Vikings studs n duds

[Magooch]

STUDS
Emanuel Wilson - Dude can absolutely be that fill in RB1 for a team. Now could he do this for a full season....who knows, but dude could not be stopped Sunday.

I am sure you know the financial implications better than I do but I'm curious - mentioned it in passing yesterday. If the numbers are right, do you think the team would have any thoughts at all on moving on from Jacobs and rolling with Wilson as RB1? Like I had said it's very premature but he's looked really solid whenever called upon this year. I don't know if the money would be enticing enough to make them do it though.

 

[RRyder]

It's funny. Only a couple of years ago I argued with folks on here that the Lions were going to be the division leaders. It was met with mostly ridicule. Now that the Lions have been there a few years, I'm not going to predict their demise. They are still a good team and just had a solid win yesterday, but like Ivan Drago in Rocky IV, has shown this season that they are not a machine. They are men that are having their own struggles.

The Bears now have Ben Johnson at coach. He seems to be the fire glowing behind these teams. The Bears are starting to play old-time Bears defense again and Caleb Williams and all of their skill positions are finally being used correctly. I don't think that they will win the division this year, but they will be right there and competing in each game until the end.

The Bears may be better than the Lions at this point. Strong arguments can be made for either team, which illustrates the point.

I dont see how you can make that argument at all or how someone can watch this years bears team and think theyre anything other then a .500 team at best thats getting every bounce

Credit to them for being 8-3 with a negative point differential (dont think thats ever happened before) and there aren't style points in the win column but if the Bears make the POs every other NFC PO team is going to be praying to get them as their matchup WC weekend

 

[mradtke66]

Belton/Morgan - I unlike many it seems didn't see great things at RG regardless of who was there.

Belton played better than Morgan to my eye, but that isn't saying much.

 

[mradtke66]

I am sure you know the financial implications better than I do but I'm curious - mentioned it in passing yesterday. If the numbers are right, do you think the team would have any thoughts at all on moving on from Jacobs and rolling with Wilson as RB1?

I don't think so. His base salary jumps next year, but he had a roster bonus this year so the total cap implications are more or less the same. Next year would be the first year we wouldn't be upside down on the deal (14.6 cap hit vs. 6.2 dead cap if we cut him) but his percentage against the cap is surprisingly flat.

4.0% this year, 4.7% next year, 4.9% in 2027.

Maybe you cut him after next year if he's hitting a wall, but he'll still only be 29 when the contract expires, you don't yet have enough of a running back room to consider this, and he's still pretty cheap.

 

[Firethorn1001]

Maybe you cut him after next year if he's hitting a wall, but he'll still only be 29 when the contract expires, you don't yet have enough of a running back room to consider this, and he's still pretty cheap.

Not to mention even if you remotely entertained that (which I don't) with draft picks being at a premium next year don't think you will want to go creating holes on the roster given there will be more pressing needs especially since Lloyd is still a complete unknown.

 

[tynimiller]

I am sure you know the financial implications better than I do but I'm curious - mentioned it in passing yesterday. If the numbers are right, do you think the team would have any thoughts at all on moving on from Jacobs and rolling with Wilson as RB1? Like I had said it's very premature but he's looked really solid whenever called upon this year. I don't know if the money would be enticing enough to make them do it though.

Yes premature but only natural. Let's look over some things though first.

After this season Josh Jacobs would save the Packers $8M by cutting as his cap hit goes up to $14.625M (this year is $11.325M) and just $6.25M of that is dead cap. Still a relatively solid number for a clear RB1. IF the team still thinks they're getting clear RB1 out of Jacobs it doesn't make sense to move on BUT if they feel the RB cliff is approach fast, then $8M saved is not chump change. Matter of fact Jacobs is a prime chance for a small push forward with a small void year push to free up even more money if Gute and company want to push chips in hard and finance future some.

To me you hold serve for sure one more year...reason is both Emanuel Wilson and Chris Brooks are RFAs so if we want to keep them we can for sure make it happen.

But in short, $8M to be able to spend is nothing to overlook either....

 

[tynimiller]

I think the "MLF should pack his bags crowd" was born out of the frustration they felt over his decision making process that they believe may have cost us several games we should have won. So they were feel they are right to feel frustrated.
Speaking for myself I always felt MLF was not capable enough to call plays and manage the overall game with all that entails. The mind boggling losses to lesser teams bear that out.
Hopefully he has come to terms with his own short comings and now can become the leader we need going forward.

