No Moral Victories: Packers fall to heavily favored Bills in prime time
No Moral Victories: Packers fall to heavily favored Bills in prime time
Despite the fourth-quarter scare the Packers gave the Bills, Green Bay loses by double digits on Sunday Night Football.
Good morning!
As expected, the Green Bay Packers fell to the Buffalo Bills in prime-time 27-17. Despite the success the Packers found on the ground, they couldn't prevent big plays from the Bills. Add in self-inflicted wounds from penalties and Green Bay just couldn't bridge the talent gap.
Today's edition of The Leap looks at what went wrong for the Packers Sunday, the positives that came out of the game, and what the team can do between now and Tuesday's trade deadline.
Thank you for reading and supporting our coverage. You can also support our work by following us on Twitter:
Jason B. Hirschhorn: @by_JBH
Peter Bukowski: @Peter_Bukowski
The Leap: @TheLeapGB
If you appreciate thoughtful, independent coverage of the Packers and NFL, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support allows us to serve this community with the stories and reporting it deserves.
Thanks for making The Leap a part of your day.
The Packers ran successfully against a strong Bills run defense, but did their commitment to the ground game in the second half do more to help or hurt their chance to win?
Jason B. Hirschhorn: This subject came up during the game as the Packers kept carving up the Bills on the ground but the game clock dwindled. However, more than just media members wondered aloud if Green Bay should attempt something in the passing game. Buffalo pass rusher Von Miller, who knows a little something about football, found the approach curious as well.
Ultimately, the question comes down to whether the Packers actually can move the ball through the air reliably enough to stop leaning on a run game at its apex. Yes, time factors hugely into these matters, but Green Bay had enough time to make a comeback at the end (or at least the team would have if not for a questionable offensive pass-interference call that turned a Robert Tonyan touchdown into a field goal).
Conversely, it remains entirely unclear whether the Packers could have put together much without leaning heavily on the heroics of Aaron Jones and AJ Dillon. Too many times this season, the offense has tried to funnel more through the passing game only to see drives stall quickly and opportunities to tilt the field disappear.
Do teams need effective and reliable passing games to win regularly? Of course, but the Packers don't have that capability at the moment. Until then, their best path to competing involves feeding Jones and Dillon.
***
PB: Aaron Rodgers averaged 6.8 yards per pass attempt against the Bills throwing to rookies and also-rans. Aaron Jones and the Packers’ ground game ran for 6.7 yards per carry against the best run defense in professional football. Green Bay’s ground-and-pound approach worked to the tune of 208 yards and helped the Pack out-gain the Bills on the night. When the run game is working like that, stick with it.
Not only that, but the run game created explosive plays the passing game couldn’t muster consistently. Both Jones and Dillon ripped off 25-plus-yard runs and consistently stayed ahead of the chains.
What’s more, credit the Packers for sticking with the run game, something they adeptly accomplished on the drive down 14-0 in which 10 of the 12 plays were to Jones or A.J. Dillon, and the other two were to Romeo Doubs including the touchdown.
That’s what this team needs to look like: run the ball against light boxes with your punishing rushing attack, and get your passing game to make a play or two a drive. And then, when the team needs it, let Rodgers be the magician we saw was still in that 39-year-old body in the second half.
Do you question the Packers' fourth-down decision-making against the Bills?
JBH: No. While the numbers suggest that the Packers' two attempts to convert on fourth down -- one in the first quarter, the other in the fourth -- fell into the "toss-up" category, they knew any chance to upset the Bills involved maximizing every opportunity to reach the end zone. Taking the points might have added to their final total, but that approach probably would not have increased the team's chances of winning in Buffalo.
And if not for the Bills inexplicably turning over the ball in the red zone, "taking the points" could have backfired even more. Josh Allen's most YOLO moment Sunday night came with Buffalo just 3 yards away from paydirt. The star quarterback threw across his body and over the middle, giving Jaire Alexander the chance for a point-saving interception.
If Allen just threw the ball away, the Bills have a makeable fourth down or a chip-shot field goal. An additional three points would have canceled out a hypothetical field goal scored by the Packers on one of those earlier fourth-down attempts and a touchdown would have put the game entirely out of reach.
The Packers had to play the odds to have a chance. Losing by a different score wouldn't have helped.
***
PB: In the moment, I liked both decisions to go for it, though it’s easy to question them after the fact. Had the Packers opted for field goals instead of going, they’re looking at potentially six more points and that could have changed the way the Bills approached the second half. Perhaps Josh Allen throws a bone-headed interception a drive earlier and Green Bay avoids giving up a field goal.
Six points in a 10-point loss, particularly one in which four points were taken off the board by a pathetic offensive pass interference penalty, would be pretty useful.
All that said, fourth-and-3 from the 38 is a no-brainer go situation if for no other reason than a 55-yard field goal on a brisk night in Buffalo is far from a gimme. They even had the play if Zach Tom doesn’t get pushed into Aaron Rodgers’ lap. At least in real time, it appeared Josiah Deguara broke free on the corner route for a potential big play if Rodgers has time to rip it.
The second decision was even easier down 27-10 at the Bills’ 26. That was a case where the three points were closer to being assured and it would take a three-score game to a two-score game, but they’d been killing Buffalo on the ground, it’s reasonable to think they could get 1 yard, plus the seven is so much more valuable.
