The Official Pack-Queens Discussion Thread

[Pugger]

Well, to be honest, I'm never going to take that last week in 2015 into consideration. The Packers, like anyone else with a brain, realized that Washington was a far easier opponent than Seattle. There is no way a competent individual would go BALLS OUT to beat the Vikings and earn the more difficult playoff game. As such, I think using that game as a true measuring stick is flawed. There were other factors involved.

But had we won the division was it a foregone conclusion we would have faced Seattle?

[gbgary]

That's four word

no...it's one number and three words. ha!

[King Friday]

But had we won the division was it a foregone conclusion we would have faced Seattle?

Yes, because the Cardinals had nothing to play for that week. They had already locked up a first round bye and weren't going to catch Carolina for #1 overall. Which is precisely why Seattle rolled over them by like 30 points. It was a rather obvious outcome.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I played exactly one semester of competitive football, so I'll defer to the guys on the board who know, like Vince, kypack, harv, pb etc. But how does a football player -- especially a pro football player of any quality -- play less than balls out? I'd always heard that's an invitation to injury.

[King Friday]

But how does a football player -- especially a pro football player of any quality -- play less than balls out? I'd always heard that's an invitation to injury.

I don't think it was the players...they should always be going all out because their paycheck depends on it.

It would be the coaches...in terms of play-calling, making substitutions, etc. I'm not saying that the Packers threw the game...but if it starts not looking like your day, are you really going to go all William Wallace to inspire the troops knowing it very, very likely means you'll be playing Seattle instead of Washington?

I remember saying before the game that week that I would rather lose and play Washington...it was BETTER for the Packers in terms of their chances to reach and win the Super Bowl. That is the ultimate decision maker IMO. You can't tell me that bit of knowledge was missing in the back of the minds of the coaches, and that it would not influence their decisions to SOME extent.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I don't think it was the players...they should always be going all out because their paycheck depends on it.

It would be the coaches...in terms of play-calling, making substitutions, etc. I'm not saying that the Packers threw the game...but if it starts not looking like your day, are you really going to go all William Wallace to inspire the troops knowing it very, very likely means you'll be playing Seattle instead of Washington?

I remember saying before the game that week that I would rather lose and play Washington...it was BETTER for the Packers in terms of their chances to reach and win the Super Bowl. That is the ultimate decision maker IMO. You can't tell me that bit of knowledge was missing in the back of the minds of the coaches, and that it would not influence their decisions to SOME extent.

I'm not discounting what you say. I'm just wondering if such a thing happens. I know there can be unintentional let downs, like when you're 40 points down with 10 minutes to go.

Knowing McCarthy, it just doesn't seem like something he's capable of doing. I could be wrong. Playing 2nd and 3rd string players in a "doesn't matter" game at the end of the season, for instance, we know happens.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Yes, because the Cardinals had nothing to play for that week. They had already locked up a first round bye and weren't going to catch Carolina for #1 overall. Which is precisely why Seattle rolled over them by like 30 points. It was a rather obvious outcome.

Had Pack not laid an egg and won the North, and with that game being the last game of the 2015 regular season, they would've faced Minnesota again at Lambeau the following week, not Seattle.

Patler will confirm that as a fact.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

On the other hand, Rodgers threw well short of his receiver a couple times again, just as we saw often in 2015; he completed less than 60% of his passes, gained a mediocre 199 yards passing and averaged less than 6 yards per attempt. He extended his string of games with a QB rating less than 100 to 13 consecutive games, and 15 of his last 16 games. Prior to the current string, he had never gone more than 4 games without achieving a QBR greater than 100, and that happened only once, I think. For perspective, his career QBR is 104.1. He has been less than his career average for 13 consecutive games.

Cobb and Nelson had six receptions each, but gained just 57 and 32 yards, respectively.

I think this is an indication that the Packers passing games is not fixed yet.

Good post. Might be time to bench Rodgers in fantasy.

Offensive staff needs to get Cook involved more in the game plan. Gotta find a way to isolate Cook against LBers and safeties.

[Upnorth]

Good post. Might be time to bench Rodgers in fantasy.

Offensive staff needs to get Cook involved more in the game plan. Gotta find a way to isolate Cook against LBers and safeties.

Dust off the jmike plays. Jennings, Nelson Jones have some similarities to Nelson Cobb adams. I think our oline is better, so why not dance with the one that brought you to the show.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Kendricks is listed at 232 lbs. He looks way more than that.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Dust off the jmike plays. Jennings, Nelson Jones have some similarities to Nelson Cobb adams. I think our oline is better, so why not dance with the one that brought you to the show.

Agree.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Kendricks is listed at 232 lbs. He looks way more than that.

Kendricks looks like a Nick Barnett clone to me.

Many folks seek to discredit Barnett cos he was a Sherman pick, but Barnett was a pretty good ILB/MIB for the Pack. Loved the vampire mouth guard and samurai celebration.

[Fritz]

I don't usually find reasons to "bet" against the Packers, but I don't have a good feeling about this game, so I went with my gut. My biggest concerns are:

- success passing last week was on extended/broken plays, not the offense clicking.
- lots of miscommunications
- new stadium is said to be even louder than the old one, and specifically designed to be so
- fans will be rabid in the opening game of the new stadium.
- MN defense is solid front to back, with 1 or 2 really good ones at each level.

None of this bodes well for Packer's offense.

Packers will be quite inexperienced on defense, Ringo, Clark, Lowry, Martinez, Evans and Brice could all play significant rolls and have one game of experience. Thomas, Ryan, Rollins and Gunter could as well and have limited experience less than a year. Could be a difficult game for them.

To me, this is one of those typical early-season Packer losses. Offense doesn't have it's poop in a group, team not really cohesive yet. Plus Minny will sky-high in their new stadium, and Rodgers will not be able to pick apart that D. Later in the seaso n, if the team gels, this loss will be but a distant memory.

[Smidgeon]

They lack a stud, and I doubt Jordy can make a full comeback. The pleasant surprise has been Adams flashing big play ability.

Yep. I want Rodgers to have one with oozing talent at least once. Favre had Sterling and for a year Walker (I'm too young to remember how good Brooks was). Rodgers has had several that have maxed out their abilities, but no absolute talents.

I know a lot of people love Driver, but I always thought he was the quintessential "get the most out of your abilities" kind of guy.

[run pMc]

Kendricks is 6'0" so he's on the short side. That's why he looks bigger. Greenway is 6'4" and looks lankier.