Jump to content

Matt Lafleur's Offense


Recommended Posts

I'm reading a lot lately, and a fair amount of the Packers coverage I'm seeing seems to A) stink, and B) not understand how Lafluer's offense is set up either on the field or in the front office. So I just wanted a few opinions on if you guys have been seeing this like I have.

Somehow MLF has blended his version of the Shanahan run scheme with Aaron Rodgers to create a monster. I questioned the hire at first thinking a run first offense would limit what we got out of Rodgers and that would be an issue but, I was wrong. Rodgers orchestrates. The formations and pre snap motion actually seem to be instances of a coach winning the game by giving Rodgers the tools to never be in a bad situation. We ran the ball 44% of the time last year for a 4.8 Average. Thats not taking the ball out of the MVP's hands, that's giving him something he can lean on to set up the rest of the offense. 

The McCarthy era taught us we needed three high quality receivers. We don't use more than three WRs in MLF's offense. It's about running the ball first, now. And it's been proven effective. The Packers have invested heavily in their offensive line in recent years. as well as the RB position--theres the best proof someone could need. Then comes the pass off of the run

The passing game is comprised of two things: WR1, and a "mixture" of WR2, TE1, RB1, WR3, TE2, RB2 with a sprinkle of plays for TE3, WR4. Adams has thrived in the Alpha role as WR1. 30% of all targets are headed to him--50+% of the WR targets. The "mixture" is common plays ran off of the run scheme or off of Adams route in order to create completions. Unfortunately, having invested so much already elsewhere on offense and with a defense to consider--you don't have much left for resources. So this is where Gutenkunst and MLF have to be on the same page for exactly what that "mixture" needs so Gutenkunst can bring in the right ingredients and not have waste.

Multiple RBs are a must. It's a two pronged attack that's at its best when the prongs are different in strength but still interchangeable. 

The #1 WR is going to get a ton of targets, if you do not have a dominant #1 WR you are stunted.

We will always have a need in Lafleur's offense for a WR to be arguably the fastest player on the field. The threat of the run game combined with the constant motion opens up the deep ball frequently. We have a ton of plays designed to get a 1v1 for our fastest WR to get over the top of his man untouched. Marquise Goodwin has played this role for San Francisco. The size doesn't matter, its the speed. 4.4 or better and play action results in wide open, easy catches for players who can run past the defense. MVS has held this role for three partially maddening years but he is now fulfilling a staple role in the offense.

If you can block, expect to be involved in the game plan. WR2/3 are as involved with the run game as any WRs in the NFL. The remaining skill players all relied upon to block regularly, from RB1 to TE3.

Versatility is valued at all positions. QBs with mobility have been valued. RBs need to be able to catch. WRs need to be able to block. TEs need to be able to do everything. OL need to be able to change positions in game. 

Above is kind of the core of how I see the team being operated for the remainder of the MLF years. And that has lead me to believe the money will be paid out like this on offense:

QB1, RB1, WR1, TE1, 2 OL -- we will pay you top dollar. Those six players make up over a third of our cap space. 

Everyone else: Rookie contracts cycling towards getting paid and dirt cheap veterans.

Thoughts?

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I think this understanding makes MVS an obvious departure (which I agree with) this off-season. He's going to play himself out of the money needed to spend on that role in this offense.

And that's a good thing for the 2021 Packers.

Has MVS done anything up through this point to suggest he's a must sign?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many have to realize that the run-to-set-up-the-pass is helpful to an elder statesmen like Rodgers. Aaron can still do all the Aaron things he did back in 2010/2011, but now he has a running game and an OL that is better equipped to run the ball. Yes, you will still see 4 WR packages as is the norm in any offense at this point, but we've proven that our WR's don't need to be burners and the physicality of Adams ensures that our chunk yardage passing plays start with immediate separation and quick-hit passes to keep defenses honest. MVS may be our deep threat at the moment, but I'd be shocked if we didn't take a burner in next year's draft; provided one is worth our time...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Has MVS done anything up through this point to suggest he's a must sign?

NFL.com Scouting Report Weaknesses
  • Routes lack sharpness and consistent play speed
  • Gives away stop routes prematurely
  • Slow to gather and redirect in space
  • Anchors on hitches and curls rather than working back to the throw
  • Too much body catching
  • Hands are small for his size and he suffers from focus drops
  • Gets deep but his ball skills down the field are lacking
  • Fails to utilize size to gain position

I'd say more than 3 of these are still very clearly true after three years of run, and that's why I think he has reached his ceiling. I wouldn't pay MVS more than 6 per year. That would line him up behind Adams, Jones, Tonyan in the weapon pay. But he's likely to be one of best 5 or 6 WR available. 

