Tactics under Matt LeFleur

[gbgary]

He is going to scheme people open. Everything MM ran involved a player being covered and having to win a match-up. When was anyone wide open on a route that didn't involve a blown coverage? I would also expect him to tell 12 to bury his obsession with drawing the other team offsides for a free home run play. He is going to want to involve a good amount of motion and that is going to take away from 12's hard count antics.

that would be cool but people were open a lot last year. open is open. Rodgers has to get it to them. sometimes he wouldn't get it to them, sometimes he couldn't get it to them, and sometimes he didn't get it to them. two of those are primarily on Rodgers, the other is primarily on the staff/front-office.

 

[Half Empty]

Oh. You mean like the first play in this drive:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Or the the play at 1:45 where he leaves the pocket to extend the play and makes a 3+ second throw? Or the play at 5:10 where he pulls it down and runs? That's just one drive.

How about the first 2 plays on this tape:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Links don't work for me, but the point is made - anyone who uses absolutes in a sports forum will almost certainly have his argument handed to him in a basket. "Doesn't- ever" is just too large of a softball to offer.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Oh. You mean like the first play in this drive:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Or the the play at 1:45 where he leaves the pocket to extend the play and makes a 3+ second throw? Or the play at 5:10 where he pulls it down and runs? That's just one drive.

How about the first 2 plays on this tape:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Mariota ran the ball 64 times in 14 games. Those were not all read option runs as the above illustrates, though you will find an instance of that in the second tape. And those runs obviously do not include the extended plays where he actually threw the ball or wanted to, examples provided above. Read option, by the way, is not something you're going to see with Rodgers, but I digress.

This is the NFL. If you can't get to the second or third read, or extend to playground mode if necessary, you're not going to be particularly successful. The Bears, to take one example, where they are purported to run a first read system (which is an exageration, by the way, as to frequency) is not some abstract preference. They are working within the limitations of a good arm with a not entirely developed mind and limitations in the receiver group. And it is worth noting that despite having a good run game, they don't put many points on the board. Is that what you're looking for?

The fact of the matter is once you take out the gadget plays, the wildcats, jet sweeps, read options, "Philly Specials", end arounds, flea flickers, etc., etc., and get down to drop and throw, there isn't a whole lot of difference in NFL playbooks unless you go to a heavy dose of the Foles-like RPO or some other alternate approach still to be invented. I think if folks stopped hyperventilating over this play or that, and looked at the entire scope of what McCarthy ran, they'd see he had the full boat at his disposal.

And there was a pretty broad collection of gadget plays as well if that's to your liking. McCarthy just didn't run them very often because they didn't work very often possibly because they were not sufficienctly practiced. Here's an example from 2017 that actually worked: https://www.packers.com/video/packers-qb-rodgers-hits-wr-adams-for-41-yards-on-flea-flicker-19440106

So, unless LaFleur works in some RPO, which is possible but not something I'd expect to be a staple, you're left with the following which is scheme independent:

• Personnel development and evaluation up to week 1
• Constructing the game plan; selecting the plays that fit with the abilities of the players on hand that week against the defensive scheme and particular matchups
• Calling the right plays within the game plan to fit the situation
• In-game adjustments, which range from the defense bringing things that are unexpected to compensating for injuries on your side of the ball to exploiting injuries on the other side
• Week 2 rinse and repeat in a feedback loop
• Or, in a nutshell, as the title of this thread aptly puts it, the project is one of tactics in light of the above factors

It comes down to development, insight, preparation, adaptablity and execution, and using the feedback loop. The idea of "scheme" as something you jam players into is exactly the criticism of McCarthy that you are making, a criticism I agree with to a meaningful extent, though that's not the entire picture in his firing.

You're looking at highlights. How about look at the Ravens game, where he just sat in the pocket and took 11 sacks? If the play wasn't there, then he typically attempted to bail the pocket. He had some shining moments like the ones you mentioned, but anyone who watches TN extensively can tell you that they are very few And far between. Completely different from Rodgers, who keeps plays alive and creates playsbetter than any QB .

 

[HardRightEdge]

Links don't work for me, but the point is made - anyone who uses absolutes in a sports forum will almost certainly have his argument handed to him in a basket. "Doesn't- ever" is just too large of a softball to offer.

Click the start button then click the "Watch on YouTube" link displayed. I don't run Alphabet, I try to steal from them. Not stealing in this case, of course, since you have to go there.

It's not just a absolute being a softball, which is certainly the case here. It is also the fact that Mariota uses his legs more than your average QB making it especially easy. Positing he's just a first read/quick throw pocket QB is kinda silly unless it is also posited that his running around is a consequence of the first read being covered up with no progression built in. That latter approach is really just a point of emphasis with some teams running more timing plays and not a "scheme". The above stats showing TEN throwing a higher percentage of deep balls than the Packers while the Packers threw more under 5 yards, makes the purported contrast kinda silly.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Click the start button then click the "Watch on YouTube" link displayed. I don't run Alphabet, I try to steal from them. Not stealing in this case, of course, since you have to go there.

