Studs n duds Cowboys

[milani]

Wasn't it 13-2 before the fumble?

Thought it was 13-9. The Boys went 95 yards for their first TD.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Um, Rodgers won, and made many wins that were in the jaws of defeat, Rodgers also won a SB. I also never, EVER said that Love sucked. I very clearly stated, not once, but twice that Love had a very costly turnover and also almost burned our only chance at the end. Remember that he also threw the ball underneath two plays earlier.

You view the Dallas game the same as I do. To Ty's point, Love played exceptionally well. I was watching his highlights from the game, and he threw dimes into solid coverage to Doubs on his two TDs.

But winning is everything, and the strip/fumble he allowed turned into 7 points, in a game that ended tied. So while I am confident Love is the guy for this team, he has to stop these mistakes, because there is a pattern developing whenever he gets pressured. Bad decisions by MLF don't help either.

So looking back, most people won't remember that Love played a terrific overall game. They will remember that the team didn't come home with a W. Ties and losses are - well, failures.

 

[Half Empty]

And home field can make a big difference even in the regular season.

Just really wish it was the case in the playoffs, too.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Your logic would dictate Rodgers sucked as well…QB that is “greatness” wins… sorry we are far far apart on how to interpret Love this specific game. So far no point in discussing sadly I’m guessing.

Hey Ty, in fairness, I recently watched highlight plays from the game, and to your point, Love really did play very well. The TD passes to Doubs stood out, and represent great communication between QB and WR. And he was throwing into tight windows. And he finally connected with Golden on a long pass. Hope to see more of those. Dallas played very well, and there were many other plays that went into the final outcome. These two plays just stick out in a game the Packers could have won. (And MLF didn't put Love or the team in a position to win, especially with clock management, and just bad play calling.)

So it's time to look forward. I still think the Packers are one of the ten best teams in the league, with the talent to go toward the top of that list. The bye is early but the timing is good. Time to heal up and get the first-team OL back on the field, and time for Wyatt to also get healthy.

And sort of off topic, but Doubs footwork and release remind me of Adams. It's amazing that he can create two or three feet of separation and make a play just with the release.

 

[chemist]

Just for fun I decided to go through and take a look at this.
LaFleur is in year seven with the Packers.

How long were Super Bowl-winning coaches with their team before winning it all?

1st year with team - Kubiak, Gruden, Seifert, McCafferty
2nd year - Arians, Belichick, Pederson, Tomlin, Switzer, Gibbs, Flores
3rd year - Shanahan, Walsh, Shula
4th year - Sirianni, Carroll, Coughlin, Payton, Johnson, Parcells, Ditka
5th year - McVay, Harbaugh, McCarthy, Dungy
6th year - Noll
7th year - Reid (Matt, you are currently here )
8th year - Madden
12th year - Landry
14th year - Cowher

(I am also leaving out Lombardi, Stram, and Ewbank, who all coached for a while before technically winning the *Super Bowl* but won NFL/AFL titles earlier on in their careers)

So, like I said. This is already a pretty exclusive club, not much of a sample size to draw any terribly meaningful conclusions from but from what little data we have we can extrapolate two conclusions:

1. The number of coaches who are with a team for 6+ years with no Super Bowl and go on to win one in year 7 or later is very, very small
2. The coaches who DID go on to win a Super Bowl after 7+ years with the same team...are all generally regarded as all-time greats and HOFers, so...

Make of that what you will

we are all packer fans who are hurting big time with the way our team has performed. Ive spelled out my own issues with how things have been handled and the anger and frustration I feel because after those first 2 games I thought we may have something this year but then everything blew up in smoke. It doesnt do any good to beat a dead horse so I am moving on from my anger and frustration prison.
After alot of thought i am going to throw this on the table. For me I'd rather be rooting for a team that has good years and bad years, but gets me a SB every so often rather than having a team thats pretty good every year, wins their 10/11 games during the season but never goes anywhere past that. A SB can carry me and satisfy me for several years before I'm hankering for another.
We've had some super teams since our last SB in 2010 but always found a way to lose a play off game we should have won. I thought our best chance was,when rodgers and adams were still together , before adams left the next year but we all know how that year ended.
Ive run out of patience hearing MLF say the same things over and over again. We gotta do this, we gotta do that, we gotta get better at this, we gotta be better prepared, we gotta be aware of what down it is, we gotta be aware of how much time is left on the clock.
Ive had enough of the "gottas"....

