Skip to main content

@MaximusHess posted:

every teams receivers are better than ours.  Thanks Gutey, you genius.

You mean relying on an always hurt new guy, an often hurt returning guy, a recently healed guy and two brand new to the NFL guys wasn’t a recipe for success?

We’re about to enter the fourth quarter, and our offense still doesn’t have 100 yards.

Even when we were 7-9 or 8-8 every year in the 80s, the games were somewhat fun to watch. The offense could still put up points.

This is just brutal. We’re seeing just how bad LaFleur may be without an elite Rodgers to make him look good.

The Packers don't have any WR who'd be more than a #3 on most NFL teams (Lazard). Their TE group might be the worst in the league, too.

Teams like SF try to win. We try to make sure our MVP QB doesn't go to another team an win a Super Bowl while simultaneously having a front office strategy to make sure never fall below 6 wins in the future.

We are about to lose three games in a row to Daniel Jones, Zach Martin, and Taylor Heinicke. All three teams want to desparately replace those guys in the next draft.

@MaximusHess posted:

Nothing like having over 40m spent this year on a QB who looks like he declined and a tackle you can't play.

I'm no fan of Rodgers either, but no QB is going to look good with these WRs being a makeshift OL. You can't even determine whether he's declined because there is no one open downfield ever.

The blame should be placed squarely on the front office first.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×