Tactics under Matt LeFleur

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Trust me, I definitely like the current LaFleur scheme better than what we were running under the last two years of McCarthy. I think the results speak for themselves there.

But there still are ways it could be done better. I think part of what makes it defective during the 5 minute close out drill is when Rodgers takes one snap where he gets the play clock all the way down trying to work a hard count but always has to use the timeout there. I just think that should be scrapped for several reasons:

1. Stopping the clock giving opponents free timeouts when it needs to be running

2. Defenses have never ever jumped offsides in those situations, but our OLmen do false start sometimes

3. Gassed defenses get to catch their breath

Bottom line is it's a defective tactic for closing out games

 

[swhitset]

Trust me, I definitely like the current LaFleur scheme better than what we were running under the last two years of McCarthy. I think the results speak for themselves there.

But there still are ways it could be done better. I think part of what makes it defective during the 5 minute close out drill is when Rodgers takes one snap where he gets the play clock all the way down trying to work a hard count but always has to use the timeout there. I just think that should be scrapped for several reasons:

1. Stopping the clock giving opponents free timeouts when it needs to be running

2. Defenses have never ever jumped offsides in those situations, but our OLmen do false start sometimes

3. Gassed defenses get to catch their breath

Bottom line is it's a defective tactic for closing out games

Your first reason is moot. By taking the play clock all the way down before calling the timeout, all the time on the running game clock is used as well... The game clock resumes at the next snap.
Your second reason.. Well... that comes down to execution... the offensive line needs to know the snap count ... if it works ... it could be very positive. As for reason number 3... I tend to agree, but again it can be beneficial for the offense as well.
In short, I think this is much ado about nothing.

 

[PackAttack12]

he's a big-play guy like MM. expect what we've been seeing. i think the differences will be minor.

That doesn't mean he's going to be another McCarthy. He's going to run the football and incorporate shorter routes in with the plan in order to open up the more explosive stuff down the field. Additionally, if you scheme properly, you don't have to sit in the pocket waiting for guys to separate to get chunk plays.

In McCarthy's offense, Rodgers facilitated to the scheme's success. In LaFleur's offense, the scheme will help facilitate to Rodgers' success. There's a difference.

everyone he's coached with, everyone he mentions as an influence, were/are big-play guys. in ten he didn't have a qb that fit that. in atl, la, and here, he does. to expect anything else is silly.

I'm simply saying that if you're expecting the same stale man beater routes down the field that McCarthy has been using then you are misinformed. There's nothing wrong with wanting big plays. The question is, how do we get those plays a little easier and more effectively.

Drawing an equivalency from McCarthy to LaFleur just because of the desire for big plays is logically flawed.

all i said was he's a big-play guy (like MM) so expect to see them taking shots downfield...as they have been for the last several years. not ball control. we'll also continue to see Rodgers holding the ball and extending plays...as he has been. will they start using the middle of the field? who knows...i'd hope so...but it remains to be seen. will Rodgers take what the D gives him? that remains to be seen. will he continue to look past open guys? i hope to hell not. as always it comes down to execution. will this O suddenly do a 180 and be efficient? if it doesn't, look for another frustrating season.

……..oops

 

[gbgary]

……..oops

yes...my initial thoughts about MLF and his O were wrong. as i learned more about his O i really looked forward to seeing it. remember when i said "if goff can do it imagine what rodgers can do." he does loves the big play though. he's said so many times. his O sets up the big play. aaaaand 2019 WAS like what we had been seeing in previous years with the spread formations and rodgers holding the ball etc. this year it's completely different from 2019. much more efficient. we're also seeing a completely different rodgers and it's fantastic to see.

 

[tynimiller]

yes...my initial thoughts about MLF and his O were wrong. as i learned more about his O i really looked forward to seeing it. remember when i said "if goff can do it imagine what rodgers can do." he does loves the big play though. he's said so many times. his O sets up the big play. aaaaand 2019 WAS like what we had been seeing in previous years with the spread formations and rodgers holding the ball etc. this year it's completely different from 2019. much more efficient. we're also seeing a completely different rodgers and it's fantastic to see.

Can we all just take a minute and thank you for something many here refuse to do, admit past thoughts or speculation were wrong. Kudos!

 

[gbgary]

Can we all just take a minute and thank you for something many here refuse to do, admit past thoughts or speculation were wrong. Kudos!

that was jan 8 2019. as we learned what his O was supposed to be and then seeing what we actually got in 2019 (pretty much a 2018 passing O) my frustration level peaked. this last offseason gave me hope from all the reports we were hearing about how things looked and worked differently. the season opened up and those reports proved to be spot on. like i've said, a complete 180. it's been a very exciting year.

 

[PackAttack12]

Can we all just take a minute and thank you for something many here refuse to do, admit past thoughts or speculation were wrong. Kudos!

He doesn't admit it often

 

[gbgary]

He doesn't admit it often

i'm not often wrong.

