Studs n duds Cowboys

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,865
Reaction score
1,421
I also need to add that it seems like MLF makes his in-game decisions either based on completely irrational momentary panic, or a magic 8 ball. I am not sure which.

The drive right before half, we had no timeouts, missing starters on the line, backed up after the penalty. Every sensible person in the world knew we had everything to lose and nothing to gain on the drive, but Matty was pissed off about giving up the TD just prior, so instead of managing the game with his head, he let his emotions take over and ended up compounding the problem.

Contrast that with earlier when he wasn’t panicking and he got overly conservative, punting twice in Dallas territory on 4th and short.
 

RicFlairoftheNFL

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
1,536
Reaction score
374
I have never experienced a post I've agreed with more one breath and then literally thought you were insane the next.

The only thing I want to exert effort to refute is - Stating that Hafley's defense has played the exact same as they did last night all year IS JUST WRONG. Verifiably, measurable and observably wrong.
You missed the point Tyni. All pre-season we've heard about Hafley's "Ball hawk defense" and through 28 quarters (Including pre-season) we haven't seen it.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
18,907
Reaction score
8,552
You missed the point Tyni. All pre-season we've heard about Hafley's "Ball hawk defense" and through 28 quarters (Including pre-season) we haven't seen it.

They absolutely were incredible first three games. That three game stretch from a defensive perspective is about as sustained elite level defense as you can ask for in a league with professionals opposite of you.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
21,067
Reaction score
10,834
I also need to add that it seems like MLF makes his in-game decisions either based on completely irrational momentary panic, or a magic 8 ball. I am not sure which.

The drive right before half, we had no timeouts, missing starters on the line, backed up after the penalty. Every sensible person in the world knew we had everything to lose and nothing to gain on the drive, but Matty was pissed off about giving up the TD just prior, so instead of managing the game with his head, he let his emotions take over and ended up compounding the problem.

Contrast that with earlier when he wasn’t panicking and he got overly conservative, punting twice in Dallas territory on 4th and short.
Yes. What was strange was it was also eerily similar to being backed up at Cleveland. Trying to do too much when the flow was a Defensive game. Run the ball and they use TO #3. Then make Cleveland go 60-70 yards for a TD or die in the process. They had not scored a TD across 57 min.

Here you have a chance to go in Halftime up 13-9 and regroup. Had we been sniffing midfield then I’d try to get 15 yards. I’d think differently there. We’re at the GB27 and just used timeout #3 with :21 seconds. Unless you throw it for 35-40 yards for an 50-55 yard try or get out of bounds immediately or spike the ball with :02 sec.
Only way that attempt made sense is if we had 4 Timeouts or threw a Hail Mary. Another poor example of Clock Management vs Risk. Hire A Consultant if you can’t manage Down n distance real time after a Timeout.
 
Last edited:

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
2,191
There’s a lot of people that don’t want hear this — but Matt Lafleur is an average to a little below average NFL head coach.

I don’t personally dislike him. He just doesn’t have the mental makeup for the constant multitasking and on the spot decision making that the modern NFL requires with clock management, in-game adjustments, etc.

It’s not about a learning process. We’re in year 7. It’s just not a part of his skill set.

He’d make a fine OC again, a role where he can focus his planning and efforts on more limited specific details, and I would guess the later years of his career will probably be spent as a regular NFL offensive coordinator.
I would still push back to say that IMO LaFleur is still an above-average head coach on the whole. When I look across the league - just the 32 guys who are heading up teams right now for instance - I don't think there are 15+ guys I'd rather have. In fact, I think if we replaced him today there's probably just as much likelihood that you get worse as there is that you get better.

BUT, beyond that, I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment on the whole. I think LaFleur is a guy whose coaching skillset has a lot of great "bones," but that only gets you so far.
And if we were just a couple of years into LaFleur's tenure with us, the whole vibe would be totally different IMO. You'd look at those "bones" and expect as he grows and learns as a HC they'd start to gel together more.

But we're not just one, two, three years into it...we're into year seven now. And that's not to say coaches don't figure it out after that point (Andy Reid is probably the most prudent example at the moment), but I think those guys are probably more of the exception than the rule. And the question I would have to ask is...are we seeing much growth/development as a coach? I am not sure. It'd be one thing if Matt was clearly growing and developing as a coach with each progressing year. Again though, 6+ years in and I'm just not sure that's the case. Unfortunately it feels to me like many of the issues that have been present since early on in his tenure with GB remain present and have shown little signs of improvement and/or serious change.

