Jump to content

Matt Lafleur's Offense


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Norm said:

The issue is he can go from the MVP, into.......that, whenever he feels like it. I would have sworn I would also say he is the best I'd ever seen do it, and I might still have that opinion tbh. But something is just different with him in some ways. We've been over this enough though, but yeah, it just doesn't ever feel like the team can rally behind him like some teams do for other QBs and it gets old. Maybe that's not his fault at all and he's the biggest victim of circumstance around him, but I think a bunch of it has to be his attitude/demeanor, etc. He got no help the other day, but he didn't help any either. That's all I guess I've felt all along. 

All of that is up for debate, with no way to prove one way or another. But whether is be Starr, Favre, Rodgers, or Barney, 89% of Super Bowl winners had a Top 10 scoring defense to help out. I'll ride that train till it proves differently. That's about as simple as I can describe my stance. 

And I may be going out on a limb, but there are 31 other fan bases who aren't saying "you missed a 5 yard crosser early in the 1st quarter and it cost us the game."

Edited by cannondale
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cannondale said:

All of that is up for debate, with no way to prove one way or another. But whether is be Starr, Favre, Rodgers, or Barney, 89% of Super Bowl winners had a Top 10 scoring defense to help out. I'll ride that train till it proves differently. That's about as simple as I can describe my stance. 

Its a shame how close the previous defense was to working out at times. Always felt a cylinder off. I wasn't around for the 70s or 80s but I'd love to see a truly dominant defense in Green Bay for more than two seasons or a single playoff game at a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChaRisMa said:

Its a shame how close the previous defense was to working out at times. Always felt a cylinder off. I wasn't around for the 70s or 80s but I'd love to see a truly dominant defense in Green Bay for more than two seasons or a single playoff game at a time.

Don't worry, you didn't miss anything. There weren't any dominant defenses back then either. And the QB play was probably barely a notch or two above Brett Hundley. So like I said, be careful what you wish for. 

I will say the arrival of Don Majkowski is a memory I won't forget. That guy was cooler than the other side of the pillow in every way. IIRC Sterling Sharpe said if he hadn't gotten injured you may never had heard of Brett Favre.

Edited by cannondale
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ChaRisMa said:

Its a shame how close the previous defense was to working out at times. Always felt a cylinder off. I wasn't around for the 70s or 80s but I'd love to see a truly dominant defense in Green Bay for more than two seasons or a single playoff game at a time.

I was around for the 1st Super Bowl and a truly dominant defense has only surfaced a couple of times since.  It's head scratching how much draft value has been put into the D and for whatever reason just hasn't panned out.  It would be sweet to see that happen again but not holding much hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

I was around for the 1st Super Bowl and a truly dominant defense has only surfaced a couple of times since.  It's head scratching how much draft value has been put into the D and for whatever reason just hasn't panned out.  It would be sweet to see that happen again but not holding much hope.

Wonder of having a top level QB for nearly 30 years has affected how the defensive philosophy has been shaped?

Bend don't break.

Aside from the couple seasons in mid 90's,  2010 and 2014 the defense seems like it has similar/consistent issues.

Outside of NE, not many teams have had sustained success without a few noteworthy down years.   Keeping a top level defense together is hard as it requires more players to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cannondale said:

It does suck. They were also down 17-0 by the time he touched the ball for the 3rd time. And I would have hoped that you, of all people here, would at least acknowledge that crucial tidbit. If not, you're not as smart as I thought you were. I guess you could say the defense set 3 drives on fire to open the game.

The defense sucked epically. The difference is nobody is trying to say anything else. The game was over the 3rd time Rodgers touched the ball because we had 5 straight consecutive failures on our drives, 3 by the defense, 2 by the offense. And the 3rd drive by the offense wasn't even a success. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The defense sucked epically. The difference is nobody is trying to say anything else. The game was over the 3rd time Rodgers touched the ball because we had 5 straight consecutive failures on our drives, 3 by the defense, 2 by the offense. And the 3rd drive by the offense wasn't even a success. 

I thought we all agreed 7 days ago that everything sucked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

We did, except Rodgers fans get mad when you don't hold him aloft and away from the rest of the team, even when undeserving. 

Think the vast majority of posters in this forum that are football knowledgeable agree the entire team sucked last week and that includes Rodgers.  They both stunk and the defense and Rodgers both have to get their crap together ... period.   Tonight's game will be an indication if things got rectified.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2021 at 6:16 PM, 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.

The Packers might very well lose MVS because of the cap but to suggest its as good thing is dumb. Where does that logic come from. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, gizmo2012 said:

The Packers might very well lose MVS because of the cap but to suggest its as good thing is dumb. Where does that logic come from. 

trying reading better before calling something you don't understand dumb.

I'd take the time to explain the very, VERY simple logic to you if you hadn't called it dumb.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think many 1 dimensional deep threats have gotten big money, especially ones with inconsistent hands like MVS.