It's not just a absolute being a softball, which is certainly the case here. It is also the fact that Mariota uses his legs more than your average QB making it especially easy. Positing he's just a first read/quick throw pocket QB is kinda silly unless it is also posited that his running around is a consequence of the first read being covered up with no progression built in. That latter approach is really just a point of emphasis with some teams running more timing plays and not a "scheme". The above stats showing TEN throwing a higher percentage of deep balls than the Packers while the Packers threw more under 5 yards, makes the purported contrast kinda silly.

Not all quick throws are short passes, and not all deep passes take 5 seconds to develop. I can see how anyone who has watched GB over the years would think so,but that's just because McCarthy was a poor play caller who was reliant on Rodgers making it all work, as opposed to having a plan as to where the ball should go.

I watched every Tennessee game, and trust me. All but 1 deep shot was schemed for their QB. Virtually all of his yards are due to him executing the play . No more, no less. Mariota rushes more than most QBs, but he and Rodgers are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to extending plays and improvising.

 

[XPack]

that would be cool but people were open a lot last year. open is open. Rodgers has to get it to them. sometimes he wouldn't get it to them, sometimes he couldn't get it to them, and sometimes he didn't get it to them. two of those are primarily on Rodgers, the other is primarily on the staff/front-office.

This is perhaps where we can see Matt having an impact. Having been a OC recently he's perhaps more hands on and can work better with AR12. Or something like that. Hopefully.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You're looking at highlights. How about look at the Ravens game, where he just sat in the pocket and took 11 sacks?

Need I remind you that you said "never...ever", but that's just the half of it. Look at the Ravens game? Ouch. 11 sacks with only 40 offensive plays run. That's supposed to be an argument for bringing whatever "scheme" or game tactics were used to Green Bay? But that's neither here nor there...different team, different players. But I gotta ask, if TEN ran a run first offense with first read/quick throw pocket passing as you contend, how the hell did they give up so many sacks in so few plays? That's gotta be some kind of record and Mariota is a mobile QB who uses his legs which makes it even worse.

Anyway, you know I can actually zero in on those plays with Game Pass and the ESPN play by play, right? Did you look at those plays or just read the box score? I don't know what point you're trying to make citing this game, but here are those 11 sacks for you to do with as you please:

Sack 1: Play action rollout designed for Mariota to use his legs. Suggs was not fooled and blew it up.
Sack 2: Mariota looking deep. It's not there, he pulls the ball down, tries to get out. Too late.
Sack 3: Mariota bails the pocket all the way to the sidelines and gets run out of bounds for the "sack"
Sack 4: Looks like an RPO into a 10 yard drop with 5 man rush. Mariota engulfed after 2.5 seconds.
Sack 5: Messed up blocking, DE blows through barely touched, knocks the ball out of Mariota's hand under 2 seconds
Sack 6: Mariota bailing the pocket trying to extend. Suggs closed off the edge and Mariota tried to turn it up inside. No go.
Sack 7: Mariota has some time, nobody open, he pulls the ball down and starts to bail but runs smack into the back of is OT, bounces off, looks to go the other way, too late
Sack 8: Mariota steps up, doesn't have anything, pulls the ball down, tries to run for it up through the pocket and the spy gets him
Sack 9: Nothing there, the spy blitzes, Mariota barely starts to bail before he's taken down
Sack 10: Again, Mariota looks to throw and it isn't there, pulls the ball down and starts to bail, gets ankle tackled as he exits
Sack 11: Mariota gets to 2.0 - 2.5 seconds, doesn't see anything, tries to run it up the gut and gets caught.

Sack 10 is not the only example, but it's the best one, where there's a first look timing pass that's covered, so Mariota looks to bail. And if you were to process this "story" all this through, you might realize that if you're going to run those one look timing plays you need a mobile QB to go to playground plan B and if you don't have that QB you'd best not run them very much. Note that Trubiski has pretty good wheels otherwise they wouldn't try it as often as they do.

Everybody runs timing throw plays. The Titans ran their fair share, as did the McCarthy Packers. But if we were to characterize that TEN offense, it's more of a run first, deep shot affair, with the other stuff mixed in. And yes, Dorothy, Mariota uses his legs, or at least tries to, a lot, but Baltimore had all the answers that day.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not all quick throws are short passes, and not all deep passes take 5 seconds to develop. I can see how anyone who has watched GB over the years would think so,but that's just because McCarthy was a poor play caller who was reliant on Rodgers making it all work, as opposed to having a plan as to where the ball should go.