 

[rmontro]

After alot of thought i am going to throw this on the table. For me I'd rather be rooting for a team that has good years and bad years, but gets me a SB every so often rather than having a team thats pretty good every year, wins their 10/11 games during the season but never goes anywhere past that.

While I agree with you, how do you plan to win a Super Bowl every so often? There's no sure fire way to do it, or everyone would. Isn't the trade for Micah Parsons an attempt to get us over the hump, an attempt to go all in for a Super Bowl? In any case, I'm guessing the defense bounces back. Unless the league has us figured out already.

 

[chemist]

While I agree with you, how do you plan to win a Super Bowl every so often? There's no sure fire way to do it, or everyone would. Isn't the trade for Micah Parsons an attempt to get us over the hump, an attempt to go all in for a Super Bowl? In any case, I'm guessing the defense bounces back. Unless the league has us figured out already.

While nothing is,guranteed several teams fit that profile.
My guess is that during the bad years you get a chance at high draft picks to rebuild your team. If you hit a good draft year you may get several good players.

Maybe our defense does bounce back but we are still dealing with the elephant in the room....MLF and his mistakes

 

[OldSchool101]

You view the Dallas game the same as I do. To Ty's point, Love played exceptionally well. I was watching his highlights from the game, and he threw dimes into solid coverage to Doubs on his two TDs.

But winning is everything, and the strip/fumble he allowed turned into 7 points, in a game that ended tied. So while I am confident Love is the guy for this team, he has to stop these mistakes, because there is a pattern developing whenever he gets pressured. Bad decisions by MLF don't help either.

So looking back, most people won't remember that Love played a terrific overall game. They will remember that the team didn't come home with a W. Ties and losses are - well, failures.

Lost you on the last part. Why was a strip Sack Loves fault? If an Offense scored 40,50, 60 points, but the Defense allowed 41,51,61, are you suggesting it’s the Offenses fault for a Tie?

The ONLY argument you could make is Love n Co was responsible for a -3pt because they left our opponent at the GB27. So they netted 37pts? Teams shouldn’t lose if their Offense scored 37pts imo.

 

[rmontro]

While nothing is,guranteed several teams fit that profile.
My guess is that during the bad years you get a chance at high draft picks to rebuild your team. If you hit a good draft year you may get several good players.

When people talk about a team that has good and bad years but wins the Super Bowl every so often, I always think about the New York Giants. It seems like they either have a bad to mediocre year, or they win the Super Bowl. Maybe it's because their division is tough.

Of course, both the Giants and Packers have four Super Bowl wins, so if the results are the same, I'd rather be in the discussion every year than not.

 

[Voyageur]

The question about who was responsible for the horrific blocking we had on kicks against the Cowboys. Brant Banks got cut because they held him responsible. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this but there's a lot of coaches that were involved in the decisions about him being brought up from the practice squad and being used in that position during kicks and not one word about his experience in handling that particular job.

It doesn't matter to coaches. Someone's head has to roll and Banks head was the least valuable moving down the road. I believe it was the coaches who failed here. Banks was the sacrificial lamb. Biasacca has a history of not really being that effective as the special teams coach in my opinion. I still wonder how he hangs on to his job.

Then I ask myself if the fact his teams fail so often is because of the way LeFleur is responsible by giving him the wrong players for the job because he doesn't understand it as well as he should.

I just know one thing. No matter what LeFleur says, it's still the coaches that put someone out there that didn't seem to know the correct technique or did what they normally do and the coaches have decided instead of taking the heat for poor blocking assignments they had a scapegoat that was easy to use.

For years, special teams has stunk to the high heavens and I'm not convinced anyone can do the job if they aren't given the right players from the active roster to do it right.

 

[tynimiller]

The question about who was responsible for the horrific blocking we had on kicks against the Cowboys. Brant Banks got cut because they held him responsible. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this but there's a lot of coaches that were involved in the decisions about him being brought up from the practice squad and being used in that position during kicks and not one word about his experience in handling that particular job.

