Week 1 Packers @ Saints (game thread)

PackerfaninCarolina

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
311
R. E. L. A. X. We're not very good! King is out there because we have no one who's better at the moment. That's both scary and sad.

Well his contract was up at the end of last year, and once SJC comes back I'd bench King for him. He can't be any worse.

We went from having Super Bowl hopes to looking seriously bad. Well, that took all of one game.
And this was Rodgers' worst loss as a starter. Is it just coincidence that this happens after all the drama during the offseason?

I fear this is the consequence of potentially telling or at least not toning down the rumor that this is his last year here. Now, contrary to the tin foil hat wearing nut jobs here I don't believe he is trying to make us lose as he has always hated losing and hates sour tastes in his mouth. But given what he's seen of this s***ty Barry defense and makeshift OL, I'd say we can pretty much bank on him not putting on that superhero cape anymore trying to bail us out all the time.
 

Crow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
1,512
Reaction score
190
R. E. L. A. X. We're not very good! King is out there because we have no one who's better at the moment. That's both scary and sad.
Oh yes they do. Stokes is better than King right now. And so is Sullivan.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
6,536
Reaction score
1,515
Location
PENDING
Images from the game I thought told the story.

Aaron Rodgers on the sideline after his 2nd INT. Kicking back by a fan looking like he doesn't have a care in the world. A little later, Winston is on the sidelines. He is with a tablet and 2 coaches talking and discussing the defense.

Not only was Rodgers outplayed by Winston, but out-studied, and out-cared.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
26,046
Reaction score
1,542
On the bright side the Packers are still tied for first in the division after week 1. And on top of it, the Bucs lost 38-3 to the Saints last year as well. Super Bowl, here we come!!!

Other than that I really don't want to talk about that game anymore.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
4,510
Reaction score
345
Just....wow. Yeah, it's only one game but it was so bad from start to finish that I have to wonder if last year with our zenith and will take a big step back this year
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,039
Reaction score
1,036
Did anyone else notice how many times guys like MVS were lined up on the wrong side? When it takes until :02 on the play clock just to get in formation, plus you’ve got to be thinking “do these guys even understand the play?” It can’t be the best outcome.
We lost at least a month of practice. That’s significant
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
505
Reaction score
154
The game was ugly for sure. I'm not super worried at this point though. 1 loss on a 17 game season in week 1. How many week 1 wins and losses do you guys remember from seasons past? I think a lot of the issues came from lack of preseason play and just overall preparedness. Saints were ready to go and the Packers looked like a team that had not practiced much together. One other thing to keep in mind. The Saints beat the Bucs last year 38-3. It is a long season gentleman. Settle down and settle in. I think things will turn around.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
238
Location
Northern IL
The Saints beat the Bucs last year 38-3. It is a long season gentleman. Settle down and settle in. I think things will turn around.
The Bucs had a new QB (Brady), TE (Gronk) and OT (Wirfs). The Packers had 100% of their skill players returning & 2 new OL's. Not buying that the situations are similar, or that the chance of another NFC Championship is in the works. Confusion, lack of desire and mistakes on nearly every play don't look good in green & gold. This team has 1 game to turn things around and gel into a motivated unit because weeks 3-11 could be REALLY ugly if they don't.
 

Krabs

I take offense to that sir.
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
505
Reaction score
154
The Bucs had a new QB (Brady), TE (Gronk) and OT (Wirfs). The Packers had 100% of their skill players returning & 2 new OL's. Not buying that the situations are similar, or that the chance of another NFC Championship is in the works. Confusion, lack of desire and mistakes on nearly every play don't look good in green & gold. This team has 1 game to turn things around and gel into a motivated unit because weeks 3-11 could be REALLY ugly if they don't.
I'm not saying they are the same situations. I'm just saying there is time to turn things around and using that as an example of how teams can grow together through the year. Year to year is different in the NFL regardless of players coming back. It certainly could get ugly. There's no doubt about that. I'm just saying that we shouldn't overact to a week 1 game. Clearly they were not ready. I have a feeling that this will not be the case week in and week out. As I said, settle in. Take the good with the bad and GPG boys.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
4,999
Reaction score
907
I’m sorry for you and not in a smart way. I know you kinda idolize him. I just think he’s human is all. This is what happens when you put yourself above others snd start pointing fingers. It’s almost like clockwork and the fall is hard.
Did you miss the part where I said he played miserably bad?
 

PackerfaninCarolina

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
311
I'm not saying they are the same situations. I'm just saying there is time to turn things around and using that as an example of how teams can grow together through the year. Year to year is different in the NFL regardless of players coming back. It certainly could get ugly. There's no doubt about that. I'm just saying that we shouldn't overact to a week 1 game. Clearly they were not ready. I have a feeling that this will not be the case week in and week out. As I said, settle in. Take the good with the bad and GPG boys.

It is I think actually a fair comparison in some ways, just that the problems we're facing could be coming from beyond just a bad day on the field.