I like Matt overall, too. And like I said, I think he's above-average on the whole. But I guess more and more my sentiment begins to feel like (and I would LOVE to eat crow on this one) we have perhaps already seen his "peak" with us. I suspect that so long as he is in charge of the Packers, we will have a good-to-very-good NFL team who will occasionally punch above their weight for an upset win and occasionally play down to their opponent to take a puzzling loss. But unfortunately I also have less and less confidence that he is going to be the guy to take us "over the hump," so to speak. I would love for that to be the case, but I am just not very confident right now.

I've harped on LaFleur's pressers before (I think they are often full of platitudes and cliches, saying very little in a lot of words, promises to change that never are fulfilled, etc) and last night was more or less a microcosm of that: We heard him come out and talk about how we made too many mistakes and didn't handle the situational football at the end right, didn't play with enough urgency, poor clock management, and so on. Which is all true, but....THIS IS YOUR TEAM, MATT!! And to some credit he does take the blame for these things...but we rarely actually see any change. I am so tired of hearing the same problems addressed in pressers without actually being addressed. If you say "we didn't do XYZ correct" or whatever... then that's fine, but you need to actually hold the person(s) responsible for that to account...or take that accountability yourself. I'm sounding like a broken record here - if I've said it once It's been a thousand times - you're either coaching it or you're permitting it. Take your pick.

I also need to add that it seems like MLF makes his in-game decisions either based on completely irrational momentary panic, or a magic 8 ball. I am not sure which.

The drive right before half, we had no timeouts, missing starters on the line, backed up after the penalty. Every sensible person in the world knew we had everything to lose and nothing to gain on the drive, but Matty was pissed off about giving up the TD just prior, so instead of managing the game with his head, he let his emotions take over and ended up compounding the problem.

Contrast that with earlier when he wasn’t panicking and he got overly conservative, punting twice in Dallas territory on 4th and short.
Yeah, that's for sure part of it too. Sometimes it feels totally haphazard, I think I posted about it last night - feels like he's throwing darts blindfolded for his playcalling. Situationally, it's just all over the place. IMO, LaFleur is really great at game *planning*, and when it comes to his overall playbook and "system" design, he is as good as anyone. But to my eye he often does NOT adjust well at all. This results in one of two responses, both of which are problematic for their own reasons:
1. He may get too rigid and stuck on the gameplan/"script". There's times where our initial plan clearly isn't working and yet we keep pounding our heads against the wall looking for a breakthrough. It's like LaFleur says "I know I came up with a good plan and it's going to work eventually" and just insists on keeping at it.
2. Or, alternatively - as above - once forced off-script it's like he has no well-defined "plan B". He gets aggressive when he should be conservative and gets conservative when he should be aggressive. He tries to play it cute and slip in some random gimmick play that disrupts our whole flow. We'll go off-script and have some success and for some reason that pushes him to immediately go back "on-script" to what previously hadn't been working. And so on.

Idk, it's two bad losses (I know, a loss and a tie, but it felt like a loss lol) in a row and maybe I'm just jaded and not totally clear-headed but it's just endlessly frustrating to be stuck in this limbo of what feels like good-but-not-good-enough for the better part of a decade now. Maybe we're spoiled, it's better than most teams have it, but it's hard not to continually come away feeling like there's so much unrealized potential here.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
7,376
Reaction score
2,829
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I concur, I want Love to be running the show in 2 minute.....my question is - is it MLF not wanting to release it because Love won't do it how he wishes...or is it because Love cannot handle it?
We all want the QB to be able to run the show. I think that last night's game was an example of the coach and QB not working well together as time wound down. Love calling for the offense to huddle with 26 or 28 seconds left on the clock - that's a good example of poor clock management. Not getting the play off until 7 seconds left and only having 1 second to kick the field goal - bad clock management. Had that play taken half a second longer the refs may have said that the game was over.

