Official 2019 Pick The Packers Win/Loss Record Thread

[Freak Out]

16-0

[pbmax]

Right, but it won't be rubbed in dirt.

I think Fritz views his prediction of 5-11 or 6-10 as being "in the dirt".

[texaspackerbacker]

Bears on the road ......, first game with a new coach and offensive system hahahaha ....... I was just curious, was this one of the 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 the Packers were supposed to lose? Gosh, next week we play the powerful Vikings hahahahaha; Is THAT supposed to be one of ya'all's 5-10 losses?

I'm just kinda wondering, which teams do ya'all think are better than the Packers?

Yeah, go ahead and drop a flag on me for taunting hahahahahahahahahaha.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

16-0

I beat ya to it. Imma extremist - the true, just extremists - after all.

[RashanGary]

Yeah, go ahead and drop a flag on me for taunting hahahahahahahahahaha.

You take your flack like a man when it’s there. You earn it to say something. You’ve made sense
To me lately. I used to get distracted by your big personality, but you’re consistent and do know what you’re talking about in a lot of ways

[mraynrand]

Bears on the road ......, first game with a new coach and offensive system hahahaha ....... I was just curious, was this one of the 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 the Packers were supposed to lose? Gosh, next week we play the powerful Vikings hahahahaha; Is THAT supposed to be one of ya'all's 5-10 losses?

I'm just kinda wondering, which teams do ya'all think are better than the Packers?

Yeah, go ahead and drop a flag on me for taunting hahahahahahahahahaha.

I'm of course pleased with the win, but sure, that game was one that you'd think they'd struggle with. I'll remind you that NE was 11-5 and K.C. was 12-4 last year, both worse records than your prediction for the Packers. Your prediction isn't really all that realistic given the recent history of this team, history of first year coaches, strength of competition, etc. But I do hope you're right and will rub our noses in it all year.

[Fritz]

Wow. A non-emotional assessment of where Gary's actually at.

Fritz, are you okay?

Just a momentary slip up. It won't happen again.

[pbmax]

Am I wrong or does someone usually predict 0-16 in this thread annually?

[pbmax]

Just a momentary slip up. It won't happen again.

Didn't quite BJ Sander him.

[texaspackerbacker]

You take your flack like a man when it’s there. You earn it to say something. You’ve made sense
To me lately. I used to get distracted by your big personality, but you’re consistent and do know what you’re talking about in a lot of ways

hahahahaha Big uh, personality? Is that some sort of a "that's what she said" joke?

Anyway, thanks. I'm glad to see at least one of ya'all is coming around (although several others aren't too far off either).

I'm just going primarily by observation, as I do so much in FYI and life in general, and what I observe is that this Packers team is better than just about anybody. The Pats and Chiefs might be exceptions, but it's damn close even there. And of course, shit happens and you blow a game once in a while - hopefully not often, though, with Aaron Rodgers and a head coach who is, I'll say guardedly, fairly sensible.

[Fritz]

We'll see. I hope you're right, but one game, as promising as that defense looks, does not a season make.

For your prediction to come even close to being right, that offense has a l-o-n-g way to go. That was a clown show.

[texaspackerbacker]

True, the offense has to improve, but the fact is, I underestimated the Bears D. It wasn't all lameness of our O Line, etc. that held down our offense. Even though we somehow made Mack mostly disappear, the rest of their front seven showed up pretty well, and their secondary was apparently better than I thought too.

All that being said, I really don't think much of the new Packer offense. Arguably, we won in spite of it, not because of it. If we had been behind late, I really think the GOAT woulda taken over and did like he did on that one drive. Wasting downs running into the backside of our retreating O Line was something I hated with McCarthy, and if anything, they did that more yesterday. Still, I'm at least open to the idea that maybe those outside zone and occasional even inside zone trap plays might work better against a lesser D than the Bears.

And was our D really that good? Or was Trubisky and the Bears offense that bad? They shouldn't have been bad - no excuse of running something new like the Packers, and Trubisky certainly gets plenty of praise as a good QB by so called experts. I think our D really is that good.

[Fritz]

True, the offense has to improve, but the fact is, I underestimated the Bears D. It wasn't all lameness of our O Line, etc. that held down our offense. Even though we somehow made Mack mostly disappear, the rest of their front seven showed up pretty well, and their secondary was apparently better than I thought too.

All that being said, I really don't think much of the new Packer offense. Arguably, we won in spite of it, not because of it. If we had been behind late, I really think the GOAT woulda taken over and did like he did on that one drive. Wasting downs running into the backside of our retreating O Line was something I hated with McCarthy, and if anything, they did that more yesterday. Still, I'm at least open to the idea that maybe those outside zone and occasional even inside zone trap plays might work better against a lesser D than the Bears.

And was our D really that good? Or was Trubisky and the Bears offense that bad? They shouldn't have been bad - no excuse of running something new like the Packers, and Trubisky certainly gets plenty of praise as a good QB by so called experts. I think our D really is that good.

Don't know if I agree. I think they ran the ball only 33% of the time - too much for you, but a lot less than MM's averages over most of his coaching tenure.

Me, I'd like to see them run the ball more. But they gotta get better at it, clearly.

[texaspackerbacker]

I think a lot of those 40-50% figures in the past reflected getting a good lead and running clock - playing not to lose, as some hated so much. They, of course, never had that comfortable lead last night, and whenever they did run first/run more, it was a mistake.

As I said, though, I'm open to the possibility of the running game being better against a lesser D team.

Rodgers threw 30 passes; Do you mean to say they only ran the ball 15 times? It sure seemed like more than that.

[mraynrand]

I think a lot of those 40-50% figures in the past reflected getting a good lead and running clock - playing not to lose, as some hated so much. They, of course, never had that comfortable lead last night, and whenever they did run first/run more, it was a mistake.

As I said, though, I'm open to the possibility of the running game being better against a lesser D team.

Rodgers threw 30 passes; Do you mean to say they only ran the ball 15 times? It sure seemed like more than that.

Packers ran 2 of their first 9 snaps, yet it was enough to draw in LBs and move safeties for the bomb to Scantling. You have to show enough seriousness to run, that the defense will at least look for it. Some defenses will look at your tape and if they think you really can't run the ball, they'll just come after the QB and be happy to surrender any yards they happen to give up on the ground. For example, Seattle did this to the Packer several times. Even so, Rodgers took a lot of hits yesterday. You really don't want that happening. A competent run game will help protect him.