Inbox: He played his best game as a Packer

Keith from Bakersfield, CA

Being over 50 has lots of downsides. However, it also means I'm blissfully unaware of whatever this 6-7 trend is. So I got that going for me.

Whenever all the young'uns around the office (which includes Wes) start into this stuff, I just tune it out. Feels healthy.

Herbert from Palm Desert, CA

Good morning. Are you guys contractually obligated to provide an Insider Inbox on the day after a game? You already produce so much great content for us to read on Monday mornings that it seems superfluous. I know the column brings in viewers, but it feels like one heavy straw to add to the camel's back. Give yourselves a break on game day. Packer nation will survive without the box Monday mornings.

I appreciate the sentiment, and that you read our other content as well. But yes, it is contractually required as part of the sponsorship deal.

Andy from Wisconsin Rapids, WI

Is Mac Jones the latest example of QBs drafted too early/thrown into the fire before they were ready or even had a chance? Mayfield, Darnold, Geno Smith, Daniel Jones... Regardless, tip of the cap to him for the guts and performance he put in.

That was all grit. Can't help but be impressed. It's often said organizations fail young QBs more than the other way around.

Jeremiah from Middleton, WI

Rams go for it on fourth in OT instead of taking the field goal, fail, and then lose. I bet their fans are furious they didn't take the tie option.

Especially since it appeared the opposing QB could barely walk let alone put together another drive. But with the Rams having four (or however many) kicks blocked this year, I don't blame McVay for his decision.

Brian from Dunkirk, WI

Don't know if you saw it Mike, but I called a scorigami in the live chat after the blocked kick taken for two points. And how.

I did see that! Nice work.

Chase from Diamond Springs, CA

Maybe not the turning point, but I think the reason I and others feel the blocked XP was the most critical mistake in the game is because it's the rarest of the mistakes AND it mattered. Strip sacks? We almost got one of our own late in the game. A defense or offense struggling after losing a key player? Not uncommon. Blocked kicks? Uncommon (despite the uptick). Blocked XPs? Rare. Blocked XPs resulting in a three-point swing? Very rare. Same rare mistakes back-to-back weeks? It's a sticking point.

I get that. I do. I was just making the point that as far as the in-game momentum, the Packers had recovered fine from the bad play and were still in control of the game two possessions later.

Tom from Cambridge, MA

Thank you for clearing up a memory that I couldn't confirm. For years I've been asking "older" Packer fans (I'm 62) if they remember the team's midseason switch to a left-footed kicker – without picking a new holder – and having a terrible run of blocked and missed FGs. Thanks to II I'm sure that kicker was Tom Birney, the guy who missed all those FGs at Tampa in 1980. I'm also pretty sure his game improved the next week when Coach Starr figured out to try a left-handed player as holder.

You may be remembering '79, when the left-footed Birney replaced an injured Chester Marcol and went 7-of-9 on FGs and 7-of-10 on PATs. For whatever reason, they brought him back again in '80 when they released Marcol and he went 6-of-12 on FGs and 14-of-16 on PATs before Jan Stenerud took over the kicking duties for a few years.

Tim from Virginia Beach, VA

So with the first bye week here, I do not think the way the NFL does it creates a level playing field. The Packers bye week is now and the last bye week is Week 14. Two possible changes to make it more even. Have only two bye weeks with half the teams having their bye in Week 8 or 9. The other is to have eight bye weeks with the entire division having the same bye week.

This issue has been brought up numerous times, and I don't think the league would ever want half the teams off in two straight weeks, but your concluding suggestion has merit. I've also thought fitting all the byes between Weeks 7-12 would be manageable. No more than six teams would need to be off any given week (which is the max now) and every team would play its first six games and last six without a break. Currently it's four and four on each end, which leads to the early and late byes.

Randy from Grand Junction, CO

Mike Florio thinks that each team now gets the ball once OT should go back to 15 minutes. Thoughts?

Nah. I'm good with the 10 minutes. If the team getting the ball second wants more time for its possession, stop the other team sooner, use your two timeouts on defense, or just take the ball first. As it was, the Cowboys only used 5:20 of the 10 and the Packers still had both their timeouts. I kind of like having a potential downside to whichever decision is made after winning the coin toss. That sounds fair to me and reduces how much the outcome hinges on winning the toss, which has been the whole point of the OT tweaks. The current setup might actually be the best option devised to date.

John from New Richmond, WI

Not the result we were looking for Sunday night but how could anyone watch the performance of Jordan Love and not see an elite quarterback? Leads the team to a touchdown to take the lead with under two minutes to go, a field goal drive with under 50 seconds to go to tie in regulation and another field goal drive to tie in overtime. Any one of those should have been enough to win the game. I'm not sure what more fans can ask of him.

They ask more because he's supposed to have it all figured out in his third season at the helm. No mistakes, total command, FULL CONSISTENCY. Because in Aaron Rodgers' third season, remember, he … (checks notes) … began the year 3-3, with two overtime losses.

Jake from Marina Del Rey, CA

Can we talk about the play where Love seemed like he was going to take off and run but then sling it back to Josh Jacobs. Just, wow.

Funny how that got lost in the madness.

Tim from Olathe, KS

Insiders, it appeared on Matthew Golden's long catch early that Dontayvion Wicks was the intended target and Golden veered from his route down the hash. Then he snagged a bouncing punt that could easily have bounced off his hands. Then he had a welcome to the NFL moment getting crushed on a rarely seen spin move. Then he ran backwards seven yards on a bubble screen. Is it fair to say he's incredibly talented but has a lot to learn?

