packers selcet mAtt leFleUr as head coah

[Arthur Penske]

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:26 PM, AlexGreen#20 said:

And I guess i just don't see the point of everybody changing their opinion on literally every decision the Packers have made over the last two seasons.

Nobody wanted Gutekunst as GM, Gutekunst is GM, everybody is thrilled.

Nobody wanted LaFleur as HC, LaFleur is HC, everybody is thrilled.

Nobody wanted Gary at 12, Gary gets drafted at 12, everybody thinks he's going to be an all time great.

 

It's weird and cult like.

That's a stretch. MLF was one of the top names I saw getting mentioned by many fans and pundits as a possibility. I think it's fair to say some were surprised by him over people like McDaniels, but saying nobody wanted him is straight up false.

[vegas492]

On 7/6/2019 at 3:17 PM, AlexGreen#20 said:

So I pose the question, why is everybody so excited to have him run our offense?

I'm skeptical of the head coach, for sure.

I'm also skeptical regarding our QB.

I can get excited about this MLF coaching Rodgers as if he is Mariotta.  That meaning....easier rhythm throws.  Simple RB routes, throws and catches.  A true running game that can open up the deep play action that Rodgers loves.  All of which should keep Rodgers healthier.

I hope that MLF can get through to Rodgers about taking what is there and setting up for big plays.  Not just extending plays and hoping someone gets free.

And man, I'm pretty nervous about the whole thing.  And it isn't because of the coach, it is all about #12...which can easily be erased.

[ThatJerkDave]

"Party on, Dudes!"  -Abraham Lincoln

 

I believe there is so much talk about the running game because that was a major criticism of the McCarthy offense, especially after Eddie Lacy's prime seasons.  The coaching family LeFleur is from is known for the running game and there is nothing going on at the moment.  But look at the personnel of the offense.  We still have a top tier QB, WR, and bookend tackles.  3/4 of our TEs can't block my 88 year old grandma.  None of our RBs have carried a full load in the NFL.  Our remaining WRs are big, fast, or both.  This isn't going to be a run-first team, and I doubt that the organization would make a hire like that.

 

As for Gary, I saw the athletic numbers and lack of production and thought either lazy or workout warrior.  After watching the game cut-ups, seeing his offseason workout videos, and listening to him speak, I have ruled out lazy.  If he is just a workout warrior remains to be seen.  I am cautiously optimistic.  There hasn't been anything so far to indicate that he was a bad pick.   

[vegas492]

I was on board with the Gute hiring.  Also...thought that maybe if he didn't get the GB job, he was getting the Texans job...  And I think he was pretty high on the list of candidates for that San Fran job maybe a year earlier...in fact, I thought I read where he was offered the job, in a very weird way, and ultimately turned it down.  Could be getting Gute mixed up with Wolf there.....

I did not like the MLF hiring.  But, gonna take a wait and see approach as I didn't care much for Mac either.  And all he did was re-coach Favre, train Rodgers and win a title.  Sure everything got stale there at the end, but the man did some great things early in his tenure here.

Gary.  I watched a little (like 3 minutes worth) of film on him.  Yuck.  Nothing popped on film.  No power.  No moves.  No speed.  To me he looked like a Combine Warrior and that was about it.  Since I can't unsee that film, that's where I'm at.  Though I am very happy to hear about him flashing in camp.  Have to admit that it's been a long, long time since we've had an athlete like him.  Still think he doesn't love football.  Taking the wait and see approach with him, too.

I get a little more excited about the team when I look at that young talent sitting there.  And we have a nice mix of cagy vets.  I like the club.  I think it's gonna be a work in progress this year, but we will be competitive.  And next year we are gunnin' for it all!

