Packers vs Eagles Pre Game Thread

[Cornelius Weems]

I received this email today. Why should we have to "follow instructions in a follow up email" to get our credit??? Just credit our d*mn account automatically.

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

That really sucks. Just ditch them for Sling TV, it's cheaper, and there's a very significant delay on YouTube TV in comparison (not kidding, it's almost 15-20 sec), you'll be happier and there's no contract dispute.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

************ BREAKING NEWS ******************

This is absolutely shocking and totally out of left field!

“Game Status Update: CB Jaire Alexander (knee/coach’s decision) will not travel to Green Bay for tomorrow’s game and will be listed as OUT,”

 

[Magooch]

Carolina...being "a better team than people give them credit for." I think that is a Packer fan excuse for the way that the Packers played on Sunday...I think the Packers played an inferior team on Sunday and lost, at home. I thing on Monday night, they are playing a much better and much healthier team in the Eagles. If they put the same effort onto the field as they did against the Panthers, a betting man puts all he has on the Eagles.

Not trying to rehash all this old stuff, but this is also pretty much the point I've been making for a while now. We've had a few clunker performances and each time there's been a handful of responses suggesting Team X was actually better than everyone else thinks they are. That to me just screams "COPE," lol.

In two losses...

We had a stinker of a game against the Browns, only scored 10 but heard it was just because they have an elite defense who's going to give teams trouble all year and are way better than people give credit for. Except they're 1-5 since then and gave up 34 to the Lions, 21 to the Vikings, 23 to the Steelers, 32 to the Patriots, and even 27 to the lowly Jets, with their only other win coming against the Dolphins (with our 10 points scored being the second-lowest the Browns have allowed all season, only behind the Dolphins' 6)
(Oh, and the Ravens put up 41 the week before we faced Cleveland)

The Panthers managed to sneak out a win against us, and they sit at 5-5, so they must not be so bad, right? They scored 16 against us, but could only manage 7pts against the Saints (17-7 L) and just 13 against the Jets (13-6 W) - and a team that the Bills beat 40-6, the Patriots 42-13, and the Dolphins and Cowboys both managed 24 and 27 points, respectively. In fact, the Falcons in Week 1 (30-0) are the only team who have scored less than the Packers did against the Panthers so far this season.

To put it another way, the only teams who have had worse offensive performances against the Browns and Panthers this year...are teams who will likely be competing for the #1 or #2 pick. I don't think that exactly says "sneaky good team who is going to surprise a lot of folks," I think it says "We played like crap against a bad team and this is the result" lol.

BUT, hope springs eternal, and like I said I do feel we tend to "play up" when need be, so we may very well still put in a good performance tonight. But if we played like we played against Cleveland, Carolina, or arguably even like we played against Dallas, Cincy, and Arizona (no losses, but not great performances), we might be in for a long night. If we can play like the Detroit, Washington, or Pittsburgh games then we might come away with a W.

 

[Pugger]

You are correct, we need to show up ready to play

We need to show up and not screw up! Every loss and the lone tie was self-inflicted. This is one night where we cannot commit stupid penalties and/or turn the ball over and expect to win. I'm dreading this game...

 

[OldSchool101]

We had a stinker of a game against the Browns, only scored 10 but heard it was just because they have an elite defense who's going to give teams trouble all year and are way better than people give credit for. Except they're 1-5 since then and gave up 34 to the Lions, 21 to the Vikings, 23 to the Steelers, 32 to the Patriots, and even 27 to the lowly Jets, with their only other win coming against the Dolphins (with our 10 points scored being the second-lowest the Browns have allowed all season, only behind the Dolphins' 6)
(Oh, and the Ravens put up 41 the week before we faced Cleveland)

Really hard to compare those imo.
Also you need to look at the Ravens game a little closer. You obviously didn’t watch that game or so much as take a minute to study the drives. Cleveland kept turning the ball over and giving Baltimore short fields. INT, fumble, blocked punt in scoring position. So this appears to be more of an attempt at broad dispersions on the Cleveland Defense. They rank #10 in rushing and #2 in passing yards allowed. Thats including every example you provided. Due to a few sporadic games like that their points allowed 23pts don’t reflect properly on the defense. When Teams has a blocked punt in scoring position or you turn it over 1st n Goal from the 5 yardline it’s hard to be critical of the Defense. You of anyone should know this as you’re a packers fan! It’s like looking in the mirror.

