Tactics under Matt LeFleur

[PackinMSP]

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

Dude. Just R-E-L-A-X and drop it man

That was one decision in the "moment of the game" it was one decision and Its in the past. Its over, just let it go

Not one call, one play, one player, or one decision was the "scapegoat" for our loss

Just let it go

 

[PackAttack12]

Dude. Just R-E-L-A-X and drop it man

That was one decision in the "moment of the game" it was one decision and Its in the past. Its over, just let it go

Not one call, one play, one player, or one decision was the "scapegoat" for our loss

Just let it go

LMAO. Like you let things go when you don't agree with something? that's hilarous.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Dude. Just R-E-L-A-X and drop it man

That was one decision in the "moment of the game" it was one decision and Its in the past. Its over, just let it go

Not one call, one play, one player, or one decision was the "scapegoat" for our loss

Just let it go

Like it or not, that decision by MLF will be talked about for quite some time.

While it could have worked out it wasn't a courageous one for sure.

 

[XPack]

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

Think I can understand his thinking for the call.

If we had scored and gotten the 2 pointer to tie, it'd give the ball to Brady with 2 minutes remaining with potential for OT where we might not get the ball.

His plan was to get 3 pointer, stop their O (which was floundering badly by that time) and give final drive to AR12 where he excels avoid the tie and go for the win. It was actually a very risky and aggressive call. It nearly worked...except for that stupid PI call on King.

Had it worked, people would have been singing praises. It didn't and we are where we are now.

 

[PackAttack12]

Think I can understand his thinking for the call.

If we had scored and gotten the 2 pointer to tie, it'd give the ball to Brady with 2 minutes remaining with potential for OT where we might not get the ball.

His plan was to get 3 pointer, stop their O (which was floundering badly by that time) and give final drive to AR12 where he excels avoid the tie and go for the win. It was actually a very risky and aggressive call. It nearly worked...except for that stupid PI call on King.

Had it worked, people would have been singing praises. It didn't and we are where we are now.

In either scenario, you need a stop. Only difference is if you try to tie the game, you have to prevent 3 points. Doing it LaFleur's way, they only needed 2 first downs.

Doesn't take much for me to realize which is the easier of the two tasks.

 

[XPack]

Doing it LaFleur's way, they only needed 2 first downs.

Only because of that stupid PI call. If that hadn't happened, MLF's plan would have worked out well.

 

[Mondio]

while all that is true, it's also true that we had a lot of opportunities from in close and didn't put it in the endzone on a couple drives. My confidence that we do it on the next 2 plays in a row was not high.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Think I can understand his thinking for the call.

If we had scored and gotten the 2 pointer to tie, it'd give the ball to Brady with 2 minutes remaining with potential for OT where we might not get the ball.

His plan was to get 3 pointer, stop their O (which was floundering badly by that time) and give final drive to AR12 where he excels avoid the tie and go for the win. It was actually a very risky and aggressive call. It nearly worked...except for that stupid PI call on King.

Had it worked, people would have been singing praises. It didn't and we are where we are now.

Here's a link to a breakdown of MLF's decision to kick the field goal. Spoiler alert, it was the wrong one to make.

https://edjsports.com/articles/risky-business-conference-championships-2020/

 

[Sanguine camper]

Had Lafleur trusted AR and gone for it on 4th down and not succeeded, he would've has the benefit of having Tampa start their drive on the 8 yard line instead of somewhere between the 25 and 35 yard line. Had the defense been able to get a stop, they would've been working with a much shorter field with time of the essence. Kicking a fg meant a much longer drive to get a td. Expecting a quick stop against Brady was also a bad assumption. Tampa was 10 of 15 in the game on 3rd and 4th down plays. In a big game you have to trust what works. Going with AR for one more down has a much higher chance of success that kicking off and hoping that your terrible special teams hold Tampa and then expecting your defense that played poorly on 3rd and long to make a stop. For a lot of reasons that decision deserves a lot of criticism.

 

[Mondio]

Sure you can criticize it, but the odds weren't good regardless. "much higher" is relative and neither option was really a very good one considering the overwhelmingly most likely outcome was we didn't win.

 

[easyk83]

I've expressed concerns that MLF is a really good assistant but not a Head Coach. Who knows, he might never be the type of HC who wins the big games and brings home a Lombardi. But he is also a very young coach, whatever he is we should expect improvement in the way he approaches games and his team's preparation.

See Bill Belichick's stint with the Cleveland Browns in 91-95. Lest we forget MM didn't win a Lombardi until year 4 of his tenure. I figure MLF has a year or two left.