Corrected it for you

 

[tynimiller]

Not to mention even if you remotely entertained that (which I don't) with draft picks being at a premium next year don't think you will want to go creating holes on the roster given there will be more pressing needs especially since Lloyd is still a complete unknown.

Yes and no. So let's actually play it out. You're likely not cutting Josh, but trading him. RBs don't garner as much as other players but solid chance you can grab a 5th clean or maybe a pair of Day 3s worst case.

Now you also just freed up $8M that if you want could be flipped into some of the other more pressing holes - because IF you go down the road of departing from Jacobs, you are doing so with the FULL belief that Wilson (barring injury) can be a RB1 level player for you...you have Brooks and Lloyd and you're adding likely a FA or draft pick as well. Not too mention you have Strong on PS we have elevated before and like. There isn't a hole, just a "question mark" which Wilson will have to answer possibly.

I predict we might see some Jacobs news in the off season but it will be a reworked contract or even a small extension to push his fiscal situation deeper into the window with GB.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As someone that has been critical of MLF, I have never proposed that he be fired as HC. What I would like to see him do is hire a full time OC/play caller next year and that OC comes from outside of the organization. Jordan Love and the Packer offense needs a new perspective. They need an OC that does nothing but sit up in the booth, work directly with his staff and can get the play call in to Love quicker than what has been happening since Jordan became the starting QB.

Yes, MLF is a good HC, but he routinely falls short on the total package of what he is trying to do. Which is calling plays, clock management, challenges, time-outs and overall HC decisions as it pertains to the rest of the team.

His comment yesterday after the game at the presser said it all to me:

"We did what we needed to do."

You did Matt, you got the W, but that effort of "just doing what we needed to do" will fall short when you aren't +3 on turnovers and it definitely won't win against better teams, especially when the playoffs roll around.

Expecting your team to "just do what we have to" to win, is really conservative and underachieving to me.

This isn't about running up the score and winning by 20+ points. It is giving your offense the tools and confidence to know that they have more in the tank then "just settling for 3 points", because it looked like it would be enough.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Hopefully he has come to terms with his own short comings and now can become the leader we need going forward.

I agree with your post, except this part. Yesterday didn't really change my mind on MLF's play calling skills. The Packers still burned 2 timeouts due to the play clock getting down to 0. The Packers offense still bogged down due to weak 3rd down calls and settled for FG's. The last of which, I actually didn't have too much of a problem with, since it made it a 3 score game.

I just don't think MLF has developed into a HC that can consistently be a good play caller, while being a solid HC. I hope he realizes this and makes a change in 2026.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes and no. So let's actually play it out. You're likely not cutting Josh, but trading him. RBs don't garner as much as other players but solid chance you can grab a 5th clean or maybe a pair of Day 3s worst case.

Now you also just freed up $8M that if you want could be flipped into some of the other more pressing holes - because IF you go down the road of departing from Jacobs, you are doing so with the FULL belief that Wilson (barring injury) can be a RB1 level player for you...you have Brooks and Lloyd and you're adding likely a FA or draft pick as well. Not too mention you have Strong on PS we have elevated before and like. There isn't a hole, just a "question mark" which Wilson will have to answer possibly.

I predict we might see some Jacobs news in the off season but it will be a reworked contract or even a small extension to push his fiscal situation deeper into the window with GB.

Jacobs isn't going anywhere. I love what Wilson did yesterday, but it was one game. He also only averaged 3.8 yds per carry against a team that has been giving up 4 yds. per carry on the season. So yes, a nice game for a backup RB, but Jacobs is by far the better RB at both running and catching the ball.

"Saving" $8M and picking up a day 3 pick isn't worth giving away your #1 offensive threat. Every team needs 2-3 very capable RB's. Currently, the Packers have 2.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I dont see how you can make that argument at all or how someone can watch this years bears team and think theyre anything other then a .500 team at best thats getting every bounce

Credit to them for being 8-3 with a negative point differential (dont think thats ever happened before) and there aren't style points in the win column but if the Bears make the POs every other NFC PO team is going to be praying to get them as their matchup WC weekend

I have only watched the Bears play a few times this season and not for more than a Q each time. I agree with you and if you look at their schedule and their "wins", they haven't beaten anyone that makes you think "Oh boy, this Bear team is going all the way." To be clear, right now I feel the same way about the Packers.