The Browns are nowhere near as bad as you are inferring. In that Baltimore game the Cleveland D got spotted the ball In terrible situational. Baltimore did score a TD on 1 longer 56 yards drive.
The rest?
24 yards scored
24 yards scored
36 yards scored
5 yards scored.
Hard to defend that short field stuff regularly without allowing a FG or TD. Cleveland out-produced Baltimore’s Offense by like 80+ yards. Flacco led that week they were sloppy with the ball like we’ve been. Turnovers are death to a team. Especially in scoring position. If Savion doesn’t fumble it changed the entire complexity.

So in short. You've supported your argument using 1 Detroit game (a top tier team and Offense that was awarded 3 Turnovers) that scored 50% of their points on turnovers (17pts) and a backup QB across ALL the others. Not very compelling that the Cleveland D is poor imo

2025 NFL defensive line rankings ahead of Week 10: Cleveland Browns remain the gold standard

The Browns remain atop the defensive line rankings after Week 9 of the 2025 NFL season.

www.pff.com

I’m not suggesting the Browns don’t have issues. I’m also not implying the Packers can’t improve. Yet so far the best we can do is use a lonely pair of walk off FG’s all season to dismantle the Packers. I don’t care if our opponent is Miami or the Raiders, every team is susceptible to lose if they play sloppy. I bet the Buffalo Bills agree what the H is wrong with that Josh Allen!

 

[Magooch]

Really hard to compare those imo.
Also you need to look at the Ravens game a little closer. You obviously didn’t watch that game or so much as take a minute to study the drives. Cleveland kept turning the ball over and giving Baltimore short fields. INT, fumble, blocked punt in scoring position. So this appears to be more of an attempt at broad dispersions on the Cleveland Defense. They rank #10 in rushing and #2 in passing yards allowed. Thats including every example you provided. Due to a few sporadic games like that their points allowed 23pts don’t reflect properly on the defense. When Teams has a blocked punt in scoring position or you turn it over 1st n Goal from the 5 yardline it’s hard to be critical of the Defense. You of anyone should know this as you’re a packers fan! It’s like looking in the mirror.

The Browns are nowhere near as bad as you are inferring. In that Baltimore game the Cleveland D got spotted the ball In terrible situational. Baltimore did score a TD on 1 longer 56 yards drive.
The rest?
24 yards scored
24 yards scored
36 yards scored
5 yards scored.
Hard to defend that short field stuff regularly without allowing a FG or TD. Cleveland out-produced Baltimore’s Offense by like 80+ yards. Flacco led that week they were sloppy with the ball like we’ve been. Turnovers are death to a team. Especially in scoring position. If Savion doesn’t fumble it changed the entire complexity.

So in short. You've supported your argument using 1 Detroit game (a top tier team and Offense that was awarded 3 Turnovers) that scored 50% of their points on turnovers (17pts) and a backup QB across ALL the others. Not very compelling imo. I’m not suggesting the Browns don’t have issues. Yet you implying Cleveland has an awful D only makes me skeptical of your post. Just so you know I’ll praise you just the same but you’re way off the mark there.

If your takeaway from all of that was "he's saying the Browns have an awful defense," then either I have SERIOUSLY miscommunicated my point or you have interpreted that post in a way that I would have never predicted, to say the least...
I'm not saying they have an awful defense (and I don't think that was implied, either, but to each their own) nor am I looking at only the Baltimore matchup. I'm saying that after struggling to score against the Browns, it seemed many were more than eager to absolve our offense of any blame because Cleveland's defense is elite and they're going to be a tough matchup for everyone they face and this and that. But it's like I said: in nine games this year, *only* the Dolphins have managed to put less points on the board against Cleveland than we did. For a team with Super Bowl aspirations and is said to be coached by an offensive mastermind, that is nowhere near good enough. In short, it's not an indictment against the Browns defense - it's an indictment of our own performances. In fact, I do think the Browns have a great defense. But to this point plenty of other teams who "should be" worse than us on paper have had an easier time against that elite defense than our offensive-mastermind's attack was able to muster.

