Cory's Corner: Bailed Out By The Middle Finger
Green Bay escapes despite poor decisions from Matt LaFleur.
That was a stinging win.
I have never put those words together before. But the Packers luckily left Soldier Field with a 20-19 win thanks to the middle finger of defensive lineman Karl Brooks.
“We know it was going to be a four-quarter game, four-quarter battle,” said Packers quarterback Jordan Love, who was 13-for-17 with 261 yards and a touchdown and a pick.
How ironic. The Packers upped their record to 7-3 but showcased their ugliness in the process.
The thing that I kept asking myself as Caleb Williams was running for first downs and looking like a confident quarterback for the first time in weeks was, how is this happening coming off a bye week?
Packers coach Matt LaFleur didn’t have a good game at all. And I know he always blames himself but his decision making was highly questionable.
First of all, when the Packers have the ball within a whisper of the end zone, Josh Jacobs needs to touch the ball. It was second-and-1 from the Bears 5 and the Packers called a pass that led to a penalty on Elgton Jenkins for an ineligible man downfield. Two plays later on third-and-11 at the Bears 15, Jordan Love’s pass to Tucker Kraft was high and the Bears easily picked it off. All the Packers had to do there was move the chains on second down and eventually get in the end zone and the game would’ve been 14-3. The Bears wouldn’t have recovered from that and what’s better, it would’ve made Chicago one dimensional.
Secondly, LaFleur has been watching too many Dan Campbell highlights. The Lions coach is notorious for going for it on fourth down. With 11:29 left in the game and the Bears leading 19-14, LaFleur opted to go for it on fourth down. It was fourth-and-goal from the 6. Love took the shotgun snap and ran to the right, but only got five yards. A field goal would’ve made the score 19-17 and the Packers scored a touchdown on their next drive, which would’ve the score 24-19. That’s important because then you don’t need a magical fingernail from Brooks, you then force Williams to put it in the end zone.
After the game, LaFleur said, “We’ll never apologize for winning,” as the Packers ran their winning streak over the Bears to 11 games. I agree with that, but at the same time, you cannot keep walking the stressful tightrope of doing the same things wrong and still expect to get bailed out with wins. The Bears outplayed the Packers on Sunday. The Packers were 1-for-5 on third down, the Bears were 9-for-16 — including going 3-for-3 on fourth down. Williams got the ball out in an average of 1.92 seconds, which really squelched any potential pass rush. The Packers defense didn’t get home but they also didn’t contain Chicago’s unpredictable quarterback by allowing him to run for 70 yards with a 7.8 yard average.
There were plenty of things to like including Christian Watson. He showed off his playmaking skills with four catches for 150 yards — his fourth 100-yard receiving game in three seasons in Green Bay. Here’s a guy whose previous receiving high for the season was 68 yards vs. Arizona. Watson proved on the full extension diving catch over the middle that he turned into a 60-yard gain, that he is still an amazing and reliable weapon.
The good thing is that Green Bay won to keep pace with the rest of the upper echelon teams in the NFC. But you cannot keep making bad decisions and celebrating at the end.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn
__________________________
Comments (116)
TKWorldWide
November 19, 2024 at 07:14 am
Somewhere, Stone Cold Steve Austin is grinning.
HawkPacker
November 19, 2024 at 07:23 am
No question, we were lucky to win.
LambeauPlain
November 19, 2024 at 07:50 am
We can call the blocked FG "luck". I don't. I tend to believe you mostly make your own luck.
The block opportunity was seen on film by Bisaccia preparing for the bares. LaFleur and Bisaccia believed they would block at least one kick and coached the players to do so. They executed.
Was that luck? Did they "deserve" to lose and fall to 6-4?
Then it would follow the poor Packers were just "unlucky" in their 3, very close losses they deserved to win? If not for Lady "Luck", the Packers deserve to be 9-1.
I believe the Packers "deserve" to be 7-3.
HawkPacker
November 19, 2024 at 08:33 am
LP, why would you think that I was referring to the blocked punt?
We were outplayed by the Bears and that is why we were lucky.
GregC
November 19, 2024 at 08:41 am
The Bears did not outplay the Packers . The Bears dominated time of possession but only gained 25 more yards than the Packers. I give the Bears credit for a great game plan that was well-executed, but their lack of offensive firepower kept them from ever building a big lead.
LambeauPlain
November 19, 2024 at 09:01 am
Because they won by blocking the FG. Even then, when it counted, on the last play the Packers "outplayed" the bares and won the game. That was not luck. That was my point.
However being "outplayed" by an opponent gaining more in total yards and TOP against a leaky defense is not being "unlucky". Hafley's prevent D encouraged it.
Meanwhile, the Packers Offense certainly outplayed the bares D. One punt (due to a first down drop) and 5 red zone trips is not being outplayed. Certainly not "luck" scoring of 3 TDs on 3 of them. Nor is being in position to win the game, on the road, luck.
The Packers outplayed the bares on the scoreboard. That was not luck either.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 08:56 am
I just read yours after I posted mine.. I agree about making your own luck. I literally just posted that.
They are what their record says they are. They are 7-3. Sure there is some luck involved. Sure is lucky we had Willis to be the backup to Love and go 3-0 in the 3 games he played in. Or maybe we should say we made our luck because Gutey went out and traded for Willis.
We could say that the Vikings and the Lions were lucky to play us when they did. Vikings played against Love who was coming off an injury, clearly not fully healthy and very rusty. The Lions were playing against an immobile Love who was playing injured and couldn't finish the game prior. So we could say they got lucky that they played GB when they did.