In similarity, obviously that loss for Tampa Bay didn't accurately reflect their true talent as a team and likewise I don't believe yesterday's game reflected that on us quite accurately either. But that's right about where I think the similarity stops.

You look and you see a few glaring things that may not go away as easily as we hope. I mean seeing the look in Rodgers face and him just looking like an old tired guy who had aged about 10 years since last year. I mean, he's had bad years and certainly shown looks of defeat before, but man ... I don't think even at those low points I have never seen it that bad. I just get this nagging feeling that as long as the elephant in the room about this being last year for Rodgers and the question about his future hangs around, the bigger the distraction its going to be as the season goes on.

Other problem is Tampa Bay in the weeks prior to and after that game showed they had a defense that was likely to be a force, one way or another. For us, very little evidence that our long time complaints about that side of the ball have been addressed. I guarantee yesterday will not be the last time all of Packer nation will be yelling at their TVs about it this season.

Also, it always feels like whenever LaFleur's offense gets caught on by the opponent, he never seems to have answers on how to fix that whether it's figuring them out in that game or getting a better game plan together the second time. Other teams do seem to figure out how to do it.


Anyway, this next game I believe will be a get right game for them, but I can't say winning cures all here. Beating a bad Detroit team should be the bare minimum of what our team does and isn't exactly going to make me happy even if we blow them out. This team needs to be able to get out and win in statement games, especially on the road against opponents like SF, AZ and BAL. If they don't, not only is playoff seeding at risk, but they'll have never gotten over critical psychological humps needed to show they're back to Superbowl caliber.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
6,039
Reaction score
1,036
Did you miss the part where I said he played miserably bad?
Hey it happens. It’s not fun to be a fan and watch that. It’s a long season and we have a high ceiling, particularly on Offense.
I’m not making excuses for them they need to own it. However going from 70 degrees to basically 100 mixed with limited practice and on the road week 1 against what appears to be a pretty decent Defense? That’s a recipe for this kinda outcome.
On a bright note, losing by 1 point or 35 points is the same on the Win Loss chart, but losing by 5 scores should conceivably motivate guys to work harder.

I’m mildly concerned, but I’m confident they can 100% rebound from that lazy game 1 approach. I wonder how much $ I could’ve won betting on #12 to throw 0 TDs to 2 INT’s. What are those odds?
 

LetzBreel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
329
Reaction score
87
Hey it happens. It’s not fun to be a fan and watch that. It’s a long season and we have a high ceiling, particularly on Offense.
I’m not making excuses for them they need to own it. However going from 70 degrees to basically 100 mixed with limited practice and on the road week 1 against what appears to be a pretty decent Defense? That’s a recipe for this kinda outcome.
On a bright note, losing by 1 point or 35 points is the same on the Win Loss chart, but losing by 5 scores should conceivably motivate guys to work harder.

I’m mildly concerned, but I’m confident they can 100% rebound from that lazy game 1 approach. I wonder how much $ I could’ve won betting on #12 to throw 0 TDs to 2 INT’s. What are those odds?
Pretty good I'd say since we are back to that horrible body language he has. It really did look like the Packers went down to the liquor store and asked a bum if he wanted to be their QB. Disgusting.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,058
Reaction score
825
PFF individual grades glean as much as or confirm what I felt about the game as a whole.

Top 5 Offensive players include our back up QB (Love) and then 4 blockers. Jenkins was highest and in 41 pass blocking situations allowed only 1 pressure. Marcedes was the next highest and did awesome blocking as usual and threw in the 19 yard reception. Myers and Patrick were the other two, with Patrick only slipping into the mix despite the multiple pressures allowed by his run blocking - which was one of the best of the OL on the day.

Worst 5 Offensive players are of no shock...Jones, Lazard, Rodgers, Daffney and Tonyan. Non graded higher than a miserable 55, and four beneath 51.

Top 5 Defensive players were Preston (86.3) followed next by Stokes (79.3), Jaire (75.9), Amos (75.1) and Burks (73.8) - be cautious with Burks as it was based on 7 snaps. Likewise Stokes saw just eight snaps - albeit seemingly did well on those 8. Supports my concept the secondary did well and wasn't the main issue for the day.

Worst of the day on defense, with NONE getting a higher rating than 47.1 (Rivers) and in order highest to lowest: Rivers, King, Garvin, Barnes and Keke.

Article you can find the results if you don't have PFF access is https://packerswire.usatoday.com/lists/packers-pff-grades-best-worst-players-from-week-1-vs-saints/
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
277
Packers defense was somehow worse than the offense, which featured Aaron Rodger's worst game ever. That's really all that needs to be said.

In other news, the Saints beat the Bucs 38-3 last November so I'm saying the Packers win the Super Bowl this year.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
277
PFF individual grades glean as much as or confirm what I felt about the game as a whole.