I'm not dumping on Love specifically, it's the two together aren't in sync yet. It's Jordan's fifth year in the league, third as a starter. He should be getting these nuances down and LaFleur needs to be actively working harder to ensure that it happens. Jordan is a smart kid with tons of upside, but in-game mismanagement like last night can and will cost playoff victories against the best teams.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
7,376
Reaction score
2,829
Location
Land 'O Lakes
The secondary which had been studs all year were major duds last night. It’s crazy how much corner play just comes down to pass rush. If your pass rushers are pressuring, your corners look very good. If not, they look terrible.
Well let's be honest. Nobody came into 2025 thinking that we had a good secondary. It was one of our weak points. They've looked outstanding because of the pass rush as you pointed out. Without that pass rush, they are exposed for being average at best.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
18,907
Reaction score
8,552
We all want the QB to be able to run the show. I think that last night's game was an example of the coach and QB not working well together as time wound down. Love calling for the offense to huddle with 26 or 28 seconds left on the clock - that's a good example of poor clock management. Not getting the play off until 7 seconds left and only having 1 second to kick the field goal - bad clock management. Had that play taken half a second longer the refs may have said that the game was over.

I'm not dumping on Love specifically, it's the two together aren't in sync yet. It's Jordan's fifth year in the league, third as a starter. He should be getting these nuances down and LaFleur needs to be actively working harder to ensure that it happens. Jordan is a smart kid with tons of upside, but in-game mismanagement like last night can and will cost playoff victories against the best teams.

Hang on we talking in OT? I went back and watched, I don't see Love calling for a huddle at all?

Now the third to last play (wilson run left for quite a few) ended with 46 seconds left, MLF seen calling play at 40 seconds and we snap it at 33 seconds left. The screen is blown up with 28 seconds left...we call timeout.

We snap of course with 28 seconds left and the call is a three out wid left formation pass play that no one is open and we dump it to wilson. Play ends with 20 seconds left...and at 17 seconds Love is seen yelling and handsignalling the call....guys are not busting *** to position at all....we snap it with 6/7 seconds left and luckily 1 second left when ball falls.
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
2,191
This has been a recurrent theme too... It seems like ALL the time (not just crunch time) we are finding ourselves coming right up against the play clock.

Now when Rodgers was here I always just kind of chalked that up to him making a ton of pre-snap adjustments after getting lined up. But I'd be surprised if Love was doing nearly as much as Rodgers in that regard... and a lot of times it seems like we're even breaking the huddle with little time to spare. It seems like we either are awfully slow in getting the play delivered, or Love is just very slow in processing/relaying/adjusting the play...
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
18,907
Reaction score
8,552
This has been a recurrent theme too... It seems like ALL the time (not just crunch time) we are finding ourselves coming right up against the play clock.

Now when Rodgers was here I always just kind of chalked that up to him making a ton of pre-snap adjustments after getting lined up. But I'd be surprised if Love was doing nearly as much as Rodgers in that regard... and a lot of times it seems like we're even breaking the huddle with little time to spare. It seems like we either are awfully slow in getting the play delivered, or Love is just very slow in processing/relaying/adjusting the play...

I'd have to track this and maybe I'll attempt to someday, I do know Love seems to switch to the can option a fair amount which could not be done if they were hard pressed for time.
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
2,191
Hang on we talking in OT? I went back and watched, I don't see Love calling for a huddle at all?
Late in OT, either the last play or one of the last ones...he was signaling with his hands above head, interlacing fingers repeatedly (I don't know how best to describe it through text lol), pretty clearly trying to get everyone's attention. It *looked* like calling for a huddle to me but maybe that signage means something else...
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
7,376
Reaction score
2,829
Location
Land 'O Lakes
Hang on we talking in OT? I went back and watched, I don't see Love calling for a huddle at all?
I was a little confused. I was thinking about after the 2min warning when we were still huddling as time ticked away with only one timeout left. It's why we were in a time crunch at the end. After the game on ESPN, Scott Van Pelt went off on Love and I think that's where I confused it because I think he was talking about that point at 20 seconds left when Love was trying to get the final play called, he was making a signal, and trying to get everyone lined up (Magooch's point). I think that's what Van Pelt was talking about. Either way, I was thinking about how casual we were with less than two minutes to go.