GregC
November 19, 2024 at 08:09 am
If it was the Packers who lost by having a field goal blocked, would you say they deserved to win and they just got unlucky? I wouldn't.
HawkPacker
November 19, 2024 at 08:38 am
See above response Greg.
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 10:46 am
Yes. Absolutely I would. Whether they deserved their luck would depend on how they had played and how the game developed up to that point. If you lose a game on a 1% play, that’s luck, deserving or otherwise, by definition. No less so than winning in a coin toss—one had to put yourself in a position to get there—just a lot worse odds.
stockholder
November 19, 2024 at 11:48 am
The Bears still Suck.
Luck had nothing todo with it.
barutanseijin
November 19, 2024 at 02:03 pm
Exactly. Luck retired a few years ago.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 08:52 am
Sure we can call it luck. OR we can say that we made our own luck.
Call it lucky that we were able to block the kick to win. Or how about saying that we made the play to block the kick to win.
WestCoastPackerBacker
November 19, 2024 at 03:55 pm
Oh there is a question. A big question.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 07:29 am
"Packers coach Matt LaFleur didn’t have a good game at all. "
I just don't agree with this take. Were there moments in the game that weren't good. Sure. But they moved the ball up the field all game long. There were a couple of play calls that I didn't like overall. But overall it was a good game plan.
"First of all, when the Packers have the ball within a whisper of the end zone, Josh Jacobs needs to touch the ball. It was second-and-1 from the Bears 5 and the Packers called a pass that led to a penalty on Elgton Jenkins for an ineligible man downfield."
I had no problem calling a pass here. It isn't LaFleurs fault that Jenkins got a penalty.
I didn't like the hand off to Reed on the 2nd down play. If we want to talk about bad play calls that was one I didn't like. You are in an area of the field that the players are stacked in. I just didn't like that play call. They lost another 4 yards or whatever and put them in 3rd and long. I will criticize him for that call.
"Secondly, LaFleur has been watching too many Dan Campbell highlights. The Lions coach is notorious for going for it on fourth down. With 11:29 left in the game and the Bears leading 19-14, LaFleur opted to go for it on fourth down. It was fourth-and-goal from the 6."
Again I had no problem with this decision. I don't know about the play call as I can't tell if there were any opportunities for it to work. But the decision I had no issue with. They were at the 6. Lets say they settle for the FG. They are down by 2 and the Bears get the ball at the 30 (most likely). The Bears gained 50 yards on that next drive. Lets say that stays true. From the 30, those 50 yards puts them in FG range. They likely kick the FG and we are back to a 5 point game again. To me, it was smart pinning them back.
The only thing I don't know about is the play call in that situation.
However in this situation if they go for a TD, they go from being down by 5 and possibly go up by 3. They also have a ton more momentum.
"The Bears outplayed the Packers on Sunday."
I don't agree with this. The Packers marched the ball up and down the field on them.
The Packers had drives of:
- 8 plays 70 yards - TD.
- 5 plays 18 yards - punt (dropped 3rd down)
- 12 plays 61 yards - interception (bad throw)
- 6 plays 65 yards - TD
- 7 plays 75 yards - turnover on downs at the 2.
- 4 plays 78 yards - TD.
The Packers found a way to win the game in the end. The Bears found a way to lose the game.
GregC
November 19, 2024 at 07:42 am
Thanks RC for saying everything I was going to say. Yes there were several questionable play calls, but it's easy to criticize plays after they fail. Sometimes the defense has the perfect counter to what you try to do, and sometimes your own players screw up. I think the penalty on Jenkins was really Love's fault for not making a quick decision to throw the ball.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 08:42 am
Its always easy to be critical of the play call after the play fails.
I really didn't like a couple of play calls, in the game, but it was more of the situation. The Reed handoff. I didn't like because you are essentially running against a stacked box. Once the DB's see that the WR has the ball on the corner they are all just flowing to the ball. I also didn't like the 2nd down run to Jacobs on the other failed Red zone trip. I know they went for it on 4th down. But, i would rather give Love multiple chances at throwing it to someone or running. I just feel like there are more options to scoring. Where running it, gives you one chance.
Maybe they need to come up with some better red zone plays against what teams are trying to do. Or maybe Love needs to give his guys a chance to make a play.
I agree on the Jenkins penalty. I think that ball is meant to get out fast. Which maybe the bears had it defended so he couldn't. I can't really remember the play off the top of my head.
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 09:44 am
I'll point to the 2pt conversion where the Packers ran Jacobs--who was getting yards on the ground--and he got nothing. We assume that Jacobs would've converted the short run (where the Packers called pass--recall also that Love was forced to scramble due to pressure and heaved the ball at the last second). It's not a given.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 10:38 am
Yeah that was definitely not a good call.
I know running can work. I just prefer going with putting the ball in your QB's hand. Can always have the RB come underneath and if works use a shuttle pass to him.
I would also love to see something with Willis for 2 point conversions. Could do a sweep motion with him and let him run or throw it. Could sneak love the other way and throw it back to him. Something more creative.
Or just let Watson go 1 on 1 and win the matchup.
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 10:46 am
"I would also love to see something with Willis for 2 point conversions. "
I don't think throwing a cold QB into the game at that stage makes a lot of sense.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 11:24 am
I just think there are options that they could do with him.