 

[XPack]

Super aggressive O. I'm loving it. Dicey throws, 2 Pt attempts. I'm loving it.

 

[gbgary]

it was run dominated ball control with timely shots (except one on 3rd down). a master plan vs LAR.

 

[Dantés]

One thing I really appreciate about LaFleur is that while his offense is designed to operate with a good running game, it doesn't absolutely fall apart without one. Other versions of this system around the league, especially CLE or TEN, seem to be incapable of functioning when they have to drop back with regularity.

A lot of that is Rodgers, but Petals and Stenavich also deserve credit.

 

[longtimefan]

Just a remindernto those that think MLF sucks

 

[PackinMSP]

Interesting points. I think MLF is terrific. Does he have faults? Sure

But MLF is a "young guy" in life in general and VERY young for an NFL HC

This brings up the question, does he have a good NFL Offensive system where you could theoretically/hypothetically "plug and chug" a guy who has the skillset/ability to operate it to be successsful?

Maybe that's why they drafted Love; as they see he has the tangible skills and ability to operate the MLF offense...and he is on a relatively "cheap" rookie contract

Maybe you don't necessarily need a HOFer like Aaron Rodgers to be successful with his offensive system.

 

[longtimefan]

Twitter
Fb
And etc.. So ******* MLF..no one is perfect..Rodgers even said he understood WHY they didnt got for it on 4th down.

Appreciate this coach..he is MM..no where near

 

[PackAttack12]

I think MLF was fine tonight. But the decision to kick the FG was gutless and sorry.

Relying on the defense to do anything meaningful in a big spot was, lets just say, misguided at best.

 

[PackAttack12]

Twitter
Fb
And etc.. So ******* MLF..no one is perfect..Rodgers even said he understood WHY they didnt got for it on 4th down.

Appreciate this coach..he is MM..no where near

No way. Rodgers might have gave the politically correct worded answer, but anyone that watched his presser clearly could tell that he wasn't happy at all with the call to kick it.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Well, you can dice the decision to kick the FG there any way you want.

If it was a 2 possession game where you would need 9 or 10 or something, I might have been a little more forgiving of it. But in that situation, chances are also pretty likely we go for an onside kick too.

So ... it's also true we had all 3 timeouts plus 2mw left, but you're still asking quite a bit to hope the D produces a 3 and out, especially after that Gronk screen pass play. I just feel, since you need the TD anyway, and if you fail you'll want good field position, I'd have just gone for it, and if the defense did manage to hold the offense could get it back with better field position potentially.

And if we did score the TD on 4th down and convert 2 points, a not called King holding play would have given us the chance to go down and kick a game winning FG. Or even with that penalty, we might still be able to keep them out of FG range, or potentially ice Succop.

 

[longtimefan]

No way. Rodgers might have gave the politically correct worded answer, but anyone that watched his presser clearly could tell that he wasn't happy at all with the call to kick it.

He said wasnt his decision but knew why..

For me....he was honest..he didnt like it but knew why.

 

[PackAttack12]

He said wasnt his decision but knew why..

For me....he was honest..he didnt like it but knew why.

You're entitled to your opinion. And I respect it.

But IMO, he was internally furious with the call. He said he looked up and saw "5 big guys" or something similar. running on to the field and that it "was what is was".

I think if it were up to him, he would've went for it all day long.

At the end of the day, I thought it was gutless to say the least.

 

[longtimefan]

You're entitled to your opinion. And I respect it.

But IMO, he was internally furious with the call. He said he looked up and saw "5 big guys" or something similar. running on to the field and that it "was what is was".

I think if it were up to him, he would've went for it all day long.

At the end of the day, I thought it was gutless to say the least.

So you think he was furious inside? Okay. Got you. Let explain my rationale and that will be the end

He added...I know why he didnt..
If I was furious, I wouldnt add that..

 

[PackAttack12]

So you think he was furious inside? Okay. Got you. Let explain my rationale and that will be the end

He added...I know why he didnt..
If I was furious, I wouldnt add that..

He did that to maintain sustainability with the relationship going forward if he's to remain the starter in Green Bay. He can't openly call out his head coach without throwing some softening caveat in there.

 

[longtimefan]

He did that to maintain sustainability with the relationship going forward if he's to remain the starter in Green Bay. He can't openly call out his head coach without throwing some softening caveat in there.

You see MLF presser? Called him the soul

We will disagree in how Rodgers feels...we both dont know

 

[PackAttack12]

You see MLF presser? Called him the soul

We will disagree in how Rodgers feels...we both dont know

I definitely saw MLF's presser. He was adamant about wanting Rodgers. How could he not?

Rodgers isn't so sure, IMO. I could be wrong. JMO.

 

[longtimefan]

LaFleur had been one of the best coaches when it comes to decision-making by EdjSports model, ranking third best this season.

 

[PackAttack12]

LaFleur had been one of the best coaches when it comes to decision-making by EdjSports model, ranking third best this season.

I'm good with LaFleur. But he **** the bed on the last possession deciding to kick the FG.