The same is true for Carolina. In 10 games, only one team put less points on the board against them than we managed. And this is NOT an elite defense like Cleveland - Carolina is 23rd in defensive EPA/play...and 26th in offensive EPA/play. Maybe it will shake out differently by the end of the season, but right now they are not a great team who has a misleading record. If anything, they are closer to a below-average/bottom-third team who has an average record. It's fine and dandy to get in a lot of "we almost scored" situations, but the fact of the matter is that 8 other teams managed to produce more "we actually scored" situations against them, too.

And so my point is ultimately that it feels like we're trying to have our cake and eat it too. We want to talk about ourselves as being an elite team who's among the best in the league while also just being stymied by running into some great opponents, and it's okay because any team would struggle against opponents of this caliber. Except that's not true. Other teams *haven't* struggled against these teams to the degree that we did offensively. And it seems after every loss or bad performance there is a laundry list of explanations for why things went down that way and every team who performs well against us apparently makes a sudden transformation into a juggernaut just for Packers week and then reverts back to an average team for the other 8+ weeks of the season thus far. Just like there are many who are FAR too eager to jump at every possible criticism of this Packers team, it seems like there is an equal number who are reflexively just as eager to deflect any of these criticisms and provide excuse after excuse for why these performances weren't ACTUALLY that bad.

So the very short version: It's not about Cleveland having a bad defense (they don't), it's not about Carolina being a bad team (but they are closer to bad than good), it's not about Arizona being underrated (but they're not), and so on. At the end of the day, none of these are great teams, and I think just about everyone would agree on that. Rather than come up with a thousand explanations, for me it's a case of Occam's razor and the simplest (and IMO most likely) solution is that we played poorly against mediocre opposition and were punished for it. I am not interested in hyping up my opponent after a loss.

 

[Magooch]

The Browns are nowhere near as bad as you are inferring. In that Baltimore game the Cleveland D got spotted the ball In terrible situational. Baltimore did score a TD on 1 longer 56 yards drive.
The rest?
24 yards scored
24 yards scored
36 yards scored
5 yards scored.

Just for fun to expand on this thought....

Packers:
43 yards, FG
71 yards, TD
The rest: 3 yards, 30 yards, -1 yard, -1 yard, -2 yards, 35 yards, 7 yards, 35 yards

Lions:
65 yards, TD
16 yards, FG
5 yards, TD
44 yards, FG
20 yards, TD
The rest: 24 yards, -1 yard, 2 yards, 6 yards, 31 yards, 30 yards, 9 yards

Vikings:
82 yards, TD
71 yards, TD
80 yards, TD
The rest: 36 yards, 29 yards, 9 yards, 8 yards, -1 yard, -5 yards, -3 yards, 42 yards, -2 yards

Steelers:
46 yards, FG
39 yards, FG
49 yards, FG
89 yards, TD
73 yards, TD
The rest: 27 yards, 6 yards, 6 yards, 0 yards

Patriots:
54 yards, FG
49 yards, FG
59 yards, FG
77 yards, TD
6 yards, TD
81 yards, TD
The rest: 8 yards, 26 yards, 5 yards, -2 yards, 38 yards, 12 yards

Jets:
64 yards, FG
58 yards, TD
41 yards, FG
The rest: 2 yards, 6 yards, -12 yards, -3 yards, 7 yards, 19 yards, KO return TD, INT return TD

Like I said, I think Cleveland DOES have a pretty good defense.... but none of this speaks particularly well to us as an offense, either IMO.

 

[OldSchool101]

If your takeaway from all of that was "he's saying the Browns have an awful defense," then either I have SERIOUSLY miscommunicated my point or you have interpreted that post in a way that I would have never predicted, to say the least...
I'm not saying they have an awful defense (and I don't think that was implied, either, but to each their own)

I’m absolutely taking that away from donuts absolutely what I derived from this bold post below. I kept the entire paragraph snd didn’t alter anything you wrote. Yes you have. If you are now switching to the Browns being a good Defense? You’ve 100% miscommunication your point.

