Well, the past is the past. I do expect Golden to be a much more visible part of the offense in 2026-2027.
milani
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 7,890
- Reaction score
- 3,711
With Golden you must get him in space to use his talent. You cannot put him as a target in a tight seam. Physically, he will get beat up by hard hitting corners and safeties and thus come out of the game injured. And unless he can simply out run the defense on a fly pattern you cannot expect him to out fight a corner one on one in coverage like he is Randy Moss. He is more like Deion Sanders when he was used on offense. You get him in space and he is scary.
Good point and it reminds me of how Nelson was used. He turned a few short completions in space into long gains and TDs. Golden could do the same, but with his size, it's best to keep him out of harm's way.
I’ll be much less politically correct, the Packers’ philosophical approach with rookies and young players is flawed and frankly, sucks.
I am not saying that every rookie is ready to be an instant contributor. I understand that many are not. I understand also that some players take time.
But when you’re treating EVERY young player with little kid gloves — before you know it, 75% of their rookie contract has gone by and you don’t even know what you have yet!
This was quite literally the case with Jordan Love — people complained that he was being overpaid - well, we HAD to do that contract off of a 1 season sample size because he sat for 75% of his rookie contract! And now we have a $55M a year QB that half the fanbase complains about the contract and wishes we could replace with Willis.
Gary was another young player that the Packers brought along extremely slowly, and thus got paid off a small sample size because we burned most of his rookie deal, and that second contract has not worked out. LVN — clearly another project player, drafted extremely early — going into his last year of his rookie contract and we STILL don’t know.
Time to bring our philosophies out of the 1980s. Rookie contracts are designed for teams to get bang for your buck in a big way if you challenge your rookies.
We don’t.
I am not saying that every rookie is ready to be an instant contributor. I understand that many are not. I understand also that some players take time.
But when you’re treating EVERY young player with little kid gloves — before you know it, 75% of their rookie contract has gone by and you don’t even know what you have yet!
This was quite literally the case with Jordan Love — people complained that he was being overpaid - well, we HAD to do that contract off of a 1 season sample size because he sat for 75% of his rookie contract! And now we have a $55M a year QB that half the fanbase complains about the contract and wishes we could replace with Willis.
Gary was another young player that the Packers brought along extremely slowly, and thus got paid off a small sample size because we burned most of his rookie deal, and that second contract has not worked out. LVN — clearly another project player, drafted extremely early — going into his last year of his rookie contract and we STILL don’t know.
Time to bring our philosophies out of the 1980s. Rookie contracts are designed for teams to get bang for your buck in a big way if you challenge your rookies.
We don’t.
I don't think you're being politically incorrect Adam. What you say is true IMO. A big part of the rookie contracts are that they are relatively inexpensive. But that doesn't mean guys have to be given the velvet-glove treatment. And rookie contributors help ease the financial burden of paying other guys a lot of $$$.
This does seem to be the Packers' way though. I don't remember the last rookie who had a big impact in his rookie year.
Yeah it's tough for me.
I mean on one hand, when we talk about guys like Gary or LVN or similar...it's tough to get "sure thing" guys a lot of the time. Even for where those guys were picked (~middle 1/3rd of the draft), there's not a lot of guarantees. So in one sense I understand the rationale behind taking "potential" there.
But on the other hand, sometimes I think it's a case of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. Sometimes I get the feeling that erring on the side of "potential" vs "production" is a good way to get you stuck in good but not great - almost there but not quite.
It feels to me like most of the time if you offered the Packers brass the choice between
A.) Drafting a player who is currently a "7/10" without much wiggle room - they might become an 8/10 player but not much higher
or B.) Drafting a player who is currently a "5/10" and could become anything from a 5/10 to a 9/10 or a 10/10 if everything fell into place just right
Then I think they would take option B just about every time. And I think there are situations where that makes sense, but there are also situations where you simply need someone who can step in right away - there are cases where having a guy who is able to step in straight away and produce at a reasonably high level is more valuable than a guy who MIGHT reach a higher ceiling three years from now.
In the case of Golden, I can't really get my head around the rationale for seriously limiting his usage early on. Did we think he was simply not ready to play? That doesn't seem to be the case. Was he unable to grasp the offensive concepts? Again, don't really see it. Did we draft him exclusively to get a "win" for the fans at the draft and realistically could've taken a different WR later to develop slowly? The only answer I can ever really get is "The Packers historically like to work in rookies slowly" or "Packers rookie WRs never get that sort of heavy workload" or similar. And that certainly answers the "what" but it says nothing about the "why". it tells us what our historical approach has been but offers absolutely nothing to justify whether or not that is the *right* approach.
I mean on one hand, when we talk about guys like Gary or LVN or similar...it's tough to get "sure thing" guys a lot of the time. Even for where those guys were picked (~middle 1/3rd of the draft), there's not a lot of guarantees. So in one sense I understand the rationale behind taking "potential" there.
But on the other hand, sometimes I think it's a case of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. Sometimes I get the feeling that erring on the side of "potential" vs "production" is a good way to get you stuck in good but not great - almost there but not quite.
It feels to me like most of the time if you offered the Packers brass the choice between
A.) Drafting a player who is currently a "7/10" without much wiggle room - they might become an 8/10 player but not much higher
or B.) Drafting a player who is currently a "5/10" and could become anything from a 5/10 to a 9/10 or a 10/10 if everything fell into place just right
Then I think they would take option B just about every time. And I think there are situations where that makes sense, but there are also situations where you simply need someone who can step in right away - there are cases where having a guy who is able to step in straight away and produce at a reasonably high level is more valuable than a guy who MIGHT reach a higher ceiling three years from now.
In the case of Golden, I can't really get my head around the rationale for seriously limiting his usage early on. Did we think he was simply not ready to play? That doesn't seem to be the case. Was he unable to grasp the offensive concepts? Again, don't really see it. Did we draft him exclusively to get a "win" for the fans at the draft and realistically could've taken a different WR later to develop slowly? The only answer I can ever really get is "The Packers historically like to work in rookies slowly" or "Packers rookie WRs never get that sort of heavy workload" or similar. And that certainly answers the "what" but it says nothing about the "why". it tells us what our historical approach has been but offers absolutely nothing to justify whether or not that is the *right* approach.
If you’re going to swing for the home run, you better actually hit one once in awhile. Gute is batting exactly .000 in finding those 10/10s. We had to go trade for one because the guys he picked haven’t been it. JSN would’ve been a 10/10. Christian Gonzalez would have been a 10/10.
Our last 10/10 draftee was Clay Matthews, who was obviously from a different regime.
tynimiller
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 18,516
- Reaction score
- 8,239
By what metric are you measuring or claiming a guy is a 10/10?
If by it you mean they are considered one of the best of their position…Tom, Kraft and Love would be the last three to fit that.
Hindsight will always provide a crystal clear take but also folks pretending that it is so insanely easy to identify which player is going to be a one of one or blue chipper is fooling themselves.
Most scouts I’ve talked to have said this upcoming draft has four or five guys they simply cannot see not being one of the premiere guys of their position relatively quickly (which for reference I’ve always heard in year two or three from jump fits that).