It doesn't matter to coaches. Someone's head has to roll and Banks head was the least valuable moving down the road. I believe it was the coaches who failed here. Banks was the sacrificial lamb. Biasacca has a history of not really being that effective as the special teams coach in my opinion. I still wonder how he hangs on to his job.

Then I ask myself if the fact his teams fail so often is because of the way LeFleur is responsible by giving him the wrong players for the job because he doesn't understand it as well as he should.

I just know one thing. No matter what LeFleur says, it's still the coaches that put someone out there that didn't seem to know the correct technique or did what they normally do and the coaches have decided instead of taking the heat for poor blocking assignments they had a scapegoat that was easy to use.

For years, special teams has stunk to the high heavens and I'm not convinced anyone can do the job if they aren't given the right players from the active roster to do it right.

I actually think he is cut solely for roster opening and he likely gets claimed back on to PS.

You could be right though.

 

[tynimiller]

Nevermind News said Titans claimed him asap. Sounds like we hoped to retain.

 

[gopkrs]

The question about who was responsible for the horrific blocking we had on kicks against the Cowboys. Brant Banks got cut because they held him responsible. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this but there's a lot of coaches that were involved in the decisions about him being brought up from the practice squad and being used in that position during kicks and not one word about his experience in handling that particular job.

It doesn't matter to coaches. Someone's head has to roll and Banks head was the least valuable moving down the road. I believe it was the coaches who failed here. Banks was the sacrificial lamb. Biasacca has a history of not really being that effective as the special teams coach in my opinion. I still wonder how he hangs on to his job.

Then I ask myself if the fact his teams fail so often is because of the way LeFleur is responsible by giving him the wrong players for the job because he doesn't understand it as well as he should.

I just know one thing. No matter what LeFleur says, it's still the coaches that put someone out there that didn't seem to know the correct technique or did what they normally do and the coaches have decided instead of taking the heat for poor blocking assignments they had a scapegoat that was easy to use.

For years, special teams has stunk to the high heavens and I'm not convinced anyone can do the job if they aren't given the right players from the active roster to do it right.

Sounds right to me. I guess Banks was also responsible for the long returns. And for the Cleveland block. And for STs not to be able to run down and tackle someone after kickoff on the 20 or 25 like good ST do.

 

[milani]

The question about who was responsible for the horrific blocking we had on kicks against the Cowboys. Brant Banks got cut because they held him responsible. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this but there's a lot of coaches that were involved in the decisions about him being brought up from the practice squad and being used in that position during kicks and not one word about his experience in handling that particular job.

It doesn't matter to coaches. Someone's head has to roll and Banks head was the least valuable moving down the road. I believe it was the coaches who failed here. Banks was the sacrificial lamb. Biasacca has a history of not really being that effective as the special teams coach in my opinion. I still wonder how he hangs on to his job.

Then I ask myself if the fact his teams fail so often is because of the way LeFleur is responsible by giving him the wrong players for the job because he doesn't understand it as well as he should.

I just know one thing. No matter what LeFleur says, it's still the coaches that put someone out there that didn't seem to know the correct technique or did what they normally do and the coaches have decided instead of taking the heat for poor blocking assignments they had a scapegoat that was easy to use.

For years, special teams has stunk to the high heavens and I'm not convinced anyone can do the job if they aren't given the right players from the active roster to do it right.

Those 2 blocked kicks in 2021 stand out against KC and SF plus the one in 2022 against the Jets.

 

[gopkrs]

Sounds right to me. I guess Banks was also responsible for the long returns. And for the Cleveland block. And for STs not to be able to run down and tackle someone after kickoff on the 20 or 25 like good ST do.

Not to mention those two bounced balls to Savion, absolutely something he should have been taught and at least got right the 2nd time, that resulted in ball on the 20. The detail just isn't there. The more I think about our special teams; the more pitiful they seem.

 

[Voyageur]

I actually think he is cut solely for roster opening and he likely gets claimed back on to PS.

You could be right though.

Banks was grabbed off waivers by The Titans. You might have been right about him going back to the PS though. We'll never know for sure.

 

[Voyageur]

Not to mention those two bounced balls to Savion, absolutely something he should have been taught and at least got right the 2nd time, that resulted in ball on the 20. The detail just isn't there. The more I think about our special teams; the more pitiful they seem.