2:00 - Wicks 15yd reception
1:15 - Doubs 6yd reception
0:53 - Wilson 7yd run
0:33 - Golden 3yd loss
Timeout
0:28 - Wilson 1yd loss
0:07 - incomplete to Golden

Lot's of time wasted is the point.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
3,947
Lots of good and diverse thoughts in this thread. I love it! I hope nobody thinks I'm saying Love is a bad QB. That's not my intent whatsoever. I'm saying that he needs to make better decisions in crucial situations during the latter part of the first and second half. Quite frankly, it's really the only real weakness he has, and I don't believe the fault for it falls on his shoulders alone. I think LeFleur needs to be quicker at getting calls in from the sideline, call multiple plays that can be called in one huddle, and help Love to get the plays off quicker. I remember Rodgers getting miffed and showing it. He'd call a time-out if he could, or throw the ball away, unless it was 3rd down to avoid the mistake. Love will get there when he realizes that he's still the guy on the field that is responsible for the end result on every play.
I was a little confused. I was thinking about after the 2min warning when we were still huddling as time ticked away with only one timeout left. It's why we were in a time crunch at the end. After the game on ESPN, Scott Van Pelt went off on Love and I think that's where I confused it because I think he was talking about that point at 20 seconds left when Love was trying to get the final play called, he was making a signal, and trying to get everyone lined up (Magooch's point). I think that's what Van Pelt was talking about. Either way, I was thinking about how casual we were with less than two minutes to go.

2:00 - Wicks 15yd reception
1:15 - Doubs 6yd reception
0:53 - Wilson 7yd run
0:33 - Golden 3yd loss
Timeout
0:28 - Wilson 1yd loss
0:07 - incomplete to Golden

Lot's of time wasted is the point.
Those outlet passes for losses with so little clock left from the Wilson run on weren't going to put the ball in the end zone. They were "safe" passes that wouldn't be intercepted. I think that's on LeFleur because it appears he's drilled ball security in the red zone into Love's head so much that he's probably a little gun shy. Anyone would be. Then I ask why Wilson is in the backfield when you had Jacobs who was the top receiver and runner in the game on the sidelines because you're operating quickly without substitutions to save clock. A wise coach would have had Jacobs out there and not burn clock like he did. It was early in that run that Love would have been wise to throw one away to allow the substitutions, no matter what was called. That's where the elite QBs earn their pay. They know when to override a decision from the sideline that's going to hurt them in critical moments.

Look at that sequence. The Wilson run put them in a position where they were playing against the clock because of it. They went from 1:15 down to 33 seconds, burning 43 seconds to run two horrible plays then used a timeout and repeated the mistake by forcing them to throw a desperation pass in the last play from scrimmage. That is horrible clock management. Follow it through and you'll see. If They would have did a spike instead of the Golden 3-yard loss, they conserve time and they could have dialed up two very effective plays with personnel changes to get into the end zone.

Game and clock management errors on display without doubt. Not Love's fault except he should have made the decision to make the spike. The clock was the enemy and LeFleur didn't know how to manage it.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,865
Reaction score
1,421
I would still push back to say that IMO LaFleur is still an above-average head coach on the whole. When I look across the league - just the 32 guys who are heading up teams right now for instance - I don't think there are 15+ guys I'd rather have. In fact, I think if we replaced him today there's probably just as much likelihood that you get worse as there is that you get better.

BUT, beyond that, I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment on the whole. I think LaFleur is a guy whose coaching skillset has a lot of great "bones," but that only gets you so far.
And if we were just a couple of years into LaFleur's tenure with us, the whole vibe would be totally different IMO. You'd look at those "bones" and expect as he grows and learns as a HC they'd start to gel together more.

But we're not just one, two, three years into it...we're into year seven now. And that's not to say coaches don't figure it out after that point (Andy Reid is probably the most prudent example at the moment), but I think those guys are probably more of the exception than the rule. And the question I would have to ask is...are we seeing much growth/development as a coach? I am not sure. It'd be one thing if Matt was clearly growing and developing as a coach with each progressing year. Again though, 6+ years in and I'm just not sure that's the case. Unfortunately it feels to me like many of the issues that have been present since early on in his tenure with GB remain present and have shown little signs of improvement and/or serious change.