[Shanedorf]

1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I believe there is so much talk about the running game because that was a major criticism of the McCarthy offense, especially after Eddie Lacy's prime seasons.  The coaching family LeFleur is from is known for the running game

Yup
Packers had the fewest running attempts in the league last year - so even moving up to "average" requires additional emphasis. The other thing that comes from a viable running game is play action. And play action is a huge staple for both of MLFs offensive mentors and has proven to be highly successful

Play action is where you get the big plays and AR loves big plays. So having a not-****ty running game isn't something to be concerned about.... its something to look forward to because it makes the passing game even more lethal. Viable play action also buys time for the QB and helps the OL

The idea that the Packers hired MFL to make the Rodgers-Packers into a run-first squad just isn't true. They hired MFL to deliver a balanced offense that makes the best use of AR's skills and savvy. And ironically enough, one of the best ways to do that... is to have a viable run game.

[Krauser]

I'm kind of surprised at the idea here that the coaching changes will improve the Packers run game.

Under McCarthy (and Campen?), they were consistently one of the most efficient running attacks in the league over the last 10 years. 

DVOA rankings, GB rush offense:

• 2009: 2nd
• 2010: 10th
• 2011: 7th
• 2012: 13th
• 2013: 3rd
• 2014: 6th
• 2015: 10th
• 2016: 7th
• 2017: 3rd
• 2018: 3rd

The Packers had a better rush DVOA than pass DVOA every year from 2015-18.

Along with generally very good to excellent OL performance, and some good running backs (early career Lacy, Aaron Jones when healthy), I think a major part of that consistent efficiency was Rodgers' tendency to audible out of run plays against heavy boxes. Defensive alignment is one of the most important factors determining run success or failure. With Rodgers so willing to change plays at the line, I think GB probably had far fewer runs into heavy defenses than most teams. 

The Packers can certainly run more often and for more yards under LaFleur than they did in recent years, as long Rodgers can be convinced not to audible out of run plays. But I'm not sure they'll run any better. If they run much more often, they will likely become less efficient, simply by sticking with run calls in less favorable situations.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Krauser

[Shanedorf]

More on the GB run game from PackersWire: Rookie Dexter Williams

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2019/07/08/packers-rookie-rb-dexter-williams-built-for-new-run-scheme/

“The one good thing about him is, he’s got the ability to make explosive cuts, but he’s got really good acceleration. He can hit his top speed pretty fast,” Sirmans said during the offseason workout program. “He should be built for this scheme because he can make explosive cuts and he can accelerate through the hole.”

“He’s an aggressive downhill runner who can press the edge, stick his foot in the ground and get north and south,” GM Brian Gutekunst said after the draft. “He had a lot of explosive plays and he was a finisher, once he hit that crease he finished. He’s got a nice build to him. His best football should be ahead of him.”

 

 

[vegas492]

42 minutes ago, Krauser said:

I'm kind of surprised at the idea here that the coaching changes will improve the Packers run game.

Under McCarthy (and Campen?), they were consistently one of the most efficient running attacks in the league over the last 10 years. 

DVOA rankings, GB rush offense:

• 2009: 2nd
• 2010: 10th
• 2011: 7th
• 2012: 13th
• 2013: 3rd
• 2014: 6th
• 2015: 10th
• 2016: 7th
• 2017: 3rd
• 2018: 3rd

The Packers had a better rush DVOA than pass DVOA every year from 2015-18.

Along with generally very good to excellent OL performance, and some good running backs (early career Lacy, Aaron Jones when healthy), I think a major part of that consistent efficiency was Rodgers' tendency to audible out of run plays against heavy boxes. Defensive alignment is one of the most important factors determining run success or failure. With Rodgers so willing to change plays at the line, I think GB probably had far fewer runs into heavy defenses than most teams. 

The Packers can certainly run more often and for more yards under LaFleur than they did in recent years, as long Rodgers can be convinced not to audible out of run plays. But I'm not sure they'll run any better. If they run much more often, they will likely become less efficient, simply by sticking with run calls in less favorable situations.

Curious if those numbers include QB scrambles.....

Edited July 8, 2019 by vegas492

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

I'm kind of surprised at the idea here that the coaching changes will improve the Packers run game.

Under McCarthy (and Campen?), they were consistently one of the most efficient running attacks in the league over the last 10 years. 

