Packers hiring LaFleur.

[mraynrand]

VERY TRUE

I'm not panicking; just kinda disappointed

If I was looking for a Wisconsin based coach for our OL I'd look no further than Joe Rudolph

Forget the coaches - they are overrated. Just draft talented guys and let 'em run around. That's the secret of all great coaches.

[Bretsky]

Forget the coaches - they are overrated. Just draft talented guys and let 'em run around. That's the secret of all great coaches.

Interesting concept to embrace or not
Think of the guy who you consider to be great coaches

I think your views apply pretty well to college BB and maybe pro BB; maybe college FB as well

With 50 players and so many coaches, I think your views might least apply to the NFL

[mraynrand]

^^^ I was being facetious. You have to have coaching and talent. Packers coaching was sclerotic and they lack talent. By 2020 I think they could be back. No way to know at this point. It's all wide open.

[pbmax]

Packer Report on JSO guy’s scoop

As @JimOwczarski reported, the #Packers have hired Kirk Olivadotti. Olivadotti has spent most of his coaching career with the inside linebackers, including last five in Washington

[Joemailman]

https://www.profootballrumors.com/gr...rs-news-rumors

The Packers made several moves today to help fill out new coach Matt LaFleur’s inaugural staff. First the team hired 49ers assistant offensive line coach Adam Stenavich to be their offensive line coach, sources told Matt Maiocco of NBC Sports (Twitter link). We heard a couple of days ago Green Bay was granted permission to interview him, and now they’ve made the move. Manish Mehta of the New York Daily News tweeted several hours before Maiocco broke the news that the Jets also had interest in Stenavich to be their offensive line coach. Stenavich was on the Packers’ practice squad in 2006 during his playing days as an offensive tackle.

The team is also hiring Kirk Olivadotti to be their linebackers coach, tweets Jim Owczarski of the Milwuakee Journal Sentinel. Up until now Olivadotti had served in the same position with the Redskins. LaFleur served on Washington’s staff as quarterbacks coach while Olivadotti was there, so the hire makes sense. LaFleur will also be retaining Jason Simmons, the secondary coach who has been on the staff in Green Bay since 2011, tweets Rob Demovsky of ESPN.

In a separate tweet Demovsky notes that the Packers completed their interview with Luke Getsy. A source told Demovsky that Getsy interviewed for both the quarterbacks and receivers coach openings, but left town without signing a contract. Jason Wilde of ESPN followed up with a tweet of his own, saying that quarterback Aaron Rodgers “thinks very highly of Getsy and has a lot of respect for him.”

Getsy served on the Packers’ staff under Mike McCarthy from 2014-17 before leaving to take a job as Mississippi State’s offensive coordinator last year. The Packers have been making a bunch of moves to bring guys in from different organizations, and are now close to filling out LaFleur’s staff.

[The Shadow]

I hope the Packers create a bubble screen play run behind LaFleur's eyebrows.

[pbmax]

OL coach not a done deal yet.

Tom Silverstein
Am told Stenavich as #Packers OL coach isn’t official. It could go that way but LaFleur was still interviewing people today. The #Browns announced they had hired James Campen’s asst, Jeff Blasko, which means #Packers need OL and asst OL.

[Fritz]

If Matt LeFleur had watched enough game tape from Green Bay, he'd have made hiring the ST coach his first priority.

On a related note, Ron Zook is interviewing for an assistant special teams coaching position for the Appleton Applejacks PeeWee team.

[mraynrand]

If Matt LeFleur had watched enough game tape from Green Bay, he'd have made hiring the ST coach his first priority.

On a related note, Ron Zook is interviewing for an assistant special teams coaching position for the Appleton Applejacks PeeWee team.

Take a knee in the end zone. That was easy.

[pbmax]

Here comes the run it brigade:

https://madison.com/wsj/sports/football/professional/run-to-daylight-matt-lafleur-wants-to-make-aaron-rodgers/article_41eae462-3f72-52e7-bb8f-8e798d5f0f71.html

There are so many things wrong with this piece. But instead of a screed, I will mention just this:

No one is suggesting that Rodgers is philosophically opposed to running the football. He’s seen with his own eyes what a productive run game can do, having had a back-to-back 1,200-yard rusher in Ryan Grant at running back for his first two seasons as the starter (2008, 2009). Then, in 2013 and 2014, Rodgers had a back-to-back 1,100-yard rusher in Eddie Lacy in the backfield with him.

