Cheesehead
Well-known member
- Mar 19, 2019
- 2,854
- 0
Dean from Ottawa, IL
Were the Packers outcoached today, or just flat?
Both. LaFleur said the team was outcoached before he even took a question from the media. The game plan was not up to par and he always looks at himself first. I admire that about him and I think the players appreciate it. It (and he) doesn't let them off the hook by any means, but when the leader acknowledges that, it trickles down to the leaders in the locker room doing the same.
Steve from Alexandria, VA
Why weren't the Packers able to hit more underneath routes behind the blitzers?
Probably because Rodgers couldn't see behind the blitzers with all that pressure right in his face.
Mike from King George, VA
Morning II, I've been reading since Ask Vic. "It's not whether you get knocked down, it's whether you get back up." My favorite quote in all its variations. I figured the Pack would get knocked down sooner or later, it's just so hard to string together so many wins in the NFL. I hoped it wouldn't be with playoff ramifications involved. How long do they spend analyzing what happened before planning for Houston, and do you think this changes how teams game plan for the Packers?
Well, nobody else has a linebacker pair like David and White, in my opinion. Teams might try to scheme defensively like the Bucs did, but if they don't have the personnel, it won't matter. The Bears are the team that could glean the most from this film, but the Packers will have learned some lessons, too. Defensively I have more concerns. Brady made a couple of dynamite throws to Gronk, but otherwise there was nothing flashy about that offense, yet it rolled up over 200 yards and 24 points (of its own making) in the second and third quarters. Evans wasn't a factor. Ronald Jones is a good back, but the Packers will face better. Brady had been sacked eight times and turned it over five times, but the Packers got close to one pick, that was it.
Chick'n Lit'l from Cheesequake, NJ
The sky is falling!
I thought you were from Oakey Oaks?
Matt from Minneapolis, MN
Playing devil's advocate, with the frequency and severity of injuries in football, expanding playoffs slightly may allow a talented team who had a bad rash of injuries to get their shot. Take this current (talented) Packer team. If Rodgers were to miss much of the regular season but the Pack squeaked in the playoffs and Rodgers could return, wouldn't that be a good thing?
For every scenario you describe, there'd be a team in good position that fades down the stretch, injuries or not, but will slide in when it otherwise would have been eliminated. There are plusses and minuses. I don't think the plusses are worth it.
Patrick from Elkhorn, WI
It would seem we lost this game in the trenches, agree?
The Bucs were better up front on both sides, yes, but the trenches had nothing to do with two picks handing them 14 points. The Packers probably lose even without those, give how one-sided the rest of the game was, but that was a fast way to fire up the other guys.
Sam from Melbourne, IA
Did it seem to you guys that the Packers didn't run as much pre-snap motion this game? Is that because of scheme or mostly needing to throw to get back in the game? It feels like the motion is what makes this offense tick. Why would they move away from it? Maybe I just wasn't paying attention well enough.
No, they didn't run much of it at all. LaFleur said after the game the coaches' film study showed the Bucs defended jet sweep action without issue, so it wasn't a featured part of the plan. What the coaches have to figure out is if the offense was out of sorts because it wasn't using it. If so, there's a problem, because that's using scheme as a crutch, which isn't viable long term. I don't think that's it. I think they were just handled by a really good defense that had Rodgers' eyes constantly searching for openings.
Kevin from Asbury Park, NJ
I understand all teams struggle against a great pass rush but it seems like this team just can't come up with an answer for it (re: SF x2 last year). Can you help us understand how a team like Chicago who, compared to the Packers, has a much lesser QB and much lesser running game is able to handle that TB rush and the Packers can't?
I'd say it's a week-to-week league again but I'm sure you're tired of hearing that. So I'll try to do better. I don't recall the Bucs blitzing the Bears nearly as much. They played a lot more coverage, and Foles took a lot of short stuff. He was still sacked three times and threw a pick, and 10 of the Bears' 20 points required less than 60 yards of total offense thanks to two short fields. The bigger difference was the Bears' defense buckled down after a rough start.