In short, it's not an indictment against the Browns defense - it's an indictment of our own performances.

No. no no. Now your backing up. How are we to interpret this statement in bold??

We had a stinker of a game against the Browns, only scored 10 but heard it was just because they have an elite defense who's going to give teams trouble all year and are way better than people give credit for. Except they're 1-5 since then and gave up 34 to the Lions, 21 to the Vikings, 23 to the Steelers, 32 to the Patriots, and even 27 to the lowly Jets, with their only other win coming against the Dolphins (with our 10 points scored being the second-lowest the Browns have allowed all season, only behind the Dolphins' 6)
(Oh, and the Ravens put up 41 the week before we faced Cleveland)

And it seems after every loss or bad performance there is a laundry list of explanations for why things went down that way and every team who performs well against us apparently makes a sudden transformation into a juggernaut

Show us the post that claims Carolina is a juggernaut please. I’ve scanned 2 pages I’m not seeing it. For myself I’ve only claimed that their starting qb has a winning record. It’s still today. 5-4 and that’s not my opinion it’s a fact. In the NFL a .500 team isn’t as bad as you are claiming. It takes a lot to win in this league. I can’t count how many times we’ve started .500 and even made postseason.

 

[rmontro]

I'm optimistic going into the game, as I am with most. I think we can beat anyone on any given Monday. Of course, the right team has to show up though.

 

[OldSchool101]

Just for fun to expand on this thought....

Packers:
43 yards, FG
71 yards, TD
The rest: 3 yards, 30 yards, -1 yard, -1 yard, -2 yards, 35 yards, 7 yards, 35 yards

Lions:
65 yards, TD
16 yards, FG
5 yards, TD
44 yards, FG
20 yards, TD
The rest: 24 yards, -1 yard, 2 yards, 6 yards, 31 yards, 30 yards, 9 yards

Vikings:
82 yards, TD
71 yards, TD
80 yards, TD
The rest: 36 yards, 29 yards, 9 yards, 8 yards, -1 yard, -5 yards, -3 yards, 42 yards, -2 yards

Steelers:
46 yards, FG
39 yards, FG
49 yards, FG
89 yards, TD
73 yards, TD
The rest: 27 yards, 6 yards, 6 yards, 0 yards

Patriots:
54 yards, FG
49 yards, FG
59 yards, FG
77 yards, TD
6 yards, TD
81 yards, TD
The rest: 8 yards, 26 yards, 5 yards, -2 yards, 38 yards, 12 yards

Jets:
64 yards, FG
58 yards, TD
41 yards, FG
The rest: 2 yards, 6 yards, -12 yards, -3 yards, 7 yards, 19 yards, KO return TD, INT return TD

Like I said, I think Cleveland DOES have a pretty good defense.... but none of this speaks particularly well to us as an offense, either IMO.

Glad you Agree!

So now we both agree that

1. The Packers didn’t perform admirable on Offense against Flacco led Browns
2. The Browns have a very good Defense. That Defense 100% factored in our Loss.


There’s this sentiment out there that GB fans are excluded from ALL other sports. We are not allowed to gauge our competition. Why?

Every sport uses competition level in order to do just that! Why can’t a Packer fan explore the quality of their opponents without it being an excuse to lose? Answer me that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What is the over and under for minutes spent by Joe Buck and Troy Aikman tonight, talking about the tush push, and the Packers spearheading the effort to get it banned?

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

 

[Magooch]

I’m absolutely taking that away from donuts absolutely what I derived from this bold post below. I kept the entire paragraph snd didn’t alter anything you wrote. Yes you have. If you are now switching to the Browns being a good Defense? You’ve 100% miscommunication your point.

No. no no. Now your backing up.

Man, talk about irritable...

How are we to interpret this statement in bold??