DeSean Jackson is the closest thing to a pure deep threat that went out and got paid.

 

Based on his play I don't see how MVS stands to really cash in, and I would doubt that he adds a lot of facets to his game to bring him into another tier of player.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2021 at 3:57 PM, cannondale said:

I'm being a massive homer, yet you are calling a 5 yard crosser in the first quarter crucial ??

It's not that the crosser itself was crucial, it's what it represented in terms of how Rodgers played.  MLF's offense is not like McCarthy's was; in McCarthy's offense Rodgers enjoyed a large degree of freedom in terms of pre-snap reads and route adjustments because that was what the offense was built around.  It was built for and largely by Rodgers to let him play exactly how he desires: saunter up to the line, read the coverage, throw a few winks and nudges to the receivers to let em know what route they're running now, then snap the ball, meander through the pocket while you move the safeties with your eyes, throw a perfect ball to your receiver who's exactly where you expected him to be because you both read everything perfectly and in sync. 

MLF's offense and the Shanahan tree from whence it comes work on the opposite principle: for every play, everybody gets a role and it never changes.  Your audibles are usually a choice between two plays, and there's little to no freedom to adjust routes.  You trade off the ability to beat the defense on every play to improve your ability to influence the defense with play-calling; it's a lot easier to set up counter-concepts when your offense has core concepts in the first place.  It's clear that MLF and Rodgers have found whatever balance was necessary to get Aaron onboard with the scheme, but the days of getting to change routes on the fly to beat the coverage are gone, and with them comes a new urgency to operate the play as it's drawn up.  When you're targeting a specific player or specific route combination, if you let the coverage catch-up there's often nowhere else to go and the play is dead.  There's not necessarily four other guys out there each trying to beat their own man to potentially target on the broken play. 

Rodgers has a pretty ideal QB make-up for this system when he plays in it.  He's an excellent ball handler on PA, his delivery is lightning quick but he's also fast enough to stress the rush contain and he can target just about anywhere on the field on the move, plus he's real damned smart.  There's a reason he won the MVP last season in this system.  But it only works when Rodgers trusts the system, and letting it rip when you have an open read that is a success on the play is an essential part of that.  This system is built off quick, decisive reads, delivering the ball on time and with good placement to maximize YAC opportunities and punish defenders who mis-read or over-commit.  If the defense makes mistakes and loses a guy in coverage and then you let him catch back up because you hold the ball too long, you're basically a consultant for the other team that your team pays for; you don't punish their mistakes, you just teach them that they've made them so they can get em corrected. 

We'll see how Rodgers does on attempt #2 tonight.  I'd be shocked if he didn't look night and day better; his game plays way better at home where he can more easily read the defense pre-snap and bonus it won't be played on the surface of the sun.  But what I'm mostly looking for is what I'm always looking for with him; will he unleash the dragon or not?  All jokes aside, you can tell 95% certainty if it's going to be a big game from Rodgers if he comes out slinging, even if it starts poorly.  To be clear, I specifically mean actually putting the ball in the air on things other than 90/10 balls.  He's too good to not make things happen when he has enough bites at the apple, you just need him to be biting and not trying to perfectly get just this one delicious bit.

Edited by MrBobGray
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2021 at 9:19 PM, AlexGreen#20 said:

The defense sucked epically. The difference is nobody is trying to say anything else. The game was over the 3rd time Rodgers touched the ball because we had 5 straight consecutive failures on our drives, 3 by the defense, 2 by the offense. And the 3rd drive by the offense wasn't even a success. 

First live action as a unit in a new defense ends in a FG. Okay. 3-0 NO

Offense goes 13 yards in 7 plays.

Saints take 15 plays to score a TD. 10-0 NO

Offense goes 8 yards in 5 plays.

Saints take 15 plays to score a TD. 17-0 NO

Packer FG to half. 17-3

Packers INT.

Saints get 15 yards in 5 plays from their own 40. 
Packers INT.

Saints go 12 yards in 3 plays for a TD. 24-3 Saints.

Packers turnover on downs

Saints go 21 yards in 4 plays for a TD. 31-3 Saints and it’s over entering the fourth quarter.

I agree the defense was horrific. The 15 play drives weren’t like we were making it tough on them. But the offense came out in the second half and went full Quang Duc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things that make you go hmmm.

Peter Bukowski, who I don't know, don't follow, never heard of, came on the YT chat with Andy Herman and had an interesting hot take. He thinks if teams continue with the 2-high coverage, Randall Cobb may become a more valuable piece to the offense. I understand where he is coming from, but have no clue if he is giving Cobb too much credit. Something to watch I guess. He wonders if Amari put on some weight in the offseason to become stronger and possibly handle some RB snaps some teams may have talked about, because he thinks the college explosion just isn't there.

Edited by cannondale
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...