Jump to content

packers selcet mAtt leFleUr as head coah


FinneasGage

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

from The Athletic

Now that we’re a full eight games into the LaFleur tenure, let’s revisit the conversation on play-calling balance.

I’ve documented it well that Mike McCarthy leaned heavily Aaron Rodgers and the passing game over the past few years and drifted away from run/pass balance. McCarthy’s offense was 32nd in rushing attempts, first-and-10 run percentage and overall run percentage in 2018.

This season, there has been a drastic improvement in balancing the offensive approach. LaFleur has climbed each of those last-place rankings. The Packers don’t need to lead the NFL in committing to the run, but showing a semblance of balance and keeping defense’s guessing will ultimately alleviate pressure on Rodgers.

First-and-10 run percentage

2019: 52.0 percent (18th)

2018: 39.2 percent (32nd)

Run-percentage overall

2019: 40.6 percent (18th)

2018: 32.5 percent (32nd)

Carries per game

2019: 25.6 (18th)

2018: 20.8 (32nd)

Thanks, that's really interesting.  It's way better this year, for sure.  I wonder if having a healthier line and more consistently available Jones factors?  Second, we were losing a lot last year.  This year, lots of playing-with-the-lead in the 4th quarter.  

I like the balance.  With all the off-season buzz about run, I had feared an excessive commitment, and that we'd be consistently running short gains into the box to no positive effect.  I especially appreciate that 1st-down hasn't been excessively run-oriented.

To be 18th in running, both overall and on 1st downs, is a pretty healthy place to be.  We've got an extraordinary QB, so to be 8th in running and 22nd in passing would be silly...  Being modestly pass-oriented only makes sense.  If anything, I might prefer shifting that over even a little bit more in the passing direction?

Unfortunately, that might happen more *IF* we're playing behind and playing catchup more often in the second half of the season.  Or perhaps also if our o-line or Jones get hurt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

How would you have felt about working 95 hour high-stress weeks in your mid 60s?

No thanks but most coaches are passionate about the game.  Yes, they burn out but Sherman didn't last long in the NFL after he was canned in GB and he wasn't 65 back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pugger said:

If Sherman was a fine HC he wouldn't be unemployed right now.   I do agree he should NEVER have been given the GM job.  That was not one of Bob Harlan's finest hours.

Sherman's stock as a head coach is best demonstrated by all the interest he generated from other NFL teams after being fired in Green Bay. None.

After getting terminated by the Pack, Sherman was an offensive coordinator for the Houston Texans for 1 season, reverted to the college game where he was fired after 4 lackluster seasons as the HC at Texas A&M (2 non-winning and one 7-6), returned to the NFL to coach for his buddy Joe Philbin in Miami in 2012 and was promptly fired as the Dolphins OC less than 2 years later.

It appears that the rest of the NFL did not view Sherman's overall tenure in Green Bay to be sufficiently "successful" to offer him another head coaching gig or perhaps the rest of the NFL just thought that his "success" was more of a byproduct of having a HOFer at QB than Shermy's own coaching prowess.

Either way, Sherman never sniffed another NFL head coaching position after he was fired by GB. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pugger said:

If Sherman was a fine HC he wouldn't be unemployed right now.   I do agree he should NEVER have been given the GM job.  That was not one of Bob Harlan's finest hours.

Agreed pugger he was tough to judge he had some talent in GB at the time but his drafts and FA signings did little to keep it that way. Note that even the CFL doesn't want him. He actually looks burned out he needs a break from the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, PACKRULE said:

Agreed pugger he was tough to judge he had some talent in GB at the time but his drafts and FA signings did little to keep it that way. Note that even the CFL doesn't want him. He actually looks burned out he needs a break from the game.

He sucked in the CFL but his roster was trash too. Pretty sure he had Johnny Football start a few times which was hilariously bad entertainment though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

MLF's Packers are 8 - 2 and the # 2 seed in the NFC as they head into the bye week atop the NFC North

That's a great freaking start to the MLF Era.
It's also a start that few here predicted, some even had the Packers winning 8 games for the entire season

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topic/19826-how-many-wins-for-the-2019-packers/?tab=comments#comment-1907407

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

MLF's Packers are 8 - 2 and the # 2 seed in the NFC as they head into the bye week atop the NFC North

That's a great freaking start to the MLF Era.
It's also a start that few here predicted, some even had the Packers winning 8 games for the entire season

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topic/19826-how-many-wins-for-the-2019-packers/?tab=comments#comment-1907407

TBH looking back at our schedule its a damn fine job. There isn't a true stinker maybe besides the Broncos in there. All of the teams we have played so far at the very least are dangerous and even the bad teams have halfway good QBs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

TBH looking back at our schedule its a damn fine job. There isn't a true stinker maybe besides the Broncos in there. All of the teams we have played so far at the very least are dangerous and even the bad teams have halfway good QBs. 

I agree to a point but damn I don't think we should have lost to that Chargers team.
Rivers looked good against us then horrid the next week against the Raiders so idk what to think lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

I agree to a point but damn I don't think we should have lost to that Chargers team.
Rivers looked good against us then horrid the next week against the Raiders so idk what to think lol.

I'm with you there. Hard to justify that Chargers loss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

MLF's Packers are 8 - 2 and the # 2 seed in the NFC as they head into the bye week atop the NFC North

That's a great freaking start to the MLF Era.
It's also a start that few here predicted, some even had the Packers winning 8 games for the entire season

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topic/19826-how-many-wins-for-the-2019-packers/?tab=comments#comment-1907407

I felt good about the Packers this year when many were looking another year down the road.  Even with my optimistic outlook, they did better in those early tough games than I expected. I was also very high on Pettine (a few doubts are creeping in now, but it's hard to argue with 8-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I felt good about the Packers this year when many were looking another year down the road.  Even with my optimistic outlook, they did better in those early tough games than I expected. I was also very high on Pettine (a few doubts are creeping in now, but it's hard to argue with 8-2.)

FIFY :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...