As I said the other day, he's not a finished product. He's learning the return game on the fly in Jayden Reed's absence, which is a risk the Packers are willing to live with due to the potential reward. The bubble screen he should know better. He must've run plenty of those in college. As Wes noted yesterday, via LaFleur, it was Wicks who made the route adjustment that created the congestion on the early deep ball.

John from Tulsa, OK

Take away the deja vu all over again of Love turning the ball over deep in his own territory and their goofy inability to block for their kicker…and the Packers are undefeated today. Instead they're 2-1-1. As good as both LaFleur and Love can look 90% of the time, the 10% they don't is so bad it almost negates the 90%. MLF keeps talking about cleaning stuff up but then the same stuff keeps happening.

Errors that linger are frustrating and the coaches have to figure out how to correct them. That's their job and while no one wants to see a repeat mistake, there's still time to get it right. The 90-10 numbers you posit, to me, speak to how forever thin the margins are in this league.

Mike from Milwaukee, WI

"Though on replay, I thought maybe Prescott was trying to stop his throwing motion so the ball came out at a bad angle. There was a receiver he was initially aiming for, if that's the case." Then if it wasn't intentional grounding, shouldn't it have been a fumble?

Only if the ball goes backwards, which it didn't.

Scott from Sussex, WI

Do you think the Packers' propensity to allow blocked field goals will influence ML's fourth-down, end-of-half, and end-game decisions over the next few games? I would think a 10% blocked field goal rate changes the math a bit.

They have to focus on fixing the problems, not working around them.

Lane from Hurricane, UT

Mike mentioned that teams may be timing the snap better contributing to blocked kicks and that made me wonder if the kicking team ever tries a hard count to get defenses to jump early on kicks? I don't think I've ever seen that. Do special teams work on hard counts?

A few folks asked about this. Not to my knowledge. They vary timing based on a mechanical piece of the operation, such as the holder opening his hand. Tom from Keota, IA, mentioned the Bears picking up on a tell from the Raiders' long snapper, which would negate any variance the holder is trying to achieve. There's always so much going on at any given time, and I didn't mean the other day to suggest it's always one thing. In the case of the Packers' two blocks, they were different. In Cleveland, two blockers got leveraged by a big push and weren't anchored low enough. In Dallas, two guys each blocked one, leaving another free, instead of sharing responsibility for three rushers.

Mary Ann from Mauston, WI

Start of the season there was a lot of talk and focus on the defense improving on takeaways. Is this still a focus or is it more important to go back to the basics on tackling and not getting penalties?

The poor tackling to me was the most frustrating aspect of the rough defensive game in Dallas. The Packers had tackled exceptionally well, aside from a couple plays in Cleveland, through the first three games. But these lapses happen every year to all teams. Make it a blip and not a trend. That would mean more right now than turnovers, which can be dangerous to chase.

Dennis from Parrish, FL

I have stated this previously, right in this here forum. Emanuel Wilson is a damn good running back!

Yes, yes he is. He played his best game as a Packer, and it piques my interest as to what's next for him.

Aumed from Moorhead, MN

Good morning, Mike. One thing I noticed was how much space our corners were giving the Cowboys' receivers especially on third-and-short. If the pass rush wasn't getting home and Dak is getting the ball out at the speed of light every play, why not play press and take away the space to make those plays? It seemed all game they were getting burnt on quick-release passes. Help educate an ignorant mind please.

One problem was the Packers weren't holding up in press coverage when they tried it. The lofted ball to Pickens vs. press set up Dallas' first TD, and early in the third quarter, Turpin won big off the line along the boundary and would've had a 62-yard TD over the top if Prescott hadn't thrown the inside slant, which was dropped. I think those moments contributed to the Packers playing their man coverage calls too soft, as LaFleur noted Tuesday.

Tucker from Belton, TX

Matt LaFleur is way too conservative. Unless he's aggressive and we fumble the ball, then he's reckless. Of course he plays scared, unless he doesn't in which case he's unprepared. He's also a bad play caller, unless he calls a good play in which case we're playing a bad defense so it's impossible to call a bad play. I think I got that right based on what I see on the internet.

Thanks, I needed that.

Jake from Apple Valley, MN

The Vikings get to play the Browns when they're starting a rookie QB. I guess it is about WHEN you play them. Lucky break?

Maybe. Maybe not. You never know.

Austin from Woodstock, IL

Totally understand wanting to watch the Vikings and Lions games this weekend, but I have to say in my bye week I'm most intrigued by Tampa at Seattle. Both are at 3-1 and near the top of the NFC and we have two relatively young QBs trying to prove they can be the man. These could be some very interesting teams come the end of the season.

I agree that one looks big in the overall NFC picture. I don't anticipate being able to watch that one around here, but that's a good reminder for me to ask for your observations from Sunday's games. I'll be opening the laptop Sunday night to write Monday's column and we can spend some of it talking about all the action.

Paul from South Yorkshire, UK

I find that an easy way to cut through the pros and cons of a tie on the record is this. A team with more wins will always have the better record, whereas a team with the same number of wins will always have the poorer record. So no change against teams with more wins but advantage Packers against teams with the same number of wins. Plus, we avoid the murky waters that are the playoff tiebreak scenarios. I don't mind a tie on the record at all as long as we win a decent number of games.

It could become a very interesting wrinkle within the larger canvas as the season unfolds. Happy Friday.

HAVE A QUESTION?