2024 Weekly Report Card: Matt LaFleur

Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
15,873
Reaction score
6,807
I didn't give him an F, I gave him a D- because they won. If they would have lost, it would have been an F. Better play calling in goal to go situations they would have put a 30 burger up and this game would have been a 2 score victory.
Ok

I think a more reasonable number is you get that TD instead of an INT. 27 points would’ve been good against Chicago on the Road.

Defense should’ve allowed 15 points (FG instead of TD) or 12 something like that.

There’s your 2-score game
 
Last edited:

DoURant

Go Pack Go!
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
547
Location
Michigan
Ok

I think a more reasonable number is you get that TD instead of an INT. 27 points would’ve been good against Chicago on the Road.

Defense should’ve allowed 15 or 12 something like that.
I get what you are saying, but they had 2 goal to go possessions that they can away with 0 points. That Interception gave the Bears some confidence, which they only had 3 points up until that point.

On a totally different game changing point, Jaire reaggravating that injury put the Packers in more zone coverage, vs man and I think that helped CW.
 

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,979
Reaction score
1,426
I understand him being aggressive and I’m not as tiffed about that. But yeah 4th and more than 3 and you take the points 17-19
Nah. MLF was playing chess. He knew the defense was struggling. If we had kicked the FG, then after our late TD the Bears would have been forced to go for a TD. Knowing Santos has a reputation as a low-trajectory kicker, he figured our chances of blocking a FG were better than keeping them out of the end zone after losing JA. And the Bears took the bait. See? He was playing chess. :whistling:
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
15,873
Reaction score
6,807
Nah. MLF was playing chess. He knew the defense was struggling. If we had kicked the FG, then after our late TD the Bears would have been forced to go for a TD. Knowing Santos has a reputation as a low-trajectory kicker, he figured our chances of blocking a FG were better than keeping them out of the end zone after losing JA. And the Bears took the bait. See? He was playing chess. :whistling:
Oh I see. He must be really good at Geometric equations. I wonder if he has one of those old fashioned compass and protractor sets. Maybe some old fashioned chart paper to record his findings? Don’t mess with a man’s Protractor! Especially when he looks agitated like he did today! :eek:
 
Last edited:

DoURant

Go Pack Go!
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
547
Location
Michigan
Oh I see. He must be really good at Geometric equations. I wonder if he has one of those old fashioned compass and protractor sets. Maybe some old fashioned chart paper to record his findings? Don’t mess with a man’s Protractor! Especially when he looks agitated like he did today! :eek:
I think he was using a sliderule
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
15,873
Reaction score
6,807
Have you guys noticed MLF’s demeanor as of late has changed. It started around the time he took the Unsportsmanlike Penalty. He used to be generally calm. Now you see him running up and down screaming at Referees and such. I suppose he’s seeing what we see and it must be hard to watch. Idk. Something different like he’s more stressed out
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,881
Reaction score
1,905
LaFleur's worst game of the year (or very close to worst). Hafley failed to keep Williams contained and 3rd down was a disaster most of the day it seemed. No better than D for this week.
Play calling in the Red zone was a big disaster.
 

Zartan

Cans.wav
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
2,363
Reaction score
807
Play calling in the Red zone was a big disaster.
I dont understand why he wanted to go for it on 4th and Goal instead of taking the pts. In close game like that you gotta take the pts, had they taken the pts Bears would have needed a TD to win instead of a FG.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,881
Reaction score
1,905
I dont understand why he wanted to go for it on 4th and Goal instead of taking the pts. In close game like that you gotta take the pts, had they taken the pts Bears would have needed a TD to win instead of a FG.
Seeing it through his thoughts of which I disagree it may sound like this: McManus kicks a FG for 19-17 and the Bears get the kickoff at the 30. They have been moving up and down the field so likely they will be in FG range in no time. They either get a 3 or a 7. Being stopped at the 2 the Bears had a long way to go. And they did move the ball but had to punt because their drive stalled near midfield. MLF thinks he is Dan Campbell and can gamble anytime. He still remembers the Bucs playoff loss when he took the points. In the 2nd quarter we were up 7-3 and had a 2nd and 1 at the Bear 5. He goes with a pass and we get a penalty. Why not go with a line smash to get the first down? Jacobs just gashed them for 9. If it fails do it again. If it again fails you can try play action. If all fails you come away with 3 and the Bears do not have all the momentum.
 
Top