I also think the NFC North is weaker than it was last year. We have all had the benefit of playing some pretty crappy teams in the NFC East and the AFC North. The Bears next 6 games, Eagles, Packers (2), Lions, 49'ers and Browns will tell us all we need to know about the Bears. I can easily see the Bears going 1-5 in those next games.

 

[Magooch]

As someone that has been critical of MLF, I have never proposed that he be fired as HC. What I would like to see him do is hire a full time OC/play caller next year and that OC comes from outside of the organization. Jordan Love and the Packer offense needs a new perspective. They need an OC that does nothing but sit up in the booth, work directly with his staff and can get the play call in to Love quicker than what has been happening since Jordan became the starting QB.

Yes, MLF is a good HC, but he routinely falls short on the total package of what he is trying to do. Which is calling plays, clock management, challenges, time-outs and overall HC decisions as it pertains to the rest of the team.

His comment yesterday after the game at the presser said it all to me:

"We did what we needed to do."

You did Matt, you got the W, but that effort of "just doing what we needed to do" will fall short when you aren't +3 on turnovers and it definitely won't win against better teams, especially when the playoffs roll around.

Expecting your team to "just do what we have to" to win, is really conservative and underachieving to me.

This isn't about running up the score and winning by 20+ points. It is giving your offense the tools and confidence to know that they have more in the tank then "just settling for 3 points", because it looked like it would be enough.

Yep, I'd pretty much agree with that assessment.
I don't need to win every game by 40 to be satisfied. But it feels like we often are given "openings" to create some distance...and for whatever reason don't seem to inclined to do so.

Of course I cannot bemoan the ultimate result too much. it was a deserved win for us and we were comprehensively the better team.
But that being said, lest we forget, we go into halftime up just 10-6.
We get the ball, and after a couple of chunk plays...we run out of shotgun on 1st and 10 for -1. Run out of shotgun on 2nd and 11 for -4. Then it's incomplete on 3rd and 15, and we're punting.
If not for a bizarre punt-muff-recovery (the kind that you would more likely expect out of our esteemed ST units lol), it's the Vikings ball and they're trailing by 4.

Now of course there's plenty of time left either way at that point. We did very little on offense after scoring from the 5 in that situation, but who's to say how we'd approach things had we not got the ball back in that situation?

And it's frustrating - speaking of doing little on offense after the punt/fumble/TD - as I mentioned in the game thread, it just got so predictable. Following that TD...we get to 3rd and 1 and run it out of shotgun to Wilson. -2 yards, end up punting. Next drive? 3rd and 3 from the 11. Run it out of shotgun to Wilson, -1 yards and take a field goal. And the next drive? Stop me if you've heard this one before. 3rd and short from the 22. Run it to Wilson, 1 yard, take the field goal. Much like the 4th down call against the Eagles, it felt like everyone in the stadium knew exactly what call was coming and reacted accordingly. Two field goals isn't the end of the world, but it felt very much like we were playing FOR the field goal at that point and that we valued 3 points and shaving a few more seconds off the clock over pushing for 6.

I get the whole playing-it-safe for health, saving the players for Thursday, not showing much, etc angle of it. That would kind of make sense to me, except it feels like this has been a running theme all year. First and second down, we're playing for third down. Third down within field goal range, we're playing for the field goal (which is all the more confusing given our topsy-turvy kicking situation). None of these are MAJOR issues and to some extent there is still "time" but they're also things that I'd rather see sorted out sooner than later. And I've just got a hard time with the idea that LaFleur is just playing 4D chess while everyone else is playing checkers to manage his players, game situation, etc lol

 

[tynimiller]

Jacobs isn't going anywhere. I love what Wilson did yesterday, but it was one game. He also only averaged 3.8 yds per carry against a team that has been giving up 4 yds. per carry on the season. So yes, a nice game for a backup RB, but Jacobs is by far the better RB at both running and catching the ball.

"Saving" $8M and picking up a day 3 pick isn't worth giving away your #1 offensive threat. Every team needs 2-3 very capable RB's. Currently, the Packers have 2.

I know you don't think I meant that, but incase any fools reading this believe that - go back and read it, it was playing out the logic behind doing such and what that would mean.

And honestly to elaborate more, I'd likely discuss doing a one year extension with Jacobs, essentially shift his contract one year deeper but with similar hit and dead while maybe adding $2-$4M in void money if we put it to real good use (or save that as an option).