We had a stinker of a game against the Browns, only scored 10 but heard it was just because they have an elite defense who's going to give teams trouble all year and are way better than people give credit for. Except they're 1-5 since then and gave up 34 to the Lions, 21 to the Vikings, 23 to the Steelers, 32 to the Patriots, and even 27 to the lowly Jets, with their only other win coming against the Dolphins (with our 10 points scored being the second-lowest the Browns have allowed all season, only behind the Dolphins' 6)
(Oh, and the Ravens put up 41 the week before we faced Cleveland)

There’s this sentiment out there that GB fans are excluded from ALL other sports. We are not allowed to gauge our competition. Why?

Every sport uses competition level in order to do just that! Why can’t a Packer fan explore the quality of their opponents without it being an excuse to lose? Answer me that.

Let me state it more clearly:

1. The Browns have a good defense
2. Teams who are purported to be "worse" than the Packers had an easier time against that same defense than we did (talk about quality of opposition, eh?)
3. The Packers poor performance was a bigger factor than the Browns defense or the under-the-radar strength of 5-5* Panthers in the final results of these games

Show us the post that claims Carolina is a juggernaut please.

See: hyperbole, noun

I’ve scanned 2 pages I’m not seeing it. For myself I’ve only claimed that their starting qb has a winning record. It’s still today. 5-4 and that’s not my opinion it’s a fact. In the NFL a .500 team isn’t as bad as you are claiming.

I mean, yeah, technically true I guess? Personally I think we can use more than W-L record to assess a team's performance level, but...

It takes a lot to win in this league. I can’t count how many times we’ve started .500 and even made postseason.

Well, sure. I'm not sure how that's exactly germane to this discussion. I don't think the Panthers are a playoff team (or will be by the end of the season) but maybe you put more stock in their wins than I.

Here is all I am saying - allow me to distill it into two simple questions in return:

1. If you had to pick, which was a bigger factor in the Packers' loss to the Browns: The Browns' elite defense, or the Packers playing below their potential?
2. If you had to pick, which was a bigger factor in the Packers' loss to the Panthers: The Panthers being better than their record would suggest, or the Packers playing below their potential?

For me the answer is equally simple: The single biggest factor in both of these losses is the Packers' poor play in both games.

Regardless of how good Cleveland's defense is, if Green Bay plays even remotely close to their potential it's not an issue (again, as evidenced by other teams' offensive performances against this same defense)

Regardless of how indicative of their overall quality Carolina's record is (or isn't), if Green Bay plays even remotely close to their potential it's not an issue.

(And this is just as true in some of our other non-loss performances too, IMO)

If someone is of the mind that Cleveland or Carolina were a "good loss" because they came against a good defense or good team or whatnot, that's fine. Personally I am of the opinion that both were "bad losses" as they came against teams that we should have readily expected to win against. And the point that I think Poker and myself are trying to make is that A.) this level or "type" of performance has come up far too often and B.) we won't get very far if that continues to be the case.

 

[Magooch]

Anyways, as I tend to ramble, to distill that all down into a more succinct point:

There is nothing wrong with considering the level of opposition you're facing. IMO, the problem is when the "level of opposition" is used to write off a bad performance or to take the focus off of your own level of play. Maybe I am misinterpreting the situation(s) but it seems like in the aftermath of some of these games, we are viewing the opponent as having had greater influence on the outcome of the match than our team. That is what I take issue with.

In any given match we can quibble over how strong (or not) the opponent is, and how well (or not) we played. The discrepancy is over which one had a greater impact on the outcome. And it *seems* like in some of these cases the strength of our opponent is seen as the dominant factor in the final result of these games. Personally, I think our own play is/has been a far greater factor than the play/level of our opponent. That's pretty much the gist of it.

 

[OldSchool101]

1. If you had to pick, which was a bigger factor in the Packers' loss to the Browns: The Browns' elite defense, or the Packers playing below their potential?

I’d say pretty even. I think select Packer fans act like other teams don’t try to Win. I truthfully credit the Browns Defense for matching up really good. Saying it’s mostly the Packers is diminishing our opponent. Correct me if I’m wrong but you’re diminishing an opponent who’s D kicked our Butts. Honestly I’d say 50/50. I’m not going to discount our opponent I think that’s dangerous imo.