I watched every Tennessee game, and trust me. All but 1 deep shot was schemed for their QB. Virtually all of his yards are due to him executing the play . No more, no less. Mariota rushes more than most QBs, but he and Rodgers are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to extending plays and improvising.

I would not judge whether you did or you didn't, but if you did then you didn't do it very well.

A couple last notes. Yes, I'm quite aware quick throws can be deep throws and deep throws throws can be quick throws , and we have seen Rodgers do that plenty. But if you propose some kind of progression-free passing game, which nobody plays exclusively and only some more than others, then you need to think of the consequences of what happens if that guy is not open.

And if you can give the QB 2.5 seconds and there is not a progression built into the play, then all I can say is, "what a waste."

 

[HardRightEdge]

An afterthough that somehow got overlooked in all of this: Tennessee did not put points on the board last season.

 

[Half Empty]

Where did they put them?

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I wouldl not judge whether you did or you didn't, but if you did then you didn't do it very well.

A couple last notes. Yes, I'm quite aware quick throws can be deep throws and deep throws throws can be quick throws , and we have seen Rodgers do that plenty. But if you propose some kind of progression-free passing game, which nobody plays exclusively and only some more than others, then you need to think of the consequences of what happens if that guy is not open.

And if you can give the QB 2.5 seconds and there is not a progression built into the play, then all I can say is, "what a waste."

I think that you misunderstood my point. There was a claim that his success on the deep throws could have been due to his ability to improvise a la Rodgers, and I was just trying to set the record straight. You see yourself that he is not good when there is pressure, and he looks to run, rather than extend the play and find someone open. It was never my argument that he doesn't use his legs. He's just a far cry from Russell Wilson while trying to do so.

 

[XPack]

Here are some pro-writers opinions on Matt with the Pack:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...packers-hiring-matt-lafleur-coach/2523178002/


Doug Farrar of USA Today breaks down the qualities that make LaFleur a fit, primarily as it relates to quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

"Rodgers will also enjoy LaFleur’s philosophies regarding route concepts. Based on the 2018 tape, LaFleur’s route concepts remind me of Bruce Arians’ in that you’ll see a lot of bunch formations (and running out of bunch), and multiple vertical routes mitigated by an easy release receiver if things don’t open up downfield. But after so many years of McCarthy’s rudimentary stuff, Rodgers should be ecstatic when he watches Titans tape— which he’s probably already doing. LaFleur runs an advanced RPO game, which is good news for Rodgers in that RPOs present multiple openings in the quick passing game. And running back Aaron Jones, misused to a comical degree by McCarthy, might be dancing on the ceiling when he sees the power running plays designed for Derrick Henry."

------------

Peter Schrager of the NFL Network disputes the idea that he merely serves at the pleasure of Aaron Rodgers.

"Knowing LaFleur and Rodgers ... I think it's a great mix. I think all Rodgers really probably wants is innovation and something new and a fresh look in the same offense I've been running for the past 10 years. LaFleur will bring that. This guy is one of the one's who will sit in the lab all day long working on X's and O's, but he's not a pushover. ...

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Power running and Jones just don't jive with me. He's 208lbs. I'd like to see us make an offer for David Johnson. We have draft assets and DJ is 225lbs and 6'1" and the best pass catching RB in the league. I don't know that they would be open to trading their best RB, but they did shift him out in goal line situations last year even under Leftwich.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There was a claim that his success on the deep throws could have been due to his ability to improvise a la Rodgers.

That may have been claimed but not by me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you want to watch Head Coach Matt LaFleur introductory press conference

Starts at 3 PM (Packer Time)

https://www.packers.com/video/live-video

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Here are some pro-writers opinions on Matt with the Pack:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...packers-hiring-matt-lafleur-coach/2523178002/


Doug Farrar of USA Today breaks down the qualities that make LaFleur a fit, primarily as it relates to quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

"Rodgers will also enjoy LaFleur’s philosophies regarding route concepts. Based on the 2018 tape, LaFleur’s route concepts remind me of Bruce Arians’ in that you’ll see a lot of bunch formations (and running out of bunch), and multiple vertical routes mitigated by an easy release receiver if things don’t open up downfield. But after so many years of McCarthy’s rudimentary stuff, Rodgers should be ecstatic when he watches Titans tape— which he’s probably already doing. LaFleur runs an advanced RPO game, which is good news for Rodgers in that RPOs present multiple openings in the quick passing game. And running back Aaron Jones, misused to a comical degree by McCarthy, might be dancing on the ceiling when he sees the power running plays designed for Derrick Henry."

------------

Peter Schrager of the NFL Network disputes the idea that he merely serves at the pleasure of Aaron Rodgers.

