2025 Green Bay Packers Thread

[PointWarrior]

 No way any stat shows the packer offense is top 10. 

Careful, the NFL version of KenPom's numbers are about to come out to show us how bad the Packers defense is. And if you don't buy it, you don't know football. Because the offense is definitely a top 10 offense like the numbers show and the defense is a bottom 10 defense.

[wadesworld]

No way any stat shows the packer offense is top 10.

Oh trust me. Jockey made sure to tell me I needed to check out the irrefutable DVOA numbers that do not lie and tell the entire picture of a football team. 10th best offense, 24th best defense. You just don't know football if you aren't on the same page as the all important DVOA.

[Uncle Rico]

The Packers won't be serious contenders until they get rid of 12.

He's a stone cold loser

[Jockey]

Oh trust me. Jockey made sure to tell me I needed to check out the irrefutable DVOA numbers that do not lie and tell the entire picture of a football team. 10th best offense, 24th best defense. You just don't know football if you aren't on the same page as the all important DVOA.

I think the transformation is complete. You have morphed into Chicos. Maybe you can move to Idaho, too. You'd fit right in.

[Herman Cain]

Was disappointed with the Pathetic Packer Performance . Have to stop these PPP's soon or the team won't make the Playoffs .

[MU82]

I think the transformation is complete. You have morphed into Chicos. Maybe you can move to Idaho, too. You'd fit right in.

Totally unnecessary. And untrue.

[Jockey]

Totally unnecessary. And untrue.

Chico was expert at making something up from a post and then arguing against it. Wades does the same

[wadesworld]

I think the transformation is complete. You have morphed into Chicos. Maybe you can move to Idaho, too. You'd fit right in.

Aka "I can no longer defend my horrendous take, it's clear you were right but I'm too butthurt to admit it and rather than admit that the offense is the problem I'll just try to redirect the conversation into apparent insults so nobody pays attention to my horrible football takes, after I thought I was being the coolest and smartest guy in the room when I sited DVOA and asked you if you've ever heard of it."

Chico was expert at making something up from a post and then arguing against it. Wades does the same

Make it up? You didn't say "look at DVOA. If you've ever heard of it" last week? Seems you're the one trying to make stuff up. Odd.

[#UnleashSean]

The defense is bad? I mean maybe when the redski.. commanders are on the field for 17 minutes to the Packers 3, ya eventually they will fold.


The commanders didn't complete a pass in the first quarter....

[jficke13]

The defense is bad? I mean maybe when the redski.. commanders are on the field for 17 minutes to the Packers 3, ya eventually they will fold.


The commanders didn't complete a pass in the first quarter....

That's been the story of the last three losses. Even a good defense can't function in the 4th quarter if they've been ground down to a nub because the offense views getting first downs and running clock as poison.

[dgies9156]

Bottom Line: Aaron Rodgers is mortal. Somebody slipped him and Tom Brady some Kryptonite before the season started.

I'm guessing the suppliers were Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes and maybe, in Rodgers' case,  the rest of the NFC Central.

Both these guys looked pretty pedestrian yesterday.

[Jockey]

KC lost Tyreke Hill and went out and signed Schuster and MVS who had 235 yards yesterday.

GB lost Adams and Gutey signed Sammie Watkins - who has 147 yards this season.


Somebody screwed the pooch.

[Jockey]

That's been the story of the last three losses. Even a good defense can't function in the 4th quarter if they've been ground down to a nub because the offense views getting first downs and running clock as poison.

Why doesn't the other team get tired? GB has run more offensive plays than their opponents this year. Why haven't their defenses worn down?

[Jay Bee]

Glorious.

[Jockey]

Yes, the GB offense is bad. Yet they have:

1. More 1st downs than the opponents
2. More 3rd down conversions and at a higher percentage than opponents
3. More total yards
4. More offensive plays
5. 500 more passing yards
6. More TDs

Why do these numbers look like this when they have looked so inept on offense? It's because every team they have played (exc. the Queens) have terrible offenses. I don't remember the last team to play so many bad QBs in a row - game after game.

Yet the defense is so soft and weak that they keep losing. That is why GB's offense has better numbers. Big yardage comes from the passing game and their are zero reasons for any opponent to pass much.

My conclusion is that right now it's a photo finish as to which is worse - offense, defense, or ST. There is no good news right now.

[Uncle Rico]

The hardest thing to do in sports is knowing when the rip the band-aid off.  Franchises and college programs let coaches and players linger longer than should for a variety of reasons.

There is something admirable in that.  Coaches and players can mean a lot to a franchise or program.  They could have brought championships and many great moments.  It's hard to move on.  I don't think it's unnatural or wrong per se to want to let players and coaches go out on their own terms.

