Jump to content

packers selcet mAtt leFleUr as head coah


FinneasGage

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Uffdaswede said:

Interesting take.

"cough...2-0...cough"

It sounds kind of footbally and carries a cachet of authority. But a closer sniff makes me think it's just a hot take with nothing more than superficial reasoning.

I like the author's analysis of the plays that worked. I'm not so sure about the others. The one where he said Rodgers could've thrown to a receiver on the slant, for example. I think the pressure was in Rodgers' face so that he could not throw in that direction. And the passes that he thought Adams and MVS could've caught were virtually uncatchable because they did not get open and defenders got their hands in to knock the ball out. He's right about Rodgers throwing too high to MVS on the sideline route, though. With a lower throw, that would've been an easy catch. (Although I'm still not sure what he is talking about when he writes that Rodgers "lumbers a bit" before making the throw.) 

I think he is right overall, though, that a lot of things went wrong for the offense in the last three quarters, but LaFleur still needs to show that he can create game plans that work for an entire game.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Greg C. said:

I like the author's analysis of the plays that worked. I'm not so sure about the others. The one where he said Rodgers could've thrown to a receiver on the slant, for example. I think the pressure was in Rodgers' face so that he could not throw in that direction. And the passes that he thought Adams and MVS could've caught were virtually uncatchable because they did not get open and defenders got their hands in to knock the ball out. He's right about Rodgers throwing too high to MVS on the sideline route, though. With a lower throw, that would've been an easy catch. (Although I'm still not sure what he is talking about when he writes that Rodgers "lumbers a bit" before making the throw.) 

I think he is right overall, though, that a lot of things went wrong for the offense in the last three quarters, but LaFleur still needs to show that he can create game plans that work for an entire game.  

I was reacting to the quote... I see now that the entirety of the piece gave some praise where it was due and gave evidence to make its case. But if Rodgers doesn’t hustle to the line on 4th down—thinking mistakenly he was working with a first down—rather than taking the field goal, and if Allison doesn’t turn the ball over with a fumble following a first down catch, the offense could have scored 27 pretty easily against Minnesota’s defense.

 I hear people say that we won’t win anything scoring 15 and a half points per game. Maybe not, but I think we can win the division scoring 27 points per game. If we score 10 in a loss to Denver I will concede there is a reason to be concerned. I’m not there yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the worst play call was the second drive of the 3rd quarter. The Packers have just rushed for 2 consecutive 1st downs and then got three yards on 1st down. Then, we leave the same personnel in, 3 TEs with Williams as the back and go 5 wide with a gd empty backfield.  I thought PA was a major component of this offense. What better time to pull it out?  Promising drive killed. Momentum back to the Vikings. It made me even madder on my second viewing.

Edited by mikebpackfan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, mikebpackfan said:

I think the worst play call was the second drive of the 3rd quarter. The Packers have just rushed for 2 consecutive 1st downs and then got three yards on 1st down. Then, we leave the same personnel in, 3 TEs with Williams as the back and go 5 wide with a gd empty backfield.  I thought PA was a major component of this offense. What better time to pull it out?  Promising drive killed. Momentum back to the Vikings. It made me even madder on my second viewing.

pretty sure i commented the same in the GDT (if this is the play I'm thinking of).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2019 at 1:25 PM, deltarich87 said:

Good read!

Quote

LaFleur lost his touch in piecing together fluid drives with play concepts that built off one another. He mixed in a standard amount of play-action off of outside zone looks, but every team does that and he did nothing special to earn an extra advantage. The motions and shifts all went away, while heavier personnel formations and barebones quick passing concepts flooded into the offense.

In the first quarter, just six of the Packers' 17 plays -- about 35% -- featured two tight ends and/or running backs. For the following three quarters, the Packers deployed two tight ends and/or running backs on 28 of their 52 plays, a rate of 54%. Now, here is where things clearly start to fall off the rails: those last three quarters included a two-minute drive at the end of the first half, which ballooned the Packers' 10 and 11 personnel usage a bit. So, let's remove the second quarter, too. In the second half, the Packers ran 21 out of 29 plays with two tight ends and/or running backs. The data bears out clear as day that LaFleur opted into heavier personnel as the game went on.

There is a bad argument to be made that LaFleur just wanted to control the clock with runs and short passes. Not only is that flawed from a personnel diversity standpoint, but it suggests that the Packers had a safe enough lead to take their foot off the pedal entirely. The game went into the half 21-10 and the Vikings scored a touchdown (but missed the extra point) early in the third to bring the game to 21-16. No coach should shrivel into ball control mode for 25 minutes with a one-score lead. LaFleur is armed with hindsight bias because it worked out, but just because it worked out in this instance does not mean it was the right call.

In fairness to LaFleur, the players deserve their fair share of blame, even Rodgers. Rodgers missed a number of passes after the first quarter. Some of Rodgers' misses were a vision-and-trigger issue, while a small handful of others were simply inaccurate passes.

This part in particular is troubling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

This part in particular is troubling. 

I tend to agree. It's not like our TE talent is so overwhelming that it's somehow become the focus of our offense. Nice scheme perhaps (a bit on the 50-ish side if you ask me....) but we dont have the TE talent to domin   errr  control  errr greatly influence (?) the game and if it's a running game we want - a Derrick Henry-type back is necessary cause the 2019 warranty on Jones will expire unexpectedly and probably sooner rather than later.

 

Edited by Leader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Good read!

This part in particular is troubling. 

My recall is probably poor and I haven't rewatched or re-analyzed, so I'm asking. 

But it kind of seemed to me that the early-down running game remained relatively effective throughout the second half.  So a significant fraction of the heavy usage was probably on first downs, which seemed to be working fine.   (Or is that recall wrong, and the heavy first-down plays weren't really getting much 2nd half?)   

So, *if* my premise is true that 1st downs went OK, then the problem was primarily 2nd-and-3rd downs.  They'd get decent down-and-distance, but they couldn't convert.  Yes, probably troubling that heavy was still used ≥50% on 2nd/3rd downs.  I wonder what the heavy/light distribution was on 2nd/3rd?

I guess I'm maybe wondering whether the concern isn't that they should have used more light plays on 2nd/3rd; my bigger concern is that their light plays were bad.  And their heavy 2nd/3rd down stuff didn't work either.  All the "run-sets-up-the-pass" philosophy didn't really set up the pass, either when they passed from light or passed from heavy.  

In terms of use of heavy on 1st downs:  *if* heavy was working pretty well on 1st downs, and if that's what the defense was giving, maybe it's not dumb to keep using heavy and getting decent gains on first downs and setting up decent down-and-distance?  

I'm asking.  Maybe Yes, that is dumb?  Because any defense will be happy to let you waste your first down getting 4-5 yards; and 1st down is really the best opportunity down for making bigger plays that are necessary to score, and you're wasting those chances?  Or maybe no, if you can usually get 4-5 on first down, then it's OK to keep taking what the defense allows and taking your chunks on first and setting up favorably down-distance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Norm said:

Don't worry, we'll fire him a couple years too late and you and your buddies will remind us we waited too long for many years after lol

I think people have a right to tout their positions , especially if they were right. 

Hell, it’s what politicians do all the time. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rainmaker90 said:

I think people have a right to tout their positions , especially if they were right. 

Hell, it’s what politicians do all the time. 

 

 

Yeah but he's not saying anything bad about Matt. So if he says he wanted him fired later on, it won't be accurate? 

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...