I would push back against him being our #1 Offensive Threat. He is the most often used threat but I would put Kraft and Watson above him for sure IMO

 

[El Guapo]

McDuffie is their most intellligent LB and might be the highest football IQ on the defensive side overall - his physical limitations is his only hurdle.

I heard the same about @longtimefan

 

[Magooch]

Just to play devil's advocate too...
YES, Jacobs has had roughly double the carries that Wilson has...BUT Wilson has 80+, which IMO is at least enough to get a pretty decent "read" from...

Yards per carry:
Wilson 4.0
Jacobs 3.8

Long rush:
Wilson 15
Jacobs 19

Yards per rec:
Wilson 6.7
Jacobs 8.5

Rush success rate (a run that gets at least 40% of required yards on 1st down, 60% of required yards on 2nd down, and 100% of required yards on 3rd/4th down)
Wilson 55.6
Jacobs 52.1

Passing success rate (a reception that gets at least 40% of required yards on 1st down, 60% of required yards on 2nd down, and 100% of required yards on 3rd/4th down)
Wilson 53.3
Jacobs 51.4

Scrimmage yards per touch
Wilson 4.4
Jacobs 4.5

Can he sustain that if workload doubled? I don't know for sure. But overall there is not a ton of distance between the two right now on a per play basis

 

[OldSchool101]

It was the series where we ran 3 times in a row and then kicked an easy field goal for a 14 point lead. We could have at least tried to go up by 3 scores. He didn't even try. That lacks the killer instinct to me. He's always overly concerned about burning clock. Hell, I'm very happy with the win. Just don't believe in allowing a team to stick around if you don't have to.

um. We did go up 3 scores didn’t we? How did we get there? It’s called thinking ahead. You didn’t need 7 points you needed 6 points for a 3 score game.

23-6 =17

Imagine had we went for a TD and missed? So we go stay up 11 pts and give MN some extra encouragement?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I know you don't think I meant that, but incase any fools reading this believe that - go back and read it, it was playing out the logic behind doing such and what that would mean.

And honestly to elaborate more, I'd likely discuss doing a one year extension with Jacobs, essentially shift his contract one year deeper but with similar hit and dead while maybe adding $2-$4M in void money if we put it to real good use (or save that as an option).


I would push back against him being our #1 Offensive Threat. He is the most often used threat but I would put Kraft and Watson above him for sure IMO

Oh for sure, I wasn't disagreeing with you and I am glad that you recognized that. If anything I was adding to your notion that Jacobs is here to stay. A new deal, with an extension, I would agree with you on.

I believe Jacobs missed his first game yesterday as a Packer. So, as far as other players like Kraft and Watson being #1 threats, they have to stay healthy to be a threat. The drop in the offense without Kraft is noticeable. If Watson hadn't come back recently, where would the Packers be without Jacobs, Kraft and Watson?

Jacobs is a special kind of RB and while I am fine with having Wilson as his backup, it would be silly to trade Jacobs away for a day 3 pick and then rely on Wilson to do what Jacobs has done. I am never opposed to drafting RB's but as we have seen (in the NFL) way too many times, that is a crapshoot as well.

Stick with a proven and reliable RB, that isn't a big drag on your salary cap.

 

[chemist]

Yep, I'd pretty much agree with that assessment.
I don't need to win every game by 40 to be satisfied. But it feels like we often are given "openings" to create some distance...and for whatever reason don't seem to inclined to do so.

Of course I cannot bemoan the ultimate result too much. it was a deserved win for us and we were comprehensively the better team.
But that being said, lest we forget, we go into halftime up just 10-6.
We get the ball, and after a couple of chunk plays...we run out of shotgun on 1st and 10 for -1. Run out of shotgun on 2nd and 11 for -4. Then it's incomplete on 3rd and 15, and we're punting.
If not for a bizarre punt-muff-recovery (the kind that you would more likely expect out of our esteemed ST units lol), it's the Vikings ball and they're trailing by 4.

Now of course there's plenty of time left either way at that point. We did very little on offense after scoring from the 5 in that situation, but who's to say how we'd approach things had we not got the ball back in that situation?