When you make that choice, though, the consequences can be harmful short term and long term.  The Packers had an opportunity after 2020 to move on from Rodgers.  It would have been a bold and controversial choice for the organization.  Would it have guaranteed anything?  Absolutely not.

We can guess what could of happened, but we don't know.  It's my opinion the franchise would have set itself up for greater success.  The return would have been a bonanza and could have led to other moves, such as the Adams trade.  Transition year or two?  Yes, but a good front office parlays those opportunities into a young team primed for success.

Maybe, if 12 plays better in the playoffs or the defense makes a stop against Tampa, the Packers have another ring with 12 and keeping him around was worth it.  It didn't happen and while we don't know what would have happened had they traded him, I'm willing to bet the future would look a whole lot better

[MUBurrow]

Yes, the GB offense is bad. Yet they have:

1. More 1st downs than the opponents
2. More 3rd down conversions and at a higher percentage than opponents
3. More total yards
4. More offensive plays
5. 500 more passing yards
6. More TDs

Why do these numbers look like this when they have looked so inept on offense? It's because every team they have played (exc. the Queens) have terrible offenses. I don't remember the last team to play so many bad QBs in a row - game after game.

Yet the defense is so soft and weak that they keep losing. That is why GB's offense has better numbers. Big yardage comes from the passing game and their are zero reasons for any opponent to pass much.

My conclusion is that right now it's a photo finish as to which is worse - offense, defense, or ST. There is no good news right now.

My two cents is that your analysis has a tendency to overestimate how good (or underestimate how bad?) a "league average" team is.  All but like, 5 teams are kinda crappy.  So when you say that the Packers defense is embarassing, or that you can't remember a team that has played so many bad QBs in a row, I think that overinflates just what is going on around the rest of the league. 

For example, of the QBs the Packers have played say that Heneicke, Fields, Zappe, and Wilson are bad, and Brady, 2022 Danny Rockets, and Cousins are good.  Average passing yards per game of the bad = 121 with 0.5 ints, which is fine.  And if you say Rockets is actually bad, then how many qbs are good?  Because if your cutoff is above Danny Rockets, LOOOTS of teams have had a similar opposing QB profile to the Packers.

[Babybluejeans]

The hardest thing to do in sports is knowing when the rip the band-aid off.  Franchises and college programs let coaches and players linger longer than should for a variety of reasons.

There is something admirable in that.  Coaches and players can mean a lot to a franchise or program.  They could have brought championships and many great moments.  It's hard to move on.  I don't think it's unnatural or wrong per se to want to let players and coaches go out on their own terms.

When you make that choice, though, the consequences can be harmful short term and long term.  The Packers had an opportunity after 2020 to move on from Rodgers.  It would have been a bold and controversial choice for the organization.  Would it have guaranteed anything?  Absolutely not.

We can guess what could of happened, but we don't know.  It's my opinion the franchise would have set itself up for greater success.  The return would have been a bonanza and could have led to other moves, such as the Adams trade.  Transition year or two?  Yes, but a good front office parlays those opportunities into a young team primed for success.

Maybe, if 12 plays better in the playoffs or the defense makes a stop against Tampa, the Packers have another ring with 12 and keeping him around was worth it.  It didn't happen and while we don't know what would have happened had they traded him, I'm willing to bet the future would look a whole lot better

I'm not a Packer fan and just enjoy seeing Rodgers fail because he's a dingus. So bias noted. But this sounds pretty on point — you can't blame GB for doing everything it could to keep him at the time because his stats/performance were downright otherworldly; but in hindsight, it was the wrong move.

To paraphrase the men in Glengarry, Rodgers is just not a closer.

[PointWarrior]

Seahawks sure made the right tough call.  Seahawks in first place in the NFC west. Wilson struggling in Denver (and now hurt), Geno Smith have a good year totally unexpected, good draft picks made with the Denver picks last draft, and poised to get two more high picks this year with Denver struggling. And not saddled with a high QB salary cap hit... 

That could have been the Packers if they could have made the tough call...

The hardest thing to do in sports is knowing when the rip the band-aid off.  Franchises and college programs let coaches and players linger longer than should for a variety of reasons.

There is something admirable in that.  Coaches and players can mean a lot to a franchise or program.  They could have brought championships and many great moments.  It's hard to move on.  I don't think it's unnatural or wrong per se to want to let players and coaches go out on their own terms.

When you make that choice, though, the consequences can be harmful short term and long term.  The Packers had an opportunity after 2020 to move on from Rodgers.  It would have been a bold and controversial choice for the organization.  Would it have guaranteed anything?  Absolutely not.

We can guess what could of happened, but we don't know.  It's my opinion the franchise would have set itself up for greater success.  The return would have been a bonanza and could have led to other moves, such as the Adams trade.  Transition year or two?  Yes, but a good front office parlays those opportunities into a young team primed for success.