"Knowing LaFleur and Rodgers ... I think it's a great mix. I think all Rodgers really probably wants is innovation and something new and a fresh look in the same offense I've been running for the past 10 years. LaFleur will bring that. This guy is one of the one's who will sit in the lab all day long working on X's and O's, but he's not a pushover. ...

One of my favorite qualities about MLF is his adaptability. His entire plan had to be scrapped in game 1 after injuries, and you can see that they changed their approach several times.

Buffalo and Baltimore exposed the shortcomings of the WRs and QB. Beginning with the LA game, LaFluer began implementing more bunch formations, and there was a noticeable improvement. Derrick Henry was an afterthought before the Jacksonville game, but his dominance spurred LaFluer to implement more power running plays into what had been a zone blocking scheme, and he had an insanely productive final 4 games.

The point is, LaFluer adapts to his players. No more , "why doesn't xxxx get the ball more?" , or, "why do they keep doing that? It's not working."

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Power running and Jones just don't jive with me. He's 208lbs. I'd like to see us make an offer for David Johnson. We have draft assets and DJ is 225lbs and 6'1" and the best pass catching RB in the league. I don't know that they would be open to trading their best RB, but they did shift him out in goal line situations last year even under Leftwich.

There's absolutely no chance the Cardinals are thinking about trading David Johnson.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If he channels his inner McVay from yesterday, expect 25 plays with a jet sweep or a fake jet sweep or a read option between the jet and RB if the defense cannot find an answer. Of course that was one of the best O-Line performances you're ever going to see, which helps.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

There's absolutely no chance the Cardinals are thinking about trading David Johnson.

why is that? They're years away from competing and David Johnson is 27.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

why is that? They're years away from competing and David Johnson is 27.

I would agree with Captain, that him being as talented as he is, the Cardinals, despite being in rebuild mode won't want to part with him. I think more importantly, his contract currently has a dead cap of $19.5M....so I doubt they would eat that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

why is that? They're years away from competing and David Johnson is 27.

It would cost AZ $9 mil in dead cap, the balance of his signing bonus, if they trade him while his cap cost is $9.75 mil if they keep him. The net cost to keep him is less than $1 mil for 2019. The team that would take him would have to assume about $7 mil in cap for 2019, and given his fall off last season he's not going to get much in trade.

I have a hard time seeing AZ, even in tear down mode, taking some crappy pick for him to save $1 mil in cap. And I have a hard time seeing another team taking on that $7 mil even if the cost is a crappy pick.

Of course, the idea of the Packers spending $7 mil in cap for this guy is not something that should be entertained. Go draft a guy for depth.

 

[Poppa San]

It would cost AZ $9 mil in dead cap, the balance of his signing bonus, if they trade him while his cap cost is $9.75 mil if they keep him. The net cost to keep him is less than $1 mil for 2019. The team that would take him would have to assume about $7 mil in cap for 2019, and given his fall off last season he's not going to get much in trade.

I have a hard time seeing AZ, even in tear down mode, taking some crappy pick for him to save $1 mil in cap. And I have a hard time seeing another team taking on that $7 mil even if the cost is a crappy pick.

Of course, the idea of the Packers spending $7 mil in cap for this guy is not something that should be entertained. Go draft a guy for depth.

Wouldn't the team that trades for him also assume the $5m+ guarantee for the following season?

 

[HardRightEdge]

I would agree with Captain, that him being as talented as he is, the Cardinals, despite being in rebuild mode won't want to part with him. I think more importantly, his contract currently has a dead cap of $19.5M....so I doubt they would eat that.

That dead cap amount applies only if they cut him. Most of that dead cap accrues from guaranteed salary in 2019 and 2020 which then swings to the new team in a trade. AZ's dead cap would be $9 mil in a trade, the $3 mil prorated signing bonus per year allocated to 2019-2021. That's if they trade him before the 3rd. day of the league year.

I just noticed an ominous note in the overthecap.com description of this contract: Of the $39 mil in his 3 year extension for 2019-2021, nearly $32 mil is guaranteed for injury. Even if you wanted him as a one year $7 mil rent-a-player, if he suffered a career ending injury in 2019 you're on the hook for a big additional chunk of the rest of he contract.

I think AZ would have to give me a pick, and not a crappy one, to even begin to consider taking him off their hands. And then I'd say no.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Wouldn't the team that trades for him also assume the $5m+ guarantee for the following season?

You mean the 2020 guarantee? According to the overthecap.com notes, that $5.1 mil in salary for 2020 is not guaranteed until the 3rd. day of the 2020 league year. So, if a team rented him for a year for $7 mil in cap and then cut him before the deadline sometime in March 2020, they would have zero dead cap for 2020.

 

[rmontro]

Since LeFleur comes from the McVay tree, do you think we could run the ball as well as the Rams did Saturday?