And it's frustrating - speaking of doing little on offense after the punt/fumble/TD - as I mentioned in the game thread, it just got so predictable. Following that TD...we get to 3rd and 1 and run it out of shotgun to Wilson. -2 yards, end up punting. Next drive? 3rd and 3 from the 11. Run it out of shotgun to Wilson, -1 yards and take a field goal. And the next drive? Stop me if you've heard this one before. 3rd and short from the 22. Run it to Wilson, 1 yard, take the field goal. Much like the 4th down call against the Eagles, it felt like everyone in the stadium knew exactly what call was coming and reacted accordingly. Two field goals isn't the end of the world, but it felt very much like we were playing FOR the field goal at that point and that we valued 3 points and shaving a few more seconds off the clock over pushing for 6.

I get the whole playing-it-safe for health, saving the players for Thursday, not showing much, etc angle of it. That would kind of make sense to me, except it feels like this has been a running theme all year. First and second down, we're playing for third down. Third down within field goal range, we're playing for the field goal (which is all the more confusing given our topsy-turvy kicking situation). None of these are MAJOR issues and to some extent there is still "time" but they're also things that I'd rather see sorted out sooner than later. And I've just got a hard time with the idea that LaFleur is just playing 4D chess while everyone else is playing checkers to manage his players, game situation, etc lol

Your blow by blow description of the sequence of play calling running from the shotgun hit the nail on the head.
Ive seen very few if any positive plays from our offense when trying runs out of the shotgun. What does work for us if you want to run the ball is play action with love under center. Why MLF insists on using shotgun is beyond me. Im sure he must review film from every game so how can you be oblivious to the obvious. Under center, play acttion works!!!!
As far as the 3rd and short, 4th and short calls that left us with FGs, this is where i see MLF lacking the time and brain power to think things thru before employing the proper strategy , just trying to get plays into love in a timely manner leaves very little time for any thing else ,no critical thinking, no assessing the overall game situation, just get the play in.
He needs to take a step back and delgate some of those other functions if he wants to be the play caller.
Yes we did have some lucky breaks in that game, especially the vikings fumbling that punt. Thats not something that will happen very often so its not someyhing you can rely on . Even that last INT was a bit of luck as the receiver was open in front of our defender so a more direct pass would have been caught instead of the looping pass that went over their receivers head.
Anyway we have a very good D so I feel we can keep the lions at bay, dont have to worry much about a screambling QB like Hurts or caleb willams as Goff is not much of a runner, but we do need to put enough points on the board as we may not have the same amount of luck on thanksgiving

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Let's also not forget that Emanuel Wilson becomes a RFA after this season. While that doesn't mean that he won't be a Packer in 2026, it does meant that he won't automatically be a Packer in 2026. I also don't think there will be a lot of teams throwing big money at him or at least enough that the Packers won't match it.

 

[Heyjoe4]

No, just the noisy ones that typically once you get talking to them couldn't tell you even half the guys that are playing in expiring contracts or discuss basic performance levels beyond just looking at yards or sacks...

Yeah I get it. It's irritating whenever uninformed people make these kinds of "demands" when they are - well, uninformed.

Back to MLF, he has done a great job in the huge, huge transition from Rodgers to Love. He does have some stubborn traits that I find confusing, but certainly not a reason to call for his head.

As for this forum, I've found most people to be reasonable and reasoned in their comments. But at this point in the season, and aside from some head-scratching losses, the team is 7-3-1, 2-0 in the North, and despite injuries, well positioned to win the North.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just to play devil's advocate too...
YES, Jacobs has had roughly double the carries that Wilson has...BUT Wilson has 80+, which IMO is at least enough to get a pretty decent "read" from...

Yards per carry:
Wilson 4.0
Jacobs 3.8

Long rush:
Wilson 15
Jacobs 19

Yards per rec:
Wilson 6.7
Jacobs 8.5

Rush success rate (a run that gets at least 40% of required yards on 1st down, 60% of required yards on 2nd down, and 100% of required yards on 3rd/4th down)
Wilson 55.6
Jacobs 52.1

Passing success rate (a reception that gets at least 40% of required yards on 1st down, 60% of required yards on 2nd down, and 100% of required yards on 3rd/4th down)
Wilson 53.3
Jacobs 51.4

Scrimmage yards per touch
Wilson 4.4
Jacobs 4.5

Can he sustain that if workload doubled? I don't know for sure. But overall there is not a ton of distance between the two right now on a per play basis

Just to play devils advocate to your devils advocate

I am guessing that when the Vikings learned Jacobs was a scratch their DC let out a sigh of relief. Defending against a RB like Jacobs is more difficult, IMO, than a guy like Wilson. So looking at just stats by each of the RB's can be a bit deceiving. Throw in who they have played against, game situations, OL health, etc. and its a bit more complicated.