Maybe, if 12 plays better in the playoffs or the defense makes a stop against Tampa, the Packers have another ring with 12 and keeping him around was worth it.  It didn't happen and while we don't know what would have happened had they traded him, I'm willing to bet the future would look a whole lot better

[The Sultan]

The hardest thing to do in sports is knowing when the rip the band-aid off.  Franchises and college programs let coaches and players linger longer than should for a variety of reasons.

There is something admirable in that.  Coaches and players can mean a lot to a franchise or program.  They could have brought championships and many great moments.  It's hard to move on.  I don't think it's unnatural or wrong per se to want to let players and coaches go out on their own terms.

When you make that choice, though, the consequences can be harmful short term and long term.  The Packers had an opportunity after 2020 to move on from Rodgers.  It would have been a bold and controversial choice for the organization.  Would it have guaranteed anything?  Absolutely not.

We can guess what could of happened, but we don't know.  It's my opinion the franchise would have set itself up for greater success.  The return would have been a bonanza and could have led to other moves, such as the Adams trade.  Transition year or two?  Yes, but a good front office parlays those opportunities into a young team primed for success.

Maybe, if 12 plays better in the playoffs or the defense makes a stop against Tampa, the Packers have another ring with 12 and keeping him around was worth it.  It didn't happen and while we don't know what would have happened had they traded him, I'm willing to bet the future would look a whole lot better

IDK, it's pretty hard to quibble with two straight #1 seeds. Yeah in the end that doesn't mean anything, but it's hard to imagine that the future would "look a whole lot better" than the last two seasons.  You knew it was going to be bad on the back end, but you were hoping that it would have been later than this year.

[The Sultan]

Seahawks sure made the right tough call.  Seahawks in first place in the NFC west. Wilson struggling in Denver (and now hurt), Geno Smith have a good year totally unexpected, good draft picks made with the Denver picks last draft, and poised to get two more high picks this year with Denver struggling. And not saddled with a high QB salary cap hit... 

That could have been the Packers if they could have made the tough call...

Oh come on. 

"If only the Packers would have moved on from Rodgers two years ago, turning a 13-3 season into a .500 season being quarterbacked by the likes of Geno Smith.  THEN they would be going places!!!"

Cmon...  Russell Wilson isn't Aaron Rodgers.  You ride that horse until he dies.

[Uncle Rico]

IDK, it's pretty hard to quibble with two straight #1 seeds. Yeah in the end that doesn't mean anything, but it's hard to imagine that the future would "look a whole lot better" than the last two seasons.  You knew it was going to be bad on the back end, but you were hoping that it would have been later than this year.

That's the rub, I suppose.  If the Rams don't win the Super Bowl last year, all their moves look foolish.  Winners write the history and all that. 

When the stories broke of Rodgers unhappiness in April of '21, that was definitely the time to make the move.  It would have made sense financially as well.  Maybe we'll get the full story someday about what the conversations really were between 12 and the front office during 2020 but if he was inclined on moving on like reported, they should have pulled the trigger.

QBs rarely walk away on top.  Peyton Manning did riding an all-time defense.  Packers had the chance to set themselves up moving forward, now their stuck with a bad contract QB

[PointWarrior]

1st place in the West, drafted very well with last's Denver's pick this year (additional 1st and 2nd), and positioned well with Denver's 1st and 2nd this year.   And they got Fant and a few other players.  And not saddled with a huge QB contract.  And still winning with Geno Smith more than Denver is with Wilson...

I would trade places with them at this point - Pack should have moved on last year, not two years ago.   Looks like the horse died in the off-season...

https://www.q13fox.com/sports/commentary-wilson-trade-could-prove-to-be-biggest-fleecing-of-an-organization-in-modern-sports-history

Oh come on. 

"If only the Packers would have moved on from Rodgers two years ago, turning a 13-3 season into a .500 season being quarterbacked by the likes of Geno Smith.  THEN they would be going places!!!"

Cmon...  Russell Wilson isn't Aaron Rodgers.  You ride that horse until he dies.

[wadesworld]

Yes, the GB offense is bad. Yet they have:

1. More 1st downs than the opponents
2. More 3rd down conversions and at a higher percentage than opponents
3. More total yards
4. More offensive plays
5. 500 more passing yards
6. More TDs

Why do these numbers look like this when they have looked so inept on offense? It's because every team they have played (exc. the Queens) have terrible offenses. I don't remember the last team to play so many bad QBs in a row - game after game.

Yet the defense is so soft and weak that they keep losing. That is why GB's offense has better numbers. Big yardage comes from the passing game and their are zero reasons for any opponent to pass much.

My conclusion is that right now it's a photo finish as to which is worse - offense, defense, or ST. There is no good news right now.

You're smarter than everyone else.

[Jockey]

You're smarter than everyone else.

No. Just you.

Great analysis, though, on my post