DVOA rankings, GB rush offense:

• 2009: 2nd
• 2010: 10th
• 2011: 7th
• 2012: 13th
• 2013: 3rd
• 2014: 6th
• 2015: 10th
• 2016: 7th
• 2017: 3rd
• 2018: 3rd

The Packers had a better rush DVOA than pass DVOA every year from 2015-18.

Along with generally very good to excellent OL performance, and some good running backs (early career Lacy, Aaron Jones when healthy), I think a major part of that consistent efficiency was Rodgers' tendency to audible out of run plays against heavy boxes. Defensive alignment is one of the most important factors determining run success or failure. With Rodgers so willing to change plays at the line, I think GB probably had far fewer runs into heavy defenses than most teams. 

The Packers can certainly run more often and for more yards under LaFleur than they did in recent years, as long Rodgers can be convinced not to audible out of run plays. But I'm not sure they'll run any better. If they run much more often, they will likely become less efficient, simply by sticking with run calls in less favorable situations.

The problem is that we rarely ran the ball with two good RB's and then our OL got hurt and we couldn't run the ball for crap...

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

I'm kind of surprised at the idea here that the coaching changes will improve the Packers run game.

Under McCarthy (and Campen?), they were consistently one of the most efficient running attacks in the league over the last 10 years. 

DVOA rankings, GB rush offense:

• 2009: 2nd
• 2010: 10th
• 2011: 7th
• 2012: 13th
• 2013: 3rd
• 2014: 6th
• 2015: 10th
• 2016: 7th
• 2017: 3rd
• 2018: 3rd

The Packers had a better rush DVOA than pass DVOA every year from 2015-18.

Along with generally very good to excellent OL performance, and some good running backs (early career Lacy, Aaron Jones when healthy), I think a major part of that consistent efficiency was Rodgers' tendency to audible out of run plays against heavy boxes. Defensive alignment is one of the most important factors determining run success or failure. With Rodgers so willing to change plays at the line, I think GB probably had far fewer runs into heavy defenses than most teams. 

The Packers can certainly run more often and for more yards under LaFleur than they did in recent years, as long Rodgers can be convinced not to audible out of run plays. But I'm not sure they'll run any better. If they run much more often, they will likely become less efficient, simply by sticking with run calls in less favorable situations.

I think you are misreading the situation.

I really don't think that the new coach is expected to run the ball more effectively.  I believe the thinking is that the system will better integrate the run and pass game and bring more effective play action.  I think the media is putting out the usual offseason fluff, and that is confusing the situation.

In 2011, when Rodgers was putting up the great numbers, he took 50% of the snaps under center.  Over the years, that changed to where he takes less than 25% of snaps under center and as you know, were down to the fewest rushing attempts in the league.  He has consistently taken 25% or fewer snaps under center for several years now, so it wasn't just lack of mobility from the knee injury last year.  This appears to me to be a choice the team was making.

Last year, despite the 5.1 yds per attempt rushing on first down, they ran the ball only 40% of the time, whereas in the 2011 season, they were an even 50-50 on first down despite only having a 3.8 yd per carry average.   As you have pointed out, over the time that these changes have taken place, Rodgers' numbers have deteriorated.  It seems to me that as the team became more infatuated with Rodgers' ability, they moved more toward pursuing "explosive plays" via shotgun, extend the play with Rodgers' feet, and wait for some opening downfield. They watered down the ability to set up the shot play that they so coveted.

I think the hope is that getting back to an offensive mix where there is effective play action will help.  I don't think Lafleur will make the run game better, but maybe he will make the offense less predictable.

[Shanedorf]

here's a snippet from an older article at New York Times with James Jones taking pride in his run blocking.
Edgar Bennett sucked as an OC, but as a WR coach, he got those guys invested in blocking for the RBs

 

" Green Bay Packers wide receiver James Jones did not need to watch the film to know his performance in last weekend’s game against Chicago was his best. And it had nothing to do with those three touchdown catches, which gave Jones an N.F.L.-best 12 for the season.

“I felt like I played my most complete game, and it was strictly because I blocked well,” Jones said. “I think the DB may have touched the running back one time when I was in the game blocking. So I felt good about that.

