More Banjo - Packers at Lions

[Joemailman]

The million dollar question for me is “how will Lafleur coach the rest of the way?”

His game plans will be affected in part by the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the opponent. But he will always want to maintain balance.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes but to that. Obviously, he was way too cautious for pretty much the whole season until last game. The Lions did have some DB injuries, but it wasn't that big a difference. Mostly it was just LaFleur's mindset/growing a pair. Hopefully that continues.

[Joemailman]

Thursday the Packers had 30 rushes and 30 passes. Their average for the season is 30 and 29.

[Fritz]

Yes but to that. Obviously, he was way too cautious for pretty much the whole season until last game. The Lions did have some DB injuries, but it wasn't that big a difference. Mostly it was just LaFleur's mindset/growing a pair. Hopefully that continues.

How big do you want them to get?



Okay, the Packers are ranked 29th in the league in pass play percentage. So they do run the ball more than most teams in the NFL. We can say that.

Now, the first six or seven teams on that list suck - they probably throw more because they suck and they're behind more. So I don't want to make too much of this. I am simply continuing to insist that LeFleur has run the ball a lot - and by "a lot," I can at least say with confidence that this is in comparison to other NFL teams.

I also can see now that I was wrong to be so critical after the Minny game - he had to do what he did to protect Love, and it paid off also as the defense didn't have to play too much with a short week coming. And I most find it hard to agree that somehow this game against the Lions was called no differently than other games this year . . . he sure seemed to me to be more aggressive.

He's a good coach. No doubt. Do I like him as a person? Hard to say, as I've never met him, though he strikes me as a bit snarky. But he's a good coach. I kept on calling for him to be adaptable and flexible, and the Lions' game showed he can be.

Interesting season, this one.

[MadtownPacker]

We want him adaptable and flexible you say??

Well, here’s the perfect gift for you to send him. Will come in handy whenever he wants to put his big balls on or wants to keep it tight!

https://www.amazon.com/Mens-Open-Front-Adaptive-Underwear-Pack/dp/B0B76B4Y5V

[falco]

Yes but to that. Obviously, he was way too cautious for pretty much the whole season until last game. The Lions did have some DB injuries, but it wasn't that big a difference. Mostly it was just LaFleur's mindset/growing a pair. Hopefully that continues.

Unless it's going for it on 4th and long instead of taking a chip shot FG that likely would have won the game...

[texaspackerbacker]

Stats can be deceiving - the 30 and 30 or 30 and 