 

[easyk83]

Sure you can criticize it, but the odds weren't good regardless. "much higher" is relative and neither option was really a very good one considering the overwhelmingly most likely outcome was we didn't win.

I think the failure to get closer to the end zone in the 3 prior plays made the 4th down attempt to be too low in the odds of success matrix.

 

[Mondio]

I think the failure to get closer to the end zone in the 3 prior plays made the 4th down attempt to be too low in the odds of success matrix.

I agree, they didn't exactly look like an offense that was winning too many individual battles down there. Had it been 4th and goal from the 3?

 

[pacmaniac]

MLF needs to fix all the communication problems. He said he failed to communicate to Rodgers they weren't going for it on 4th down if they gained no yardage.

He also said the coverage call on the end of half TD was a miscommunication between him and Pettine. Although he also said the call went through him, so you still have to wonder why he didn't call a timeout?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

MLF needs to fix all the communication problems. He said he failed to communicate to Rodgers they weren't going for it on 4th down if they gained no yardage.

I don't think there's any reason for MLF to communicate information like that to his quarterback during the course of a drive.

 

[pacmaniac]

I don't think there's any reason for MLF to communicate information like that to his quarterback during the course of a drive.

If Rodgers can change the play, then absolutely MLF should communicate that. MLF disagrees with you since he wishes he had communicated that to Rodgers.

 

[Half Empty]

I don't think there's any reason for MLF to communicate information like that to his quarterback during the course of a drive.

Never played the game, but I can't imagine that I wouldn't care to know if I had one or two downs left.

 

[mradtke66]

Never played the game, but I can't imagine that I wouldn't care to know if I had one or two downs left.

Why? Anytime you're potentially in 4-down territory, what you do on 3rd changes.

Imagine: It is 3rd and 8. You have your dump off route open for a sure 6 yards, and both safeties baring down on him. His chances to pickup the additional 2 yards is best described as "approaching zero." Not impossible, but damn close. All other receivers are well covered and are in varying degree of "unlikely to complete the catch."

If the situation is "make the first down or punt," the dump off is a worthless throw. Indistinguishable from throwing a hail mail into triple coverage.

If the situation is "you've got another down," you take the dump off. 2 yards is easier to pickup than 8.

In Rodgers' case, if he is told "Get 1/2 of it or more and we're going for it on 4th," he potentially scrambles on that 3rd down throw. Even if he doesn't make it, I could see 5 or so yards. 4th and 3 is a lot more tolerable than 4th and 8.

EDIT: Whoops, sorry Half. I think we agree

 

[Half Empty]

Thanks for the edit, as I believe you're correct, and I was going nuts trying to figure out how to reply.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If Rodgers can change the play, then absolutely MLF should communicate that. MLF disagrees with you since he wishes he had communicated that to Rodgers.

The discussion wasn't about Rodgers being able to change the play but going for it on fourth down.

Once again MLF decided to kick the field goal there was no way for Rodgers to change anything about it aside of calling a timeout, which would have been extremely stupid at that point.

Never played the game, but I can't imagine that I wouldn't care to know if I had one or two downs left.

I think play callers make those decisions in a split second based on distance to go and can't communicate all contingencies in advance with the quarterback.

In Rodgers' case, if he is told "Get 1/2 of it or more and we're going for it on 4th," he potentially scrambles on that 3rd down throw. Even if he doesn't make it, I could see 5 or so yards. 4th and 3 is a lot more tolerable than 4th and 8.

Rodgers was convinced the Packers were in four down territory yet preferred to throw the ball into the end zone instead of scrambling for some yards.

 

[pacmaniac]

The discussion wasn't about Rodgers being able to change the play but going for it on fourth down.

Rodgers said that if he had known MLF was going to kick the FG on 4th down, he would have ran a different play on 3rd down.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rodgers said that if he had known MLF was going to kick the FG on 4th down, he would have ran a different play on 3rd down.

Rodgers said he might have run a different play.

 

[Half Empty]

Rodgers said he might have run a different play.

Glad you don't parse the replies to ensure they support your position. Might have run, would have run - the point is still that he should have known.

 

[Half Empty]

I think play callers make those decisions in a split second based on distance to go and can't communicate all contingencies in advance with the quarterback.

Why does a decision like "if you get X yards on 3rd, we go for it on 4th; if you get less, we kick" have to be done in a split second?

 

[Pugger]

Rodgers said that if he had known MLF was going to kick the FG on 4th down, he would have ran a different play on 3rd down.

So the problem here was communication. Let's hope our young HC learned something here.