“I didn’t care about the touchdowns and all that. I felt good about the way I blocked. Those guys block for us every play to get open. So when we get the opportunity to block for them, I feel like that’s how you make yourself a complete receiver.”

 

EQ showed some run blocking skills last year, hope WR coach Alvis Whitted gets more out of all them this year

Edited July 8, 2019 by Shanedorf

[Krauser]

32 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I think you are misreading the situation.

I really don't think that the new coach is expected to run the ball more effectively.  I believe the thinking is that the system will better integrate the run and pass game and bring more effective play action.  I think the media is putting out the usual offseason fluff, and that is confusing the situation.

In 2011, when Rodgers was putting up the great numbers, he took 50% of the snaps under center.  Over the years, that changed to where he takes less than 25% of snaps under center and as you know, were down to the fewest rushing attempts in the league.  He has consistently taken 25% or fewer snaps under center for several years now, so it wasn't just lack of mobility from the knee injury last year.  This appears to me to be a choice the team was making.

Last year, despite the 5.1 yds per attempt rushing on first down, they ran the ball only 40% of the time, whereas in the 2011 season, they were an even 50-50 on first down despite only having a 3.8 yd per carry average.   As you have pointed out, over the time that these changes have taken place, Rodgers' numbers have deteriorated.  It seems to me that as the team became more infatuated with Rodgers' ability, they moved more toward pursuing "explosive plays" via shotgun, extend the play with Rodgers' feet, and wait for some opening downfield. They watered down the ability to set up the shot play that they so coveted.

I think the hope is that getting back to an offensive mix where there is effective play action will help.  I don't think Lafleur will make the run game better, but maybe he will make the offense less predictable.

I don't think my take is so different from yours. The Packers in recent years haven't run much but they've been efficient when they have. Rodgers has audibled out of a lot of plays, presumably often audibling away from run plays in situations when the defense shows a heavier alignment. Some of the run game success (in terms of efficiency) is due to quality play (especially OL play) but a big part of it is Rodgers picking the spots where he's willing to hand the ball off.

While the Packers run game has been effective in a limited sense, giving Rodgers so much freedom to change plays has contributed to the decline of the offense's overall production. He's spent too much time sitting back in the pocket, improvising, producing a number of explosive plays (and a still-high success rate in high leverage situations such as 3rd downs, 2 minute drills and red zone possessions) but too many possessions that have stalled out, and an offense that has been mediocre as a whole despite Rodgers' heroics. 

I guess I wonder if that dynamic was as much the choice of Rodgers as McCarthy or "the team". I think Rodgers was the one who was making the choice to audible and the choice not to throw checkdowns and the choice to look for deep shots. 

I don't know how the scheme can evolve in a way that improves the Packers offense on early downs, makes the run game more of a staple of the team's approach, and still gets the best from Rodgers in those high leverage situations.

How often is Rodgers willing to go run-run-pass, 3-and out and punt before he decides to take control back into his own hands? Is he going to be willing to target underneath receivers earlier in the play? Will he throw to the younger WRs even if they're not wide open?

My impression of the Shanahan scheme is that it makes the most of game manager QBs who can be accurate and follow the script, without being too creative or trying to improvise. Matt Ryan, Jimmy Garoppolo and Kirk Cousins all fit the bill.

If Rodgers is going to play in that style, he's going to have to change a lot about what he's been doing for the last 4-5 years, and rein in some of the abilities that make him so special, and for which he's received so much praise. 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Krauser

[Shanedorf]

Coach MLF  needs one of these so he can run around in TC, while still having his hands free for critical gesticulations

 

 

[Leader]

Too long hopping around on that thing and the next surgery you'll need is a hip replacement.

[Kepler]

On 7/7/2019 at 7:04 PM, AlexGreen#20 said:

The worst of all deceptions, is self deceptions - Plato

We see only two things in people: what we want to see, and what they want to show us - Isadora Duncan

I'm not double checking my sources on these, so I may be wrong on the originations.

Don't believe anything you read on the internet

- Abraham Lincoln