Since'61
November 19, 2024 at 07:33 am
My issue is that MLF is in his 6th season as an NFL HC and he is still making questionable/bad decisions. I had hoped to see him grow as an HC by now but he seems to be stuck in OC mode. Even there his red zone play calling has regressed. Thanks, Since '61
Guam
November 19, 2024 at 07:44 am
Cookie for you, Since'61. Couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
Since'61
November 19, 2024 at 08:57 am
Thanks Guam, Since '61
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 08:44 am
Either the Bears are much better than their record or how they are widely perceived, or arguing that we were not lucky to win because we kept it close enough to hold on through a dramatically low percentage play is ridiculous.
Theres a lot of wanting to not face the music going on. This is a team that has struggled to rush the passer bar one half of one game. This is a team that has been consistently poor in the red zone all season. This is a team that allows Williams to visibly grow.
Yes, we move the ball. Jacobs is good, and his after contact yards performance is particularly so. Love also played pretty well, with one significant failure to execute, but we couldn’t convert yards to points consistently on O, couldn’t get off the field because we couldn’t handle a dink and dunk O that visibly expanded as we watched their confidence grow and which was burning is ever deeper by the end.
Yes we won. We won from and outcome that is a 1 in a hundred chance of success against a struggling team that had all day in the pocket, consistently beat us on 3rd downs and, ultimately, got really lucky. That doesn’t take away from the STs effort and planning, but even the best STs succeed very very rarely despite that.
Yes we got lucky. Very lucky. I will take it and acknowledge the work to maximize our chances of the coin landing on its edge like that, but offensively and defensively we were beaten in that game by a team with a lot of issues that really didn’t do anything crazy or radical. O and D were soundly outcoached tactically.
To say we weren’t lucky is denial. We just don’t pull away from bad teams. Few do when they can’t rush through a weaker OL or win on D on third down. Neither problem is new this season or previously. Consoling ourselves in the “offensive genius” of our head coach 6 years in is pretty bizarre when that coach can’t come up with an average, let alone good, red zone O with all the weapons we have.
We are just hamsters running in a wheel under LaFleur. As good as the players can make us but not addressing our weaknesses or significantly improving. Six years in and we are still running in stasis.
Since'61
November 19, 2024 at 09:10 am
On one hand I'm OK that the Packers have not peaked yet for the season. Hopefully we should see them peak over the last 3-4 games of the season if they peak at all. However by this point in the season they should be able to dispatch a team like the Bears with relative ease.
The Packers nearly beat themselves against the Bears due mostly by MLF's poor decisions in the red zone. If the Packers had their usual 7+ penalties in this game they likely would have lost the game. Hopefully the improvement in mitigating penalties will continue. Having said that the team still needs plenty of work on defense and in their red zone offense.
The upcoming game against the 49ers will provide a good test of whether this team can improve post -bye week. Thanks, Since '61
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 09:41 am
"However by this point in the season they should be able to dispatch a team like the Bears with relative ease."
Something we need to be honest with though is that when we play the Bears its always different. They always play us differently from how they play the rest of the year. This is the game they get up for the most.
Also this year is different. They have a much more talented QB, and they had a new OC, which the Packers clearly didn't know what to expect.
And lets give them some credit.
The Bears are the 7th ranked defense currently in points allowed. They have only given up 20+ points 3 times this year so far. 21 to Colts, 29 to Cardinals, and 20 to GB.
They held the Texans to 19. Commanders to 18. Both of which have scored more then GB this year.
WestCoastPackerBacker
November 19, 2024 at 03:59 pm
There's no "should be able to dispatch teams" in the NFL. The Bears have a very good defense. They just fired their playcaller and their backs are against the wall. They were going to be a dangerous game and a tough win. They have plenty of talent on that team, on both sides of the ball. Somehow GB lost the ability to stop a running QB, something they did well early this season.
You're right that this is the Bears Super Bowl; they hate losing to GB, even more so at home.
Guam
November 19, 2024 at 09:43 am
I'm not sure the Bears are ever an easy victory for the Packers and the Bears were 4-1 at home this season before the Packers game so I expected a competitive game. But bonehead plays and play calls in the red zone made this game harder than it needed to be.
Between an interception, bad play calls and going for it on fourth down (all in the red zone), the Packers forfeited between 6 and 14 points. Protect the ball and take the damn points and this game is much easier.
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 09:51 am
My observation was that the Packers game-planned and played like they expected to see the same team on Sunday that NE dismantled (yes, NE dismantled) the week before.
That's not what they got.
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 10:23 am
I agree with that observation entirely. That makes it worse in my view. That was signposted a mile high on Monday and throughout the week. If that is true, it’s an epic awareness and tactical blunder particularly by Hafley. The Bears D was pretty much as advertised.
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 10:25 am
It's a D that gives up 3s and not 7s.
With an offense that doesn't score much.
They play low-scoring, physical football games.
Guam
November 19, 2024 at 01:34 pm
Concur Dobber, but with a new OC, two returning OTs and a rivalry game, why did the Packers expect the same team that NE beat? I get Hafley might be fooled since he is in his first year as a DC in the NFL, but LaFleur? This isn't his first rodeo with the Bears.
LambeauPlain
November 19, 2024 at 09:31 am
"To say we weren’t lucky is denial." I guess a trip to Egypt for me! I will bring you half a bottle of water from that river and you can say it's "half empty" Cold, as is your prerogative.
The OC had a pretty good game. That was luck, I guess. The DC did not. That was bad luck, it seems. The ST Coordinator had a pretty good game. That was really, really lucky in hindsight today. (even though the Packers saw the block opportunity on film and coached into the 46 yd attempt).