I didn’t love the play call on that run and we’ve seen Green Bay come up with some creative fourth-down runs this season, but they’re currently the worst fourth-down offense in football. They have to get that fixed to stay this aggressive.
Let's assume the Packers make a trade before the deadline. Who do they acquire and for what cost?
JBH: While fans understandably want to see the Packers go after a field-tiler like D.J. Moore, that scenario won't come to fruition. While general manager Brian Gutekunst would presumably love a weapon like him, the Carolina Panthers have no incentive to move him for anything less than a godfather offer of top-end draft capital that Green Bay simply doesn't have.
With the Packers essentially committed to making the most of the little time Aaron Rodgers has left and the team incentivized to invest in additions that could help beyond 2022, the list of options shrinks. However, one name keeps popping up that seems somewhat reasonable: Brandin Cooks.
Earlier this season, the Houston Texans restructured Cooks' deal by turning some of his base salary into signing bonus, especially pushing money into future seasons. That signalled to teams around the NFL that the veteran wideout wouldn't leave Houston, at least not in the short run. However, since the departure of Texans executive Jack Easterby earlier in October, Cooks seems obtainable again. Indeed, several clubs have already contacted Houston about him.
If the Packers so choose, they can play ball with the Texans for Cooks. The receiver remains under contract through the 2024 season and would have a post-trade cap number of roughly $650,000 for the remainder of 2022. His cap number goes up to $18 million next year, all from a fully guaranteed base salary, but Green Bay could lower it via restructuring and void years if necessary.
Cooks probably won't garner a first-round pick, but he could net a second-rounder and more. That kind of price would have turned off the Packers in the past, but Gutekunst and Co. seem a little more willing to make such sacrifices given their condensed timeline with Rodgers.
***
PB: When taken in context, the report the Packers are looking for a rookie contract receiver makes even more sense in light of this game. Green Bay is not in win-now mode for 2022. Not really. They need a piece that can help them try to go for it next year and potentially beyond.
That leads me to Chase Claypool as the Steelers’ season falls further through their grasp. Claypool isn’t just a former draft crush of the Packers but has the size/speed profile they covet and could end up being a less block-y version of Allen Lazard for this offense as a big slot, particularly with Lazard’s contract up this spring and the war daddy’s unfortunate inability to stay on the field.
Reportedly, the price has come down from the Christian McCaffrey asking price to a second-round pick. I can see the Packers pulling the trigger on a deal like that where it’s a second and then a pick swap or a third and a fourth, something like that.
There’s no reason to chase a win-now rental and although the Packers have made calls on Brandin Cooks according to multiple reports, they’re unlikely to pay the asking price for what would likely be a one-year rental given Cooks’ contract.
Parting shots
JBH: Back on April 28, the Philadelphia Eagles traded first- and third-round pick to the Tennessee Titans for wide receiver A.J. Brown. As part of the acquisition, the Eagles signed Brown to a four-year, $100 million extension that carried low cap numbers for the 2022 and '23 seasons ($5.7 million and $8.3 million, respectively).
The night of the trade, I wrote that the Packers, flush with extra draft capital from the Davante Adams trade, should have outbid the Eagles for Brown's services. As in Philadelphia, Green Bay could have structured Brown's new deal to fit under the salary cap while still maintaining flexibility to make other moves this year and next. Brown would have also slid as seamlessly as possible into Adams' former role in the offense.
For the most part, the notion of the Packers acquiring a young star receiver to replace Adams garnered support. After all, the team added only Sammy Watkins during free agency and didn't have the chance to draft one of the consensus top wideouts from the incoming rookie class, instead landing talented but developmental projects Christian Watson and Romeo Doubs.
Yet, for whatever reason, the notion of the Packers adding Brown generated some loud dissent. Eric Eager, formerly of Pro Football Focus, argued against such a deal because the New Orleans Saints entered cap hell following the Drew Brees-Sean Payton era. This, of course, ignored that the Saints would have made Super Bowl LIII if not for the most egregious uncalled DPI of recent vintage and could not have put themselves in that position if not for pushing resources into the final seasons of Brees' career. Eager also conveniently handwaves the fact that virtually every team losing an all-time quarterback won't compete for anything in the short run anyway.
The Packers have problems beyond their wide receivers, and Brown wouldn't fix the entire offense by himself. But to pretend he wouldn't have made Green Bay significantly better or that the front office couldn't have obtained him simply doesn't track with reality.
On Sunday, Brown reminded the NFL world of not only his status as an elite wide receiver by ripping the souls out of the Pittsburgh Steelers. On three separate occasions, he beat multiple defenders to haul in touchdowns. Moreover, he looked remarkably similar to Adams when he …
… caught a bomb between two defenders:
… got over the top of the coverage:
… somehow delivered a combination of the first two:
Had the Packers taken a more aggressive approach to finding a veteran wideout, these sorts of plays would take place a little more frequently in Green Bay this season.
***
PB: Oh, now I’m sad. Dang.
What is missing above is the mistake that the LaFleur extension is likely to become. MLF is clearly not the apple of the Shanahan coaching tree that he was thought of because he inherited Aaron Rodgers and Davante Adams. When I heard that 80% of our plays last year were designed to go to Adams, it forewarned all of this year's offensive problems.
Hiring Barry when Dan Quinn was out there is just failure to get outside of the nepotism that invades the NFL. Barry was good, but he knew him. SMH.