It's one fiasco after another with them. It never ends.

 

[Heyjoe4]

While I agree with you, how do you plan to win a Super Bowl every so often? There's no sure fire way to do it, or everyone would. Isn't the trade for Micah Parsons an attempt to get us over the hump, an attempt to go all in for a Super Bowl? In any case, I'm guessing the defense bounces back. Unless the league has us figured out already.

Agreed. The Parsons trade was Gluten going all in on a SB. It would have been a good trade regardless, but with the D already very good, well they just got that much better - something we saw clearly in the first three games.

And yeah, this D will bounce back. It was a head-scratching performance in Dallas, esp without Cee Dee Lamb. But they have a lot of talent at the player/coach level, so I'm not that worried. (I am wondering why Hafley didn't double team Pickens from the start with Lamb out. Hopefully, the game on defense is an outlier.

And hopefully Love has found his rhythm for the season. He did cost then team 7 points by not paying attention on the strip fumble. Otherwise, he had a great night. He and Doubs have developed a terrific connection.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Not to mention those two bounced balls to Savion, absolutely something he should have been taught and at least got right the 2nd time, that resulted in ball on the 20. The detail just isn't there. The more I think about our special teams; the more pitiful they seem.

Thanks gopkrs. What is the rule on kickoffs? I'm guessing if it first hits the ground outside the end zone it has to be returned. Is that correct?

I'm a little surprised that the returner didn't have to return the kick. Williams fielded the ball in the EZ after one bounce in play. He took a knee and the ball was spotted at the 20. I guess I don't understand some of the nuances of the rule. It does make the KO a lot more interesting.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Don't know where else to put this. When I click on the link to go to the forum website, I'm getting a "This Site is Not Secure" message. It's not a problem with my antivirus SW.

Anyone else getting this? Thanks all.

 

[gopkrs]

Thanks gopkrs. What is the rule on kickoffs? I'm guessing if it first hits the ground outside the end zone it has to be returned. Is that correct?

I'm a little surprised that the returner didn't have to return the kick. Williams fielded the ball in the EZ after one bounce in play. He took a knee and the ball was spotted at the 20. I guess I don't understand some of the nuances of the rule. It does make the KO a lot more interesting.

It looks like if it bounces in the field of play and you take it in the end zone; you can down it and get it at the 20 or you can run it out.

 

[mradtke66]

Thanks gopkrs. What is the rule on kickoffs? I'm guessing if it first hits the ground outside the end zone it has to be returned. Is that correct?

Kickoffs have to land in the landing zone or in the endzone. If the ball lands in the end zone, a touchback brings it to the 35. If it lands in the landing zone and rolls into the endzone, a touchback brings it to the 20.

The rules and strategy is to hit the landing zone. Bringing out the 35 is a little painful, thus teams are nudged to kick it short. More returns happen as a result, the league gets what it wants--more returns, but less blow up tackles with full heads of steam.

 

[rmontro]

And yeah, this D will bounce back. It was a head-scratching performance in Dallas, esp without Cee Dee Lamb. But they have a lot of talent at the player/coach level, so I'm not that worried. (I am wondering why Hafley didn't double team Pickens from the start with Lamb out. Hopefully, the game on defense is an outlier.

With the way the NFL is today, with the rules favoring the offense, and the long seasons, even great defenses are going to have some bad days. I'm hoping that's what happened here, and maybe Hafley will make some more adjustments. I believe @tynimiller said the reason for the bad play was because Wyatt got injured. Which I'm sure makes logical sense, but I hate to think that the loss of just one piece can lead to such a complete collapse.

 

[El Guapo]

I believe @tynimiller said the reason for the bad play was because Wyatt got injured. Which I'm sure makes logical sense, but I hate to think that the loss of just one piece can lead to such a complete collapse.

It's really the loss of two pieces - Kenny Clark and Wyatt. Stackhouse and others are what they are....not elite.

 

[tynimiller]

It's really the loss of two pieces - Kenny Clark and Wyatt. Stackhouse and others are what they are....not elite.

I do believe Stackhouse can be every bit of what Slaton was and then some....again though NOT elite.