In total, it was not a solid performance of complementary football on D, but in sum total it added up to a deserved win. I don't see the "luck" in it. And had the FG been good, you would be calling the loss "unlucky"?
I would prefer LaFleur be a HC for the entire team...and I know he will never give up his OC focus. It is what it is.
But I don't ascribe "wins" for his team as luck...nor losses as bad luck.
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 10:25 am
Whatever you ascribe the win to, the reality is we won on a play that takes skill, determination, but is inherently very unlikely to succeed. Thats luck. Enjoy the Nile.
LambeauPlain
November 19, 2024 at 10:44 am
"...a play that takes skill, determination, but is inherently very unlikely to succeed. That's luck."
Unless you identify a weakness and exploit it, as the Packers did, and increase the odds of success.
Which is what happened. That is coaching, prep and good play on the field. You can ascribe that play to luck. I do not. Cheers to you (with a half empty glass)!
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 12:51 pm
Yep. I never dump on a guy who made a winning play.
mnbadger
November 19, 2024 at 09:32 am
I've been saying it for a while.
MLF needs a tough, experienced and level headed mentor at his side for all challenges, 4th down decisions and red zone play calling.
Better yet save the money, move him to OC and get a leader with the characteristics above to run the team.
Yes, we got lucky to win this game. Celebrate it, don't apologize for it, but for god's sake learn something from it so as not to contnually make the same coaching mistakes.
GPG!
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 09:50 am
I would argue that most HC's benefit from having another coach with NFL HC experience on staff. Bisaccia was an interim, so his experience is less extensive. I think Capers was a benefit to MM. In this case, though, there's no one else on the sideline with that kind of decision-making experience....maybe if you consider Hafley as a former college show-runner.
"Yes, we got lucky to win this game. Celebrate it, don't apologize for it,..."
You win close games by doing more right than your opponent, but LaF has taken his lumps this week and that's echoed in his defensive responses in his pressers. I think that won't be fully lost. Campbell was invoked in the article, and he's just a cement-head. He's not going to change (or learn), and he doesn't even make some of the decisions--he delegates the fake punts to his ST coordinator, believe it or not.
mnbadger
November 19, 2024 at 11:52 am
If Campbell has delegated some duties, then copy what works.
MMurphy, has the authority and responsibility to take the red flag out of MLF's hands.
Put authority "upstairs" where somebody, or three, can look over close calls and quickly come to conclusion.
Call it down to MLF.
Only then does he have permission to drop the flag.
He's given up the right to do it on his own.
If I were in charge of any team, I'd want it set up this way.
Too important.
GPG!
Packerpasty
November 19, 2024 at 12:38 pm
im with you on this...hasnt grown as a HC at all...im ok with him as an OC...
Gman1976
November 19, 2024 at 02:51 pm
Great head coaches give a team an edge in winning. MLF keeps giving the other team an edge and making games close.
jannesbjornson
November 19, 2024 at 03:11 pm
This guy is getting lost in his play sheet and losing track of the Game. The Red Zone G0-Go plays should be drawn out early in the week and Change week to week. The guys who want to Win are Watson, Reed and Kraft from the receiving group. Get them the ball, or swing Jacobs into the back side flow on quick release passes.
Walsh let Holmgren run the offense. Maybe this guy needs to delegate a bit more responsibility. He doesn't seem to have a system to manage the sideline.
WestCoastPackerBacker
November 19, 2024 at 03:55 pm
If you're 7-3 with your starting QB missing 2+ games, having played some of the top teams in the league, with your top CB missing time. And, you're coaching the youngest squad in the league. I don't know. I think that indicates a pretty good HC. Every coach makes questionable decisions every game. It's called being human.
Plus many of the "questionable" calls are in question only in hindsight. Which doesn't count, because it's not available when making the decision.
I think you might have expectations that aren't being met, but that doesn't make MLF a poor coach.
stockholder
November 19, 2024 at 07:39 am
Exactly right Cory.
MLF put this game in Love's hands.
He might understand his players.
But his decisions to maximize
the team's chances of winning..
Just In bold print, was " Bad."
Obviously his game plan blew up.
The 4-3-4 defense is showing it's holes.
But the struggles suggest MLF is Freaking out.
TKWorldWide
November 19, 2024 at 08:27 am
Maybe they should sneak into a 4-3-5 defense.
Or even a 4-3-6!
stockholder
November 19, 2024 at 09:01 am
They might have to go to a 3-3-5.
Because Gute doesn't like LBs.
And he won't draft a DL this year.
It's CB all the way in 2025.
TKWorldWide
November 19, 2024 at 09:25 am
So you’re proposing a 0-0-11 alignment?
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 09:55 am
double-oh-eleven, with a license to grill.
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 09:56 am
"The 4-3-4 defense is showing it's holes.
But the struggles suggest MLF is Freaking out."
Yeah, I don't see that.
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 10:42 am
Stock has been screaming for the 4:3 for seasons. Now we have it the 3:4 is the problem? Gute doesn’t like LBs. Who is Cooper? Hopper as well this year. One could add Walker, but I think that’s looking like a questionable decision at this point. Walker had 2 pass break ups but struggled against the run. PFF thought he was a lot better than I did but what was again salient was that, when he played, they agreed Eric Wilson was better.
To 5 on D per PFF:
2. LB Eric Wilson: 69.5
3. CB Jaire Alexander: 65.9
4. LB Quay Walker: 62.6
When the #%^* will LaFleur and Hafley start recognizing what’s been a consistent trend and play the best player? Who knows, a move for Walker might also unlock him by letting him just play. This is becoming a bad joke on the Amari Rodgers level.