I like Matt overall, too. And like I said, I think he's above-average on the whole. But I guess more and more my sentiment begins to feel like (and I would LOVE to eat crow on this one) we have perhaps already seen his "peak" with us. I suspect that so long as he is in charge of the Packers, we will have a good-to-very-good NFL team who will occasionally punch above their weight for an upset win and occasionally play down to their opponent to take a puzzling loss. But unfortunately I also have less and less confidence that he is going to be the guy to take us "over the hump," so to speak. I would love for that to be the case, but I am just not very confident right now.

I've harped on LaFleur's pressers before (I think they are often full of platitudes and cliches, saying very little in a lot of words, promises to change that never are fulfilled, etc) and last night was more or less a microcosm of that: We heard him come out and talk about how we made too many mistakes and didn't handle the situational football at the end right, didn't play with enough urgency, poor clock management, and so on. Which is all true, but....THIS IS YOUR TEAM, MATT!! And to some credit he does take the blame for these things...but we rarely actually see any change. I am so tired of hearing the same problems addressed in pressers without actually being addressed. If you say "we didn't do XYZ correct" or whatever... then that's fine, but you need to actually hold the person(s) responsible for that to account...or take that accountability yourself. I'm sounding like a broken record here - if I've said it once It's been a thousand times - you're either coaching it or you're permitting it. Take your pick.


Yeah, that's for sure part of it too. Sometimes it feels totally haphazard, I think I posted about it last night - feels like he's throwing darts blindfolded for his playcalling. Situationally, it's just all over the place. IMO, LaFleur is really great at game *planning*, and when it comes to his overall playbook and "system" design, he is as good as anyone. But to my eye he often does NOT adjust well at all. This results in one of two responses, both of which are problematic for their own reasons:
1. He may get too rigid and stuck on the gameplan/"script". There's times where our initial plan clearly isn't working and yet we keep pounding our heads against the wall looking for a breakthrough. It's like LaFleur says "I know I came up with a good plan and it's going to work eventually" and just insists on keeping at it.
2. Or, alternatively - as above - once forced off-script it's like he has no well-defined "plan B". He gets aggressive when he should be conservative and gets conservative when he should be aggressive. He tries to play it cute and slip in some random gimmick play that disrupts our whole flow. We'll go off-script and have some success and for some reason that pushes him to immediately go back "on-script" to what previously hadn't been working. And so on.

Idk, it's two bad losses (I know, a loss and a tie, but it felt like a loss lol) in a row and maybe I'm just jaded and not totally clear-headed but it's just endlessly frustrating to be stuck in this limbo of what feels like good-but-not-good-enough for the better part of a decade now. Maybe we're spoiled, it's better than most teams have it, but it's hard not to continually come away feeling like there's so much unrealized potential here.
.
I would still push back to say that IMO LaFleur is still an above-average head coach on the whole. When I look across the league - just the 32 guys who are heading up teams right now for instance - I don't think there are 15+ guys I'd rather have. In fact, I think if we replaced him today there's probably just as much likelihood that you get worse as there is that you get better.

BUT, beyond that, I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment on the whole. I think LaFleur is a guy whose coaching skillset has a lot of great "bones," but that only gets you so far.
And if we were just a couple of years into LaFleur's tenure with us, the whole vibe would be totally different IMO. You'd look at those "bones" and expect as he grows and learns as a HC they'd start to gel together more.

But we're not just one, two, three years into it...we're into year seven now. And that's not to say coaches don't figure it out after that point (Andy Reid is probably the most prudent example at the moment), but I think those guys are probably more of the exception than the rule. And the question I would have to ask is...are we seeing much growth/development as a coach? I am not sure. It'd be one thing if Matt was clearly growing and developing as a coach with each progressing year. Again though, 6+ years in and I'm just not sure that's the case. Unfortunately it feels to me like many of the issues that have been present since early on in his tenure with GB remain present and have shown little signs of improvement and/or serious change.

I like Matt overall, too. And like I said, I think he's above-average on the whole. But I guess more and more my sentiment begins to feel like (and I would LOVE to eat crow on this one) we have perhaps already seen his "peak" with us. I suspect that so long as he is in charge of the Packers, we will have a good-to-very-good NFL team who will occasionally punch above their weight for an upset win and occasionally play down to their opponent to take a puzzling loss. But unfortunately I also have less and less confidence that he is going to be the guy to take us "over the hump," so to speak. I would love for that to be the case, but I am just not very confident right now.