2. If you had to pick, which was a bigger factor in the Packers' loss to the Panthers: The Panthers being better than their record would suggest, or the Packers playing below their potential?

I never once said the Panthers were better than their record. So this is a relative setup. I’d be agreeing to something I’ve never said. I said the Panthers are a .500 team, not 1-8 etc. Select Posters were claiming they are a horrible team. It’s tough stay .500 in this league. When we stop giving our opponent respect because they whooped us is the day we start losing alot.

Sometimes you guys act like other teams don’t try to win. Like opponents are incapable of playing above their O or D ranking. THAT thinking is ironically the exact reason we play 2 games on walk off FG’s to inferior teams (inferior to us not everybody)

Every team is trying to Win. I will also offer I will not stop studying opponents strength. SOS. If select people don’t like it because it “excuse like” there’s this thing called mute. lol

We all want the same thing. GB to tighten up. None of us think they are perfect or making excuses for 1 TD in 6 Redzone visits. That’s deplorable against any team and will lose us most games. Let’s just portray 1 or 2 games like that’s happening every week though. Thats been the sentiment in here this week. Lots of overreaction imo fueled by the media making Philly Goliath. Please

 

[Magooch]

I’d say pretty even. I think select Packer fans act like other teams don’t try to Win. I truthfully credit the Browns Defense for matching up really good. Saying it’s mostly the Packers is diminishing our opponent. Correct me if I’m wrong but you’re diminishing an opponent who’s D kicked our Butts. Honestly I’d say 50/50. I’m not going to discount our opponent I think that’s dangerous imo.

I never once said the Panthers were better than their record. So this is a relative setup. I’d be agreeing to something I’ve never said. I said the Panthers are a .500 team, not 1-8 etc. Select Posters were claiming they are a horrible team. It’s tough stay .500 in this league. When we stop giving our opponent respect because they whooped us is the day we start losing alot.

Let's make it even simpler then. No need to worry about qualifying particular terms or this and that.

In the loss to the Browns, which one of the Browns' performance or the Packers' performance the bigger factor?

In the loss to the Panthers, which one of the Panthers' performance or the Packers' performance the bigger factor?

I have no problem with saying that if I had to pick one, the Packers' performance was the bigger factor in both of these outcomes.

Sometimes you guys act like other teams don’t try to win. Like opponents are incapable of playing above their O or D ranking. THAT thinking is ironically the exact reason we play 2 games on walk off FG’s to inferior teams (inferior to us not everybody)

Again I don't think I've suggested this. I thought I made it pretty clear that my opinion is that *our* performance was the bigger factor, regardless of what the opponent was or wasn't doing.

Every team is trying to Win. I will also offer I will not stop studying opponents strength. SOS. If select people don’t like it because it “excuse like” there’s this thing called mute. lol

Like I said, nothing wrong with looking at opponent and their (relative) strength. Perhaps we just disagree on the degree to which we should focus on it.

To that matter: the Packers are currently 2nd in offensive EPA/play. That is really, really good!
But by the same measure: The Browns are 30th in OFF EPA/play and the Panthers are 26th in OFF EPA/play

The Packers are 13th in defensive EPA/play. The Browns are 4th in DEF EPA/play and the Panthers are 23rd in DEF EPA/play

Jordan Love is TOPS in the league in QB EPA/play. Joe Flacco is 28th and Bryce Young is 30th. Similarly Love is 4th in CPOE while Young is 23rd and Flacco 26th.

So once again what I am saying is...if both teams play up to their potential, we win those games with ease. And the numbers suggest this is largely what did in fact happen: in both matchups, the Browns and Panthers (and by extension their respective QBs) turned in performances that were more or less in-line with what you would expect based on their underlying metrics (EPA/play, success rate, QB CPOE, etc). It was the Packers (and again, by extension Love and the offense as a whole) who significantly underperformed relative to "baseline" or "expectation".