I do note Jaire, who gave up nothing in his 10 snaps. Obviously he’s not a LB, and thus off point, but it emphasizes that, when we play zone and particularly off zone, Alexander is vital and probably the only competent one. When he went out, staying with that was fatuous, as it has been all year. Hafley may not like it, but we are going to need new players before soft zone game plans are viable. It killed us against the Eagles and Vikings too. Going to very soft prevent zone on the last drive against that QB was predictably worse. It’s not a bad concept in theory, but it is with our roster as we’ve seen many times over. Time to face reality and change tack Mr. Hafley.
stockholder
November 19, 2024 at 11:44 am
I trust Pff grades to a certain point.
You must figure in the snaps. !!!
Campbell left. He had to draft LBs.
Most mocks said 3.
The 4-3-4 is my preference.
But if you don't draft for it.
You won't have the success for it.
You guys argue with me every year
on who the packers take.
So shut your hole; if you want to praise GUTE!
The colleges are having more success with the 3-5-5.
But the word is= Colleges are now not ready for the NFL.
Hafley has a problem. - Brooks and Clark should be the Des.
With Gary and Company, playing the roll of Kampman.
The Zone wasn't the problem.
The pressure was.
LLCHESTY
November 19, 2024 at 12:51 pm
"Brooks and Clark should be the Des.
With Gary and Company, playing the roll of Kampman."
Looks like someone got their meds upped recently.
HarryHodag
November 19, 2024 at 10:49 am
Gee, did they lose the game?
stockholder
November 19, 2024 at 11:46 am
No- They found the enemy within.
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 06:05 pm
They got a mirror?
Savage57
November 19, 2024 at 07:42 am
Matt seems to tighten up in critical situations, like playoff games and red zone calls.
The postseason record and ongoing, season after season red zone struggles attest to that.
Yeah, it's a criticism, but a deserved one, one which Matt needs to up his game to be additive to the player's efforts, not detractive.
T7Steve
November 19, 2024 at 07:59 am
They were very highly rated last season in the redzone (especially the second half of the season).
I still want to believe he's saving his best plays. In prior years he showed everything and left nothing for the other teams to guess about.
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 09:03 am
Green Bay were 17th in red zone efficiency over the 2023 season. I would not say that was great. It’s true, we were much better when Jones was healthy, but when he wasn’t we were actually worse than this year. We were worse overall in 2022 than in 2023 (under 52%) too. This is a multi year problem and the trend is decline. This year we are under 49%. 27th in the league, currently. That’s a significantly broken O from a neutral perspective after 10 games.
T7Steve
November 19, 2024 at 09:24 am
"(especially in the second half of the season)" I know they weren't that good when Jones was hurt.
What about 20 and 21? Which was the season they went about 7 games before they didn't score a TD on their opening drive?
T7Steve
November 19, 2024 at 07:52 am
The difference between this close win and the 3 close losses is penalties. Three penalties (one a bogus call) not eight. How many of those close losses would we have won if we'd only had 3? Keep it clean especially the pre-snap penalties, and this team will be hard to beat. This will also lead to better redzone efficiency.
egbertsouse
November 19, 2024 at 07:58 am
Sounds like some people have been overdosing on the green and gold kool aid.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 08:48 am
Ask any fan, any real football fan. It doesn't matter if you win by 1 or 100. Winning is Winning.
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 09:08 am
Winning is winning till it isn’t. Winning doesn’t really start till the New Year. Any team can win any given game. Only one team ever has not managed to win one against the odds. Yes it feels good but no, it’s not a guarantee of merit.
Bitternotsour
November 19, 2024 at 09:24 am
winning in the new year is only relevant if you're playing in the new year. gotta be in the playoffs, and it requires a run. i think the team is capable of it, like you, i worry that the coach spits the bit.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 10:59 am
Its why style points don't matter. it doesn't matter what you win by or anything. You just need to make the playoffs. The only way you make them is based on your record. Get a good enough record you will make the playoffs. Then it matters how well you are playing.
This is a question for the Lions. They are looking great right. But you don't win the Super Bowl in November. You peak too early other teams will catch you. You want to peak at the right time.
Bitternotsour
November 19, 2024 at 03:30 pm
to beat the current formulation of the Lions you simply have to score first. Jared Goff's small hands become even smaller when playing from behind. They're a tough team to beat when they're ahead. Bang average when trailing.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 10:57 am
A win is a win. At the end of the day all that matter is the score board. There are no additional style points given. Only in fans eyes.
2 weeks from now will anyone remember how they won? No, probably not. Do you remember how we beat the Jags? Or how we beat the Texans?
There are no guarantees of anything in this game. If anyone is guaranteeing you anything, they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want a guarantee I can take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed.
coolhand
November 19, 2024 at 10:09 am
Ask any fan? Yes, a win is a win. But for the players, they KNOW a good win versus a bad win. They KNOW when they play bad or not. If we go in and play well and smoke the bares 31 - 10 they feel much better and gain confidence. This game was not a confidence builder by any means. This game will put questions in theirs minds and increase the pressure to play better. Let's hope they ALL learn from this and improve this Sunday.
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 11:16 am
there are no bad wins. You can't apologize for wins. All that matters is if they win or lose.
yeah sure we will and they will feel much better winning 48-0. Next week does it matter what the score of that game was? No. But it is about building confidence.