Having one 1,200 yard rusher is immaterial to the premise that they should run more. If 1,200 is your threshold, why does it matter if its one back or two?

In 2008, Grant had 312 carries for 1203 yards and a 3.86 ypc. Packers record was 6-10. Following year, Grant was 282 carries for 1253 and 4.44 ypc and the Packers were 11-5.

In 2010 and 11, they were north of 1000 yards but with two or more backs splitting it up. Those years were pretty good for the team. The 2010 ypc was south of 4 I believe, it was much better in 2011.

Having a 1,200 yard rusher is just accumulation by one player. It does not tell you if the offense was effective.

Also, a reminder. Not only do winning teams tend to run late in the game with a lead (the converse severely depressed the Packers run numbers the last two years) you do NOT need to run to have play action be effective. Multiple studies have shown this. The reason? Defenses are taught from the opening minute of the coaching meetings that their #1 job is to stop the run. Somewhere we have a portion of Capers D playbook. Its first paragraph is devoted to the importance of stopping the run.

[bobblehead]

Here comes the run it brigade:

https://madison.com/wsj/sports/football/professional/run-to-daylight-matt-lafleur-wants-to-make-aaron-rodgers/article_41eae462-3f72-52e7-bb8f-8e798d5f0f71.html

There are so many things wrong with this piece. But instead of a screed, I will mention just this:



Having one 1,200 yard rusher is immaterial to the premise that they should run more. If 1,200 is your threshold, why does it matter if its one back or two?

In 2008, Grant had 312 carries for 1203 yards and a 3.86 ypc. Packers record was 6-10. Following year, Grant was 282 carries for 1253 and 4.44 ypc and the Packers were 11-5.

In 2010 and 11, they were north of 1000 yards but with two or more backs splitting it up. Those years were pretty good for the team. The 2010 ypc was south of 4 I believe, it was much better in 2011.

Having a 1,200 yard rusher is just accumulation by one player. It does not tell you if the offense was effective.

Also, a reminder. Not only do winning teams tend to run late in the game with a lead (the converse severely depressed the Packers run numbers the last two years) you do NOT need to run to have play action be effective. Multiple studies have shown this. The reason? Defenses are taught from the opening minute of the coaching meetings that their #1 job is to stop the run. Somewhere we have a portion of Capers D playbook. Its first paragraph is devoted to the importance of stopping the run.

The key here is running it effectively and consistently to set up favorable down/distance. Also wears down DL and D in general while keeping other teams offense off rhythm. I never advocated for smash mouth football, but when fat mike got ARod back against Carolina after injury and ran 9 times that game after we were very effective running the ball with Hundly I increased my calls for his head on a platter. MMs calling of the run in specific formations at specific late times in game might as well have been taking a knee.

[texaspackerbacker]

I absolutely HOPE that article is pure journalistic speculation i.e. bullshit. Running on early downs in the great majority of cases is wasting downs and making the QB's job more difficult with the pressure of second and long or third and long. Run the ball RARELY - as a change of pace. Virtually any running play called other than a yard to go at the goal line should have a RPO attached, with the QB going to the pass option way more often than not.

Of course, if you're the Badgers instead of the Packers - a great O Line, a superstar RB, and crap at QB (the past few years anyway), then running on first down makes sense. That obviously is not the case with the Packers, more like exactly the opposite.

[gbgary]

running attempts (for balance sake) means nothing if you're going 3 and out. no one gets worn out except your d from being on the field all game long. move the chains, keep their d on the field, by any means possible. if we're gashing them with the run, keep it up. if the opposite is happening, forget about it.

[Fritz]

I absolutely HOPE that article is pure journalistic speculation i.e. bullshit. Running on early downs in the great majority of cases is wasting downs and making the QB's job more difficult with the pressure of second and long or third and long. Run the ball RARELY - as a change of pace. Virtually any running play called other than a yard to go at the goal line should have a RPO attached, with the QB going to the pass option way more often than not.

Of course, if you're the Badgers instead of the Packers - a great O Line, a superstar RB, and crap at QB (the past few years anyway), then running on first down makes sense. That obviously is not the case with the Packers, more like exactly the opposite.

Remember what Jenny said: "Run, Forrest, run!"

[mraynrand]

Here comes the run it brigade:

My rebuttal: It is a passing league. Maybe, if you have a solid line, and chance upon excellent running backs and/or your line is better at run blocking, and/or you have a marginal or awful QB, you make it a significant element of your offense. Otherwise, you use it as a changeup weapon to keep the defense on it's toes, run the clock mostly late, and not much else.