I also think you summed it up well with asking the question of: "Can he sustain that if workload doubled?" More importantly, can he sustain that over a career being the #1 back? Jacobs has 1775 carries for 7522 yds. Wilson has 198 carries for 914 yds. Throw in receptions and you really create some ability/accomplishment distance. Jacobs 261 receptions for 2027 yds. Wilson 28 rec. for 158 yds.

Now one might say that the tread on Jacobs tires is more worn, so a guy like Wilson could offer you more in the future. I agree with that, but that is why you hold on to both RB's.

 

[tynimiller]

Oh for sure, I wasn't disagreeing with you and I am glad that you recognized that. If anything I was adding to your notion that Jacobs is here to stay. A new deal, with an extension, I would agree with you on.

I believe Jacobs missed his first game yesterday as a Packer. So, as far as other players like Kraft and Watson being #1 threats, they have to stay healthy to be a threat. The drop in the offense without Kraft is noticeable. If Watson hadn't come back recently, where would the Packers be without Jacobs, Kraft and Watson?

Jacobs is a special kind of RB and while I am fine with having Wilson as his backup, it would be silly to trade Jacobs away for a day 3 pick and then rely on Wilson to do what Jacobs has done. I am never opposed to drafting RB's but as we have seen (in the NFL) way too many times, that is a crapshoot as well.

Stick with a proven and reliable RB, that isn't a big drag on your salary cap.

Now I will say I'm doing the extension to push money and likely dealying the departure of him one year. I think right now 2026 is his last season with us, this would make 2027 his last.

We will pay Kraft. We will pay Reed or Watson.

About the time we start paying those guys, maybe Wyatt too...it will be time to find Jacobs replacement asap from a fiscal savings point.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As for this forum, I've found most people to be reasonable and reasoned in their comments. But at this point in the season, and aside from some head-scratching losses, the team is 7-3-1, 2-0 in the North, and despite injuries, well positioned to win the North.

Agree. I think most of us are looking for ways to improve and that might come off as being dissatisfied. While I can't speak for anyone else, I am not dissatisfied with this season. A well informed Packer fan knows that a 7-3-1 record is nothing to scoff at, but IMO, it could be a better record. More importantly, this Packer team, 11 games in, could be a better team. Right now the defense is playing well, but against the top tier teams, with solid defenses, I don't think the Packer offense can compete. That may win you the North, but probably won't get you to a Super Bowl.

 

[Magooch]

That's pretty much where I land, too. On one hand, if you told me in the preseason we'd have 7 wins (or just 3 losses) by week 12, I'd be perfectly content with that.

And as was pointed out earlier today (I think), to be the only team to have NO losses of greater than 7+ points, that's a great thing...

...but, at the same time, each of those losses - by just a field goal - all felt like games where we fell way short of potential. So we can look at 7-3-1 and that's great, but it's also hard to shake the feeling that we really "should" be more like 8-2-1 or 9-1-1. And if we had a loss or two where it felt like we were just comprehensively outplayed by an opponent who was clearly superior to us - it is what it is. I can live with those. But I don't think that's the case. In each of our losses this year it's really felt like we've got in our own way - it's felt like it's as much that we played poorly as our opponent played well.

Then you have games like the Bengals, the Cardinals, even the Giants to some extent - where we got the W, but still didn't play particularly great football.

And I know - you don't win points for style or for playing "pretty" and all that, I get that. But I guess my point is that - to me, anyways - it just feels like in most our games this year (win or lose) we've left a lot on the table, so to speak.

I've said for a few weeks now how it's mildly concerning that it seemed like by far our best football came in weeks 1 and 2 and hasn't matched that level since then. That's still a concern of mine. On the whole, I feel like we have yet to turn in a really "complete" performance, for the most part. (By that I mean a win in which it doesn't have that "points left on the table" feeling. Highly subjective of course)

And to be fair you can take that two directions. One is to say that we're just stuck in a spot of "not quite there yet" and we probably have a pretty good idea of who this team is by this point. The other is to say that we've yet to put together a complete performance and are still 7-3-1, in a very good position, and (when/if) we put together a complete performance we'll be all the stronger for it. I can lean both ways depending on the day and game lol