What you want is them building towards something. So that when December hits they are starting to hit their strides. I thought Love looked much better overall yesterday compared to previously this year. The offense i feel like is about to go on a run.
Think about the first half of the year offensively. They haven't been able to find any kind of rhythm yet. Love has been injured for most of it. Now that he is getting healthy, they should be able to start finding rhythm.
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 12:52 pm
"But for the players, they KNOW a good win versus a bad win. "
What I call a close call, you're calling a bad win. I don't see any bad wins in an industry where the bottom line is to win.
egbertsouse
November 19, 2024 at 08:01 am
Someone needs to work with LaFlower on his body language. After every bad play he looks like a three year old whose ice cream has just fallen off the cone and he’s going to cry any second. That is not a good look for a football coach.
Cheezehead72
November 19, 2024 at 08:08 am
I've mentioned that before but those words were better than what I wrote.
LeotisHarris
November 19, 2024 at 08:28 am
"Bailed out?" Nah, Karl Brooks raised his mighty paw and struck down that field goal attempt from the gray November sky. The Football Gods nodded on high, and the universe was back in balance.
The Bears have submitted video of that play to the NFL for review. Coach Deadman Walking felt the Packers were "on our long snapper." Upon further review, I don't see it. I see Karl and LVN splitting the A gap and a fg being blocked. In the words of the late, great Roger Kent, one mans kick in the guts is another mans blow to the midsection.
GPG
TKWorldWide
November 19, 2024 at 08:35 am
Sounds like Excedrin headache #79.
Heck, I don’t know if I’m foot or horseback!
LeotisHarris
November 19, 2024 at 10:20 am
Kaite, bar the door!
TKWorldWide
November 19, 2024 at 05:08 pm
Yes!
Fantastic memories of Roger Kent!
LeotisHarris
November 19, 2024 at 05:38 pm
A true advocate for ring safety, Roger went to his grave firm in his belief that the Pile Driver "oughta be barred" because "you could break a man's neck off."
RCPackerFan
November 19, 2024 at 08:46 am
"The Bears have submitted video of that play to the NFL for review. Coach Deadman Walking felt the Packers were "on our long snapper." Upon further review, I don't see it. I see Karl and LVN splitting the A gap and a fg being blocked. In the words of the late, great Roger Kent, one mans kick in the guts is another mans blow to the midsection."
I saw this being floated on Twitter/X yesterday that the Snapper kept his head down longer then normal. I don't know if they were doing that to try and get a penalty. But after he snapped it he had time to get his head up, but he didn't.
If the Bears want to complain about that, maybe they should have their snapper focus on getting his head up to block rather then try and draw a penalty. Also maybe they should tell their kicker to not kick so low.
Or maybe they should try and pick up more yards to get a closer FG. They have themselves to blame, not the refs.
WestCoastPackerBacker
November 19, 2024 at 04:04 pm
Yeah that long snapper made himself a defenseless player by staring at the ground too long, and ended up getting rolled over like a dang sow bud when you pick up a log.
Bitternotsour
November 19, 2024 at 08:59 am
The NFL in their review is said to have sent the tape back with the reply "Randall Cobb"
NorthernFinn
November 19, 2024 at 09:18 am
If I could up vote that 100 times I would. Good stuff!!
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 09:58 am
Winner!!
LambeauPlain
November 19, 2024 at 10:49 am
LOL!
And added "please file this video in the Instant Replay drawer."
LambeauPlain
November 19, 2024 at 08:36 am
The primary reason this was another close game with the bares who always treat the Packer game like a playoff game was Hafley's D could not get off the field.
The Pack Attack D went into hibernation replaced with Barry Ball Prevent (the win) so the bares offense came out of hibernation. Caleb Williams ran sprints into the Packers soft middle and played catch with his receivers there. The vast majority of the Packers tackles were made down the field by DBs, not the front 7. TOP and number of O plays by the bares dwarfed the Packers.
The Packers only 6 possessions had JUST ONE drive that did not get to the kryptonite (red) zone...a first down drop by Doubs).
The 5 drives into the zone, as RC posted above, had 3 ending in TDs. One on downs, the other on the INT. Cory focuses all his blame for lack of perfection on LaFleur play calls during 2 of the red zone drives. Does he give Matt credit for the other 3 TD scoring drives? No, just finger pointing in this article.
Only one of two non scoring drives were due to a 4th down decision by Matt (I'd take the points but understand the logic going for it).
The other (the INT) was due to mistakes by players. Love completed the pass that was nullified by Jenks' penalty. It was a timing play and Love extended it due to pressure and threw off schedule. Jenks actually did his job to get to his spot to block but delayed timing drew illegal downfield on EJ. Then Love sailed a pass that over an open receiver for the INT.
Cory: "Packers coach Matt LaFleur didn’t have a good game at all." That is hyperbole. Facts show it is and I disagree.
Now the Packers D? Hafley did not have a good game at all. The return of Barry Ball kept the bares in the game.
GregC
November 19, 2024 at 08:57 am
Yes, it was the defense that struggled in this game, but I think it was because the Bears played a very different kind of offense that utilized the QB's skills much more than the previous OC's offense. I don't think they did this to exploit the Packers' soft defense, I think the soft defense was a reaction to what the Bears were doing. Caleb Williams is very talented and played well, and the Packers never figured out how to attack him. This could continue to be a problem in future matchups with the Bears. I won't be surprised if the Bears' offense gives some other teams fits as well, although they will no longer have the element of surprise on their side.