I've harped on LaFleur's pressers before (I think they are often full of platitudes and cliches, saying very little in a lot of words, promises to change that never are fulfilled, etc) and last night was more or less a microcosm of that: We heard him come out and talk about how we made too many mistakes and didn't handle the situational football at the end right, didn't play with enough urgency, poor clock management, and so on. Which is all true, but....THIS IS YOUR TEAM, MATT!! And to some credit he does take the blame for these things...but we rarely actually see any change. I am so tired of hearing the same problems addressed in pressers without actually being addressed. If you say "we didn't do XYZ correct" or whatever... then that's fine, but you need to actually hold the person(s) responsible for that to account...or take that accountability yourself. I'm sounding like a broken record here - if I've said it once It's been a thousand times - you're either coaching it or you're permitting it. Take your pick.


Yeah, that's for sure part of it too. Sometimes it feels totally haphazard, I think I posted about it last night - feels like he's throwing darts blindfolded for his playcalling. Situationally, it's just all over the place. IMO, LaFleur is really great at game *planning*, and when it comes to his overall playbook and "system" design, he is as good as anyone. But to my eye he often does NOT adjust well at all. This results in one of two responses, both of which are problematic for their own reasons:
1. He may get too rigid and stuck on the gameplan/"script". There's times where our initial plan clearly isn't working and yet we keep pounding our heads against the wall looking for a breakthrough. It's like LaFleur says "I know I came up with a good plan and it's going to work eventually" and just insists on keeping at it.
2. Or, alternatively - as above - once forced off-script it's like he has no well-defined "plan B". He gets aggressive when he should be conservative and gets conservative when he should be aggressive. He tries to play it cute and slip in some random gimmick play that disrupts our whole flow. We'll go off-script and have some success and for some reason that pushes him to immediately go back "on-script" to what previously hadn't been working. And so on.

Idk, it's two bad losses (I know, a loss and a tie, but it felt like a loss lol) in a row and maybe I'm just jaded and not totally clear-headed but it's just endlessly frustrating to be stuck in this limbo of what feels like good-but-not-good-enough for the better part of a decade now. Maybe we're spoiled, it's better than most teams have it, but it's hard not to continually come away feeling like there's so much unrealized potential here.
Well in regard to coaching hierarchy, I would say it’s all subjective and fluid year to year. At one time, MLF might have been considered one of the best. Now? This was widely considered a Super Bowl contender after two games who folded for once the expectations picked up, widely from things largely under his control.

So, that’s why the arguments I always hear about MLF being the winningest coach in Packer history, etc etc, don’t hold much water with me. At another time you could have said the same about Mike McCarthy. He has a ring. He literally has a street named after him in Green Bay. And yet, nowadays he isn’t even considered among the 32 most qualified for the position.

Same thing the other way around. Who is pretty much the gold standard for head coaches these days? Andy Reid, right? Who is also the guy who got ran out of town in Philadelphia.
 

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
1,338
Location
Charlotte County, FL
No, I'm not going to even remotely give him a pass, that fumble is what led to the opposition getting the lead. It was a fumble on the wrong side of the field. Was the coaching bad? Absolutely, but I've never seen any coach make anyone fumble. Has coaching put ppl in positions to fail? Of course! But overcoming that is what makes someone better, not the opposite.
If MLF just had Lone kneel instead of trying to throw the ball there Love doesn't get strip-sacked and we go into the half with the lead.
 

RicFlairoftheNFL

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Messages
1,536
Reaction score
374
They absolutely were incredible first three games. That three game stretch from a defensive perspective is about as sustained elite level defense as you can ask for in a league with professionals opposite of you.
How many turnovers through week 3?
 

DoURant

Go Pack Go!
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
2,406
Location
Michigan
Defense played well until the blocked PAT. And then the roof fell in.
It seemed to be the turning point of the game. I think our Defense stopped them twice the rest of the game. The ensuing drive, and then the opening drive of the 2nd half. Speaking of the 2nd half, that was a wild half.... not to mention both teams had 1 drive each in OT. Each getting a FG.

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

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
1,338
Location
Charlotte County, FL
You'd like perfection every snap...got it.

Sorry I'm not usually this bitey but Love was near perfection last night...putting any of that loss on him in any capacity, even 1%, is just something I can not even fathom.

Sorry didn't respond to the two posed questions above.