Top 5 Offensive players include our back up QB (Love) and then 4 blockers. Jenkins was highest and in 41 pass blocking situations allowed only 1 pressure. Marcedes was the next highest and did awesome blocking as usual and threw in the 19 yard reception. Myers and Patrick were the other two, with Patrick only slipping into the mix despite the multiple pressures allowed by his run blocking - which was one of the best of the OL on the day.

Worst 5 Offensive players are of no shock...Jones, Lazard, Rodgers, Daffney and Tonyan. Non graded higher than a miserable 55, and four beneath 51.

Top 5 Defensive players were Preston (86.3) followed next by Stokes (79.3), Jaire (75.9), Amos (75.1) and Burks (73.8) - be cautious with Burks as it was based on 7 snaps. Likewise Stokes saw just eight snaps - albeit seemingly did well on those 8. Supports my concept the secondary did well and wasn't the main issue for the day.

Worst of the day on defense, with NONE getting a higher rating than 47.1 (Rivers) and in order highest to lowest: Rivers, King, Garvin, Barnes and Keke.

Article you can find the results if you don't have PFF access is https://packerswire.usatoday.com/lists/packers-pff-grades-best-worst-players-from-week-1-vs-saints/

Key to this article is that those blockers are being judged "better" relative to the other players on offense, so that doesn't mean they were all actually good. Jenkins was good and I think that was about it.

I also doubt the intelligence of that article's writer if they're including a player that only played 7 snaps.

Edit: Just read the article and saw that the blockers' grades were actually decent...there were 3 olinemen and 1 TE in that group of 4 so I have to assume that Royce Newman and Billy Turner were negative scores?
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,058
Reaction score
825
Key to this article is that those blockers are being judged "better" relative to the other players on offense, so that doesn't mean they were all actually good. Jenkins was good and I think that was about it.

I also doubt the intelligence of that article's writer if they're including a player that only played 7 snaps.

Edit: Just read the article and saw that the blockers' grades were actually decent...there were 3 olinemen and 1 TE in that group of 4 so I have to assume that Royce Newman and Billy Turner were negative scores?

Not at all, and PFF grades are not relative to teammates performance the play of each individual is graded. This occurs every week and compiled yearly.

Negative numbers didn’t occur and this writer essentially just narrative highs and lows of the grades at PFF, the grades were not their own.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
277
Not at all, and PFF grades are not relative to teammates performance the play of each individual is graded. This occurs every week and compiled yearly.

Negative numbers didn’t occur and this writer essentially just narrative highs and lows of the grades at PFF, the grades were not their own.

Sorry, I meant that if everyone else graded out at a 40, then a 52 might have on of the best grades but it's still a terrible grade.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,171
Reaction score
316
On the bright side the Packers are still tied for first in the division after week 1. And on top of it, the Bucs lost 38-3 to the Saints last year as well.
Interesting. We've all seen teams lay huge eggs but then turn things around and win it all by season's end. I wouldn't want to adopt that as a strategy, but it's early still, could happen.

On the other hand, this also has the feel of where we get killed by a team during the regular season, and then meet them in the playoffs and they beat us again. Our postseasons have been a revolving question of what team is going to beat us this year? Could be the answer to that this season is the Saints.

I'm not going to blame this on Rodgers, because we couldn't run the ball. I think the offense will come around, but that defense worries me.
 

LetzBreel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
329
Reaction score
87
Interesting. We've all seen teams lay huge eggs but then turn things around and win it all by season's end. I wouldn't want to adopt that as a strategy, but it's early still, could happen.

On the other hand, this also has the feel of where we get killed by a team during the regular season, and then meet them in the playoffs and they beat us again. Our postseasons have been a revolving question of what team is going to beat us this year? Could be the answer to that this season is the Saints.

I'm not going to blame this on Rodgers, because we couldn't run the ball. I think the offense will come around, but that defense worries me.
I respectfully disagree with the thought that the blame isn't on #12. To be sure, the defense is defenseless. It was gassed by the 2nd quarter. It looks just as bad as it ever has. Here's why I put the blame on #12 though. He had a chance to take the offense on long drives at least a couple of times. Long drives accomplish a couple of things. Clock dominance and giving the defense precious resting time especially when it's 100 degrees. The problem is that this defense is so bad that it probably wouldn't have made a difference. We will never know.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
805
Reaction score
67
Watch coach did we have that wouldn't allow the term "Super Bowl" spoken anywhere,
Holmgren or McCarthy??

So far this preseason that's mention a lot, maybe we're jump'n the gun here.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
6,058
Reaction score
825
Watch coach did we have that wouldn't allow the term "Super Bowl" spoken anywhere,
Holmgren or McCarthy??

So far this preseason that's mention a lot, maybe we're jump'n the gun here.

A lot? By whom and in what context? Lot have spoken to the hunger of the team, the nature of the team, many in general terms have spoken to the knowledge of the goal but I don’t hear folks perpetually speaking about the Super Bowl as you state.
 
Top