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 09:22 am
Yet the Bears were not shy about what they intended. I wrote that this was likely to be the approach. Thats not my genius, just the noises out of the Bears. They knew they couldn’t protect anyone. They knew long developing plays were self defeating they complained Williams wasn’t using his athleticism and the OC wasn’t using More’s either.
Bizarrely, we’ve been pretty adept at defending Os of the type that transpired. Hafley just seemed blind sided. Almost as if he planned pre the coaching change and never adjusted (Brown used similar tactics the last time he called an O against us). Hadley never really seemed to adjust either, uncharacteristically.
One lesson I think we need to learn is that, Jaire aside, we don’t have the horses to play off zone. Nixon was terrible. Valentine at least has the excuse of being rusty, and was better in man. Nixon was bad at both. If we want to play a lot of zone we need to wait till next year, or at least try the much more athletic in a short area Rochel (though he’s more a press type by experience too). Press zone is a better fit than off zone, but really we probably do better taking our lumps in man with this roster. It killed us on Sunday, against the Eagles and in the first half against the Vikings. Wishing won’t change that.
LambeauPlain
November 19, 2024 at 09:47 am
My fear is if Hafley plays last Sunday's D next Sunday vs the Niners, next week's discussion here will not be about close, last second games, or being lucky or unlucky.
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 10:34 am
San Fran is also beat up...and they struggled and lost at home against a Seattle team that's been up and down.
I get where you're coming from: Shanahan seems to be Packers kryptonite...especially in the playoffs.
WestCoastPackerBacker
November 19, 2024 at 04:09 pm
Well GB has won 2 of their last 4 matchups against SF, and the last two were both lost by a FG. So I don't think it's kryptonite. It's just being healthy at the right time and playing a clean game.
GregC
November 19, 2024 at 11:28 am
They got into such a bad place, with no push in the middle but poor containment. The worst of both worlds. They finally got to Williams a couple times at the end and almost had three sacks in a row. Then Williams made a great play to get to 4th and 3, which they converted. At least those sacks slowed them down enough to force a missable field goal.
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 10:01 am
"The primary reason this was another close game with the bares who always treat the Packer game like a playoff game"
When your team cans its play caller midseason, and the fire is getting hot on your HC, you either respond to save your job--because a new staff means a house-cleaning--or you pack it in. The Bears clearly weren't packing it in.
Here's hoping that same Bears team shows up against the Vikes on Sunday.
"Now the Packers D? Hafley did not have a good game at all. The return of Barry Ball kept the bares in the game."
IMO, the Packers saw a team that--on film--doesn't take a lot of downfield chances, throws at or behind the LOS a lot, and tries to run the ball. So the Packers responded with a soft umbrella zone to keep the ball in front of them, and it looked like they were playing like they had a 3 TD lead from the start. That's painful to watch, but it held the Bears to 10 in the first half and 19 overall.
"The other (the INT) was due to mistakes by players....Love sailed a pass that over an open receiver for the INT."
If you watch that play, it looks like Kraft is going for the ball, then pulls back and looks behind him after the ball goes by as if he expects another receiver to be running a route at the next level. There was a guy running to the pylon in the end zone, but that was well behind the guy who picked off the pass. That's not to say the pass wasn't poorly thrown, but I'd like to see the replay to find out if it really was outside Kraft's reach.
LambeauPlain
November 19, 2024 at 11:09 am
I have not yet rewatched the game. Interesting on Kraft.
Packers ran 42 plays...their lowest of the season. Pass plays were only 47%...run 53%.
Love's adjusted completion rate was 87% and overall 76%. His best of the season.
5 of 6 possessions to the kryptonite (red zone) with 3 ending in TDs is a very efficient 60%.
I still have hope for the Defense. Yet this game was one of regression for them. Clark, Gary, Van Ness, Wyatt, Walker, Alexander, Stokes...most of these former first rounders are not getting it done. Perplexing.
Booner
November 19, 2024 at 09:35 am
This defense stinks! Hafley isn't any better than Joe Dingle Barry!
HawkPacker
November 19, 2024 at 09:43 am
It has to be better than Barryball.
dobber
November 19, 2024 at 10:07 am
Ugh...I think my IQ just dropped 5 points.
HarryHodag
November 19, 2024 at 10:48 am
The Bears are looking for more fans.
jannesbjornson
November 20, 2024 at 11:27 am
Eleven picks this season. Way better than the Seven totaled last year. The linebackers have not placed the big hits to create the fumbles, tallying four.
Booner
November 19, 2024 at 09:39 am
Well here come the Niners! MLF is in over his head!
HarryHodag
November 19, 2024 at 10:46 am
Rarely have I seen as much wailing and gnashing of teeth from media folks after the Packers WON the &^%()KJ%# game!
Apparently style points now are a determining factor in whether a Packers win was legit or not. What a bunch of hogwash. Style points only matter in ice skating and diving competitions. Late in Lombardi's tenure Willie Wood blocked a field goal and saved a victory for the Packers. Yes, THEY WON!
I didn't agree with MLF's decision to go for it on fourth down when a field goal or two would have forced the Bears to score a touchdown...not a field goal...to win the game.
But you can second guess any coach on many decisions. I think many Packers fans have become spoiled by success.
MLF has taken a young team and a growing quarterback and produced a record of 7-3 as they're rounding the bend on the season. They're in the playoff hunt.
This team is one and possibly two field goals away from being either 8-2 or 9-1 and all you hear is sobbing. How silly. I thought Bill Michaels yesterday was going to go postal on the Packers. Utter crap.