So the short of it is: If the Browns/Panthers play at their maximum potential and the Packers play at their maximum potential, the Packers win. Most would agree.
But what is also true is this: If the Browns/Panthers turn in an "average" performance and the Packers turn in an "average" performance, the Packers win.
And in both of these cases, the Browns and Panthers DID turn in an "average" performance. By every measure, they did not play exceptionally good football but rather just what we have come to expect out of them this season. All the Packers needed to do was to also produce an "average" or "as-expected" performance; they failed to do so and subsequently lost. I can only then conclude that the Packers' failure to deliver an "average performance" was a greater factor in the outcome than the Browns/Panthers performing in-line with expectation.

 

[gopkrs]

Not trying to rehash all this old stuff, but this is also pretty much the point I've been making for a while now. We've had a few clunker performances and each time there's been a handful of responses suggesting Team X was actually better than everyone else thinks they are. That to me just screams "COPE," lol.

In two losses...

We had a stinker of a game against the Browns, only scored 10 but heard it was just because they have an elite defense who's going to give teams trouble all year and are way better than people give credit for. Except they're 1-5 since then and gave up 34 to the Lions, 21 to the Vikings, 23 to the Steelers, 32 to the Patriots, and even 27 to the lowly Jets, with their only other win coming against the Dolphins (with our 10 points scored being the second-lowest the Browns have allowed all season, only behind the Dolphins' 6)
(Oh, and the Ravens put up 41 the week before we faced Cleveland)

The Panthers managed to sneak out a win against us, and they sit at 5-5, so they must not be so bad, right? They scored 16 against us, but could only manage 7pts against the Saints (17-7 L) and just 13 against the Jets (13-6 W) - and a team that the Bills beat 40-6, the Patriots 42-13, and the Dolphins and Cowboys both managed 24 and 27 points, respectively. In fact, the Falcons in Week 1 (30-0) are the only team who have scored less than the Packers did against the Panthers so far this season.

To put it another way, the only teams who have had worse offensive performances against the Browns and Panthers this year...are teams who will likely be competing for the #1 or #2 pick. I don't think that exactly says "sneaky good team who is going to surprise a lot of folks," I think it says "We played like crap against a bad team and this is the result" lol.

BUT, hope springs eternal, and like I said I do feel we tend to "play up" when need be, so we may very well still put in a good performance tonight. But if we played like we played against Cleveland, Carolina, or arguably even like we played against Dallas, Cincy, and Arizona (no losses, but not great performances), we might be in for a long night. If we can play like the Detroit, Washington, or Pittsburgh games then we might come away with a W.

Cake and eat it too?

 

[tynimiller]

The W's help us get the W tonight....Emanuel Wilson, Wicks and Watson all show out tonight on offense. 2 of the 3 score. Heard it here first.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The W's help us get the W tonight....Emanuel Wilson, Wicks and Watson all show out tonight on offense. 2 of the 3 score. Heard it here first.

On the other side of the ball; Wyatt, Wooden, Walker and Williams...will help stop 1 tush push and 1 of them will get a turnover. Heard it here first.

Oh and Whelan will only have to punt once and it will go out of bounds at the 5 yard line. Heard that here first too.

No matter how you cut, we got a lot of W's on the field, so a W should be the end result!

 

[rmontro]

Lots of overreaction imo fueled by the media making Philly Goliath. Please

Well, they did win the Super Bowl after all.

 

[Magooch]

Philly are a good team for sure, and with the exception of the Lions will be the best team we have faced this year. They are appreciably better overall/big-picture than the Cowboys, the Cardinals, the Panthers, the Bengals, the Commanders, the Steelers, and the Browns.

But, that said, we DID beat the Lions, who are presently better than them. (I guess the question is whether or not the "Week 1 Lions" that we beat are better than the current Eagles, though)

As you have probably gathered from my postings I am a big fan of EPA as a broad measure of a team's offensive/defensive performance. And if you look at a team's composite offensive+defensive EPA you can get a decent picture of their overall "level".