We can legitimately expect a first round WR next year if MVS is gone. We'll finally have the speed requirement and snaps available to justify one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ChaRisMa said:
NFL.com Scouting Report Weaknesses
  • Routes lack sharpness and consistent play speed
  • Gives away stop routes prematurely
  • Slow to gather and redirect in space
  • Anchors on hitches and curls rather than working back to the throw
  • Too much body catching
  • Hands are small for his size and he suffers from focus drops
  • Gets deep but his ball skills down the field are lacking
  • Fails to utilize size to gain position

I'd say more than 3 of these are still very clearly true after three years of run, and that's why I think he has reached his ceiling. I wouldn't pay MVS more than 6 per year. That would line him up behind Adams, Jones, Tonyan in the weapon pay. But he's likely to be one of best 5 or 6 WR available. 

We can legitimately expect a first round WR next year if MVS is gone. We'll finally have the speed requirement and snaps available to justify one.

Is that the best scouting report of all time???

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ChaRisMa said:
 

I'd say more than 3 of these are still very clearly true after three years of run, and that's why I think he has reached his ceiling. I wouldn't pay MVS more than 6 per year. That would line him up behind Adams, Jones, Tonyan in the weapon pay. But he's likely to be one of best 5 or 6 WR available. 

We can legitimately expect a first round WR next year if MVS is gone. We'll finally have the speed requirement and snaps available to justify one.

The only guys making 6 or less are rookies and guys in their 30’s. If he has a year even close to last, someone is paying him 10+. I don’t know if it will be us but he does have a skill set that is hard to teach and you hope he keeps improving on the details. He will never be a Randy Moss tracking the ball but he could improve his catch rate and route running. He’s an interesting case, I hope he has a great season so even if we let him walk, he can bring back something.  Anything higher than a 5th makes his original pick value worth it and he has already exceeded that on the field. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ChaRisMa said:
NFL.com Scouting Report Weaknesses
  • Routes lack sharpness and consistent play speed
  • Gives away stop routes prematurely
  • Slow to gather and redirect in space
  • Anchors on hitches and curls rather than working back to the throw
  • Too much body catching
  • Hands are small for his size and he suffers from focus drops
  • Gets deep but his ball skills down the field are lacking
  • Fails to utilize size to gain position

I'd say more than 3 of these are still very clearly true after three years of run, and that's why I think he has reached his ceiling. I wouldn't pay MVS more than 6 per year. That would line him up behind Adams, Jones, Tonyan in the weapon pay. But he's likely to be one of best 5 or 6 WR available. 

We can legitimately expect a first round WR next year if MVS is gone. We'll finally have the speed requirement and snaps available to justify one.

Email this to every team in the league.

Maybe we can get him back for pennies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Refugee said:

I hope he has a great season so even if we let him walk, he can bring back something.  Anything higher than a 5th makes his original pick value worth it and he has already exceeded that on the field. 

He's our Nelson Agholor...

Seriously though, it depends on whether or not Aaron is back and whether or not Aaron wants MVS back. If not, I think we could see MVS walk and maybe pick up a 4th for him. I'm not an expert on comp pick formula, but I think we can get a higher pick value in return for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ChaRisMa said:

...

The #1 WR is going to get a ton of targets, if you do not have a dominant #1 WR you are stunted.

We will always have a need in Lafleur's offense for a WR to be arguably the fastest player on the field. .....

QB1, RB1, WR1, TE1, 2 OL -- we will pay you top dollar. Those six players make up over a third of our cap space. 

Everyone else: Rookie contracts cycling towards getting paid and dirt cheap veterans....

Given the stated emphasis on a deep-threat speedy WR, it might seem the MVS would be valued.  You've mentioned six players receiving top dollar.  But *if* hypothetically a couple of them are NOT at top-dollar yet (Love, Dillon...), could you instead pay a 2nd MVS-WR good (not superstar) dollar?  

The idea of walking MVS and replacing him with a top draft choice necessitates NOT using that top draft choice on somebody else.  Every top-pick freed is super valuable.   So in a sense *if* you can make a semi-fair offer to MVS, it's buying BOTH what an experienced well-systemed MVS gives you, AND buying yourself a high draft choice.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a dumb question, I think.  But you mention "those six players make up over a third of our cap space."  Is that "descriptive", what it is now with Rodgers?  Or what it will be next year, *if* we brought back Rodgers? 

Or is that "prescriptive", basically how much of the cap you'd intend to routinely allocate for your top 6-salaried offensive guys?  For a typical roster, would allocating 1/3 of cap for best 6 offensive players, 1/3 for best 6 defensive players, and 1/3 for the other 41 students on the roster be a kinda target layout?  For future, imagining $240 cap just for round number.  If it's like $80-$80-$80?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well crap.  I hate that I'm here to defend re-signing MVS.  I hate having to defend him period.  He's been so frustrating. But......

Kid really came on at the end of last year.  He's shown steady improvement.  He gives us a deep threat that no one else on the roster really does.

If he is open to a modest extension, I wrap that up right away and keep some continuity in that WR corp.  And by modest, I'm talking like $7-$8M/season average over 4 years.

I hate the idea of starting over at the WR corp without Adams, and I flat out despise it if I'm starting over without Adams and MVS.

  • Like 2
Link to post
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...