I broke down just how unflappable he was....dude was LIGHTS out on crucial third and fourth downs, didn't turn the ball over, completed over 70% of his passes DESPITE having pressure in his lap at times immediately and having to have a few throwaways due to this. The dude was dynamite. DYNAMITE.

As for the game, offensively I feel great. Yes, one can nitpick the two rush calls up the gut by MLF right at the end as dumb, one I'll forgive...but two was asinine. However the offense is rolling folks, Doubs straight up cooking DBs with his release package...Savion illustrating a weapon and Golden and Kraft also being clutch...not to mention Jacobs and Wilson were a tandem to be dealt with.

This loss is defense sucking and ST's continuing to suck in big ways a few times a game (block, terrible coverage two crucial kick offs and our returning plan just autrocious).
Except we didn't lose. ;-)
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,865
Reaction score
1,421
On the defense/turnovers argument:

I’d be curious to know if turnovers are something that defense largely has control over, and some are very good at generating them and some are just bad,

or

More of a random luck thing, you can do everything right and still have a turnover drought and then all of the sudden they come in droves.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,865
Reaction score
1,421
I hope the defense last night was just an abberation.
Me too. Seeing them rendered completely ineffective by a Cowboy offense that had a banged up O-line and no Ceedee Lamb, after carrying the team the first 3 games and dominating two great offenses, was bizarre.

The defense seems to go as Parsons goes. When he is effective, it opens things up for everyone else, which also in turn creates better opportunities for the secondary. It’s all tied together.

When he’s ineffective, everything else follows as we saw last night.

No one will want to hear that but some of Jerry’s criticisms of Parsons aren’t unfair. He has moments of domination and other games where he completely disappears. When the latter happens, you end up with 48-32 playoff beatdowns, or 40-40 ties like last night.
 

DoURant

Go Pack Go!
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
2,928
Reaction score
2,406
Location
Michigan
Studs:
1. Whomever was working the playclock in OT, that second just hung there, it easily could have been ran to zero, and Dallas would have won.
2. Jacobs/Wilson. Both were great rushing and receiving the ball.
3. Wherefore art thou ROMEO....Doubs. 3 TD's, and he was as jacked up emotionally as I have ever seen him.

Duds:
1. Special Teams... this is beyond anything even imaginable at this point.
- Blocked kicks back to back weeks
- 3 Kickoffs downed in end zone after hitting the ground inside the 5 yd line
- 2 kick returns allowed out past the 40
- blocked extra point returned for 2 pts by opposition.

2. MLF in drives ending the half, game, and OT....
- end of 1st half: 20 seconds no time outs, on our own 20, let's go for it... strip sack, next play TD Dallas
- end of game: 3 time outs, 18 seconds Dallas 40 yd line. Run, time out. Run time out, deep throw out of bounds, kick 53 yd FG ( see above #1 Dud...we have had 2 blocked kicks the last two weeks, and he was happy with a 53 yd FG try????)
- end of OT: 2 Minutes left, run ONLY 6 plays, and barely get clock stopped with 1 second remaining to kick a tying FG... to me, it felt like he was playing to tie, not to win.

3. Defense
- Lack of pass rush, 1 sack for 0 yds lost
- Tackling, as good as it was games 1&2 this year, it was terrible last night, and Edge Cooper was downright awful. IMO
- Run Defense, I'm shocked after how good it was the first 3 games of the season. Can Wyatt be that big of a difference?? After he went out, they were getting owned.

Honorable Mention: Love had a really good game. The fumble, I blame MLF for the play call, and because the play WAS called, Walker needs to be better, he got whipped right off the snap.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
37,217
Reaction score
11,585
Location
Madison, WI
I can't help but think Haf should use Micah with more flexibility. I liked it when he moved around and came in from the middle. Someone else has to contain. Just to put him on the end and think that because he takes up two blockers; we are going to win the play, isn't cutting it imho.

Agree. Last night I couldn't understand why he wasn't moving around presnap, especially against his former team. Of the 31 teams in the NFL, the Cowboys are the 1 team that is very familiar with Parsons and if Dak knows where he is lined up, it is a pretty easy presnap protection call.

I also wonder if Kenny Clark had anything to do with the heavy pass rush on Love. Not that it was Kenny getting the pressure, but his knowledge of the Packer offensive lineman, had to come into play.
 
Top