By this measure right now the Rams are pretty handily the best team in the league, they're the only one in their "tier" at the moment. But we are below them in that second tier with teams like the Colts, Chiefs, Lions, Bills.
Then the third tier is a little more broad. There you've got the Seahawks, Patriots, Texans, Broncos, Chargers, Buccaneers, and that's where the Eagles find themselves too.
Interestingly though...the Seahawks and Patriots are juuuust on the edge of the "second tier," they're the top teams in that "third tier" and conversely the Eagles are the "worst" team in that tier of teams as well. Interestingly, they are currently right next to the Bears, who themselves are right on the cusp between the 4th/3rd tier, with them being just a smidge on the "4th" side while the Eagles fall just over the line for the 3rd tier.

Jordan Love EPA/PLAY: 1st
Jordan Love Completion Percentage Over Expectation (CPOE): 4th
Jordan Love EPA+CPOE Composite: 2nd
Jordan Love Pass Success Rate: 5th
Jordan Love Air Yards/Average Depth of Target (ADOT): 18th
Packers OFF EPA/PLAY: 2nd
Packers OFF Success Rate: 3rd
Packers DEF EPA/PLAY: 13th
Packers DEF Success Rate: 13th
Packers Total DVOA: 6th

Jalen Hurts EPA/PLAY: 11th
Jalen Hurts CPOE: 5th
Jordan Love EPA+CPOE Composite: 9th
Jalen Hurts Pass Success Rate: 17th
Jalen Hurts Air Yards/ADOT: 6th
Eagles OFF EPA/PLAY: 9th
Eagles OFF Success Rate: 17th
Eagles DEF EPA/PLAY: 14th
Eagles DEF Success Rate: 17th
Eagles Total DVOA: 9th

I expect a tough matchup, but - stop me if you've heard this one before - if we play up to our potential we should come away with a win.
Big key IMO will be limiting big plays. They can be boom or bust.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I smell a trap game, Giants fired HC Brian Daboll today, the Packer play the Giants next week.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I expect a tough matchup, but - stop me if you've heard this one before - if we play up to our potential we should come away with a win.

We hear this a lot and it isn't wrong. I guess every game can have different scenarios.

- Your team plays up to their potential/Opponent plays below their potential

- Your team plays up to their potential/Opponent plays up to their potential

- Your team plays below their potential/Opponent plays up to their potential

- Your team plays below their potential/Opponent plays below their potential

I suppose you could also have either team playing "beyond or way below potential", as well.

Of course, the wildcard in any of these statements is the word "potential" and the varying degrees in between. My idea of potential for the Packers and the Eagles, is probably different than the next persons.

After reading through this post, it had a lot of potential, but now I potentially think it isn't going anywhere, so I will potentially stop at this point.

 

[Magooch]

In all honestly though, I think it's ultimately just another way of looking at "ceiling" vs "floor".

I would argue that our "ceiling" is as high as anyone's in the league. The trouble is that our "floor" can be as low as just about anyone's, too.

So like I was saying with regards to the Browns, Panthers, and even the Eagles...our "ceiling" beats their ceilings. And I think our "average" beats theirs, too. But I also think our "floor" is lower than Philly's can be.

My estimation, then:

Both teams perform well - Packers win
Packers perform well and Eagles perform poorly - Packers win
Both teams put in an average performance - Packers win
Packers perform poorly and Eagles perform well - Eagles win
Packers perform poorly and Eagles perform poorly - Eagles win

But yeah, degrees of potential and whatnot

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In all honestly though, I think it's ultimately just another way of looking at "ceiling" vs "floor".

I would argue that our "ceiling" is as high as anyone's in the league. The trouble is that our "floor" can be as low as just about anyone's, too.

So like I was saying with regards to the Browns, Panthers, and even the Eagles...our "ceiling" beats their ceilings. And I think our "average" beats theirs, too. But I also think our "floor" is lower than Philly's can be.

My estimation, then:

Both teams perform well - Packers win
Packers perform well and Eagles perform poorly - Packers win
Both teams put in an average performance - Packers win
Packers perform poorly and Eagles perform well - Eagles win
Packers perform poorly and Eagles perform poorly - Eagles win

But yeah, degrees of potential and whatnot

Between our 2 posts, we are potentially on to something!

Or is it, potentially smoking something?

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

 

[OldSchool101]

Well, they did win the Super Bowl after all.

oh the media always sensationalize everything. It’s an entertainment thing (which really means it’s all about the $$)