This team is a year away from contending but I like the position they're in. Would you prefer to back the Jaguars or the Giants?
GregC
November 19, 2024 at 11:46 am
Yeah, the negative response to this win has been way over the top. Part of it, as you well know, is that so many fans had convinced themselves that this game was supposed to be a blowout that would include about nine sacks from our defense. When I pointed out before the game that the Bears had both of their OTs back, I was pooh-poohed for "making excuses."
The Packers were favored by 6 points. That's one score, or to put it another way, it's one play. The Bears had lost three in a row but were 4-5 and were not going to lay down and die in their home stadium against their biggest rivals.
Like everyone else, I would've much preferred a blowout win, but the close game ended up being worth it for an ending that was deeply hilarious and that will not soon be forgotten by either team or its fans.
HarryHodag
November 19, 2024 at 02:21 pm
Amen, brother.
greengold
November 19, 2024 at 11:39 am
“Packers coach Matt LaFleur didn’t have a good game at all. And I know he always blames himself but his decision making was highly questionable.”
RINSE. REPEAT.
Had to laugh thinking of how many times this narrative has been repeated here, from many of us.
Matt LaFleur should quit the manscaping business and focus on more common sense, simple football maxims. He’ll look far better carrying Lombardi Trophies off the plane. The way to get there is to stop doing stupid shit.
He started an unhealthy Jordan Love twice when he should not have vs. MIN and DET. He continues straying from high percentage running opportunities in favor of the passing game. His real time game time management somehow remains suspect all these years later?
I’d like to see Matt LaFleur show this great, knowledgeable Packer fan base that he’s truly in control of his team, learning how to win decisively, playing to his team’s strengths, while going for the jugular attacking opponent’s weaknesses.
More SMASHMOUTH. Less Country Club. Does he want to be a poser, or a true winner of NFL Championships?
Met TGR a few years back at a Packers practice. First thing he said, “Man! Are you an optimist!” Not a question. He was right, but, it’s certainly not blind.
The Packers have one HELLA LOT MORE to prove. We have yet to beat a team with a winning record…
Packerpasty
November 19, 2024 at 12:41 pm
I dont think its in him as a HC to make this team a tough smash mouth football team...he's an OC masquerading as a HC...tries to act tough at times but its only sort of funny..
NFLfan
November 19, 2024 at 12:34 pm
Packers:
-continued weak Pass rush
-weakened DB's: relying on Valentine and Nixon
-Bears have excellent Red Zone defense-played R2 D.
Walker
barutanseijin
November 19, 2024 at 02:24 pm
Are you taking a writing class from Stocky?
stockholder
November 19, 2024 at 02:40 pm
Does The Defense stink.?
We need to get Rodgers back,
so we get a new GM.
Can you say reputation.
jannesbjornson
November 19, 2024 at 03:29 pm
He can retire as Love's backup. The Jets are now in Kleen Haus mode. The 4-3 issue is Clark not having the quicks any longer. Wyatt is fine, just roll with the stunts. Put Wilson and Cooper inside and see if Walker can cover a TE.
A new guy making draft picks is in order, but he made the move on Love and he's saving Gutedkunst's job, for now.
stockholder
November 19, 2024 at 05:18 pm
He'd retire first.
Clarke still gets double teamed.
Wilson is to old.
Love is saving Gute.
Expect Gute to bring in a FA at LB.
Coldworld
November 19, 2024 at 06:16 pm
We need Rodgers back? What world are you living in?
Bitternotsour
November 19, 2024 at 06:45 pm
to resume his work as co-headcoach/GM.
WestCoastPackerBacker
November 19, 2024 at 03:50 pm
How was it LaFleur's decision for Jenkins to get a penalty or for Jordan to throw a pick? I think you're confusing poor decision making with poor execution. And you want Jacobs to get the ball when they are so close to the goal line, but everyone is whining on the failure to get the 2 point attempt with Jacobs rushing. Are you both right? Both wrong?
Wisma Packer
November 19, 2024 at 07:28 pm
I see a lot of ridiculous comments on Packers being "outplayed" by the Bears.
Peeps! There is only one metric by which one team can outplay the other. That metric is very clear. That is also the only metric that the NFL, or for that matter, any sporting body recognizes.
By that solitary metric, the Packers outplayed the Bears. 20 points outplayed 19 points.
Now go enjoy the win! GPG!
RWood832
November 21, 2024 at 01:19 pm
Two games in a row MLF has displayed poor game management. He probably knows why he does this but IT DRIVES ME MAD!
What is it? It is his asinine use of timeouts in the last two minutes of the first half when the opposing team is driving in Green Bay territory.
He is trying to buy another possession once the opponent scores. How often does this strategy succeed? Against the Lions it led to the pick six and me turning off the TV because I refused to watch any more of that idiocy. This past Sunday led to a one play kneel down. I knew Nixon would try to make a big play by returning the kickoff, something GB's Kick Return Unit has failed to do well all season. I was glad it did not blow up in their faces.
Matt, PLEASE STOP!
p.s. It would be great if someone took away the red flag from him too.....
GregC
November 21, 2024 at 01:34 pm
All coaches do that nowadays. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Seems like McCarthy got burned by it more than LaFleur has.
The replay challenge against the Bears was definitely a bad one. Presumably somebody up in the box thought they saw something. Or maybe LaFleur was going to use a timeout anyway, so he figured he might as well challenge.
Bitternotsour
November 21, 2024 at 03:02 pm
if you really want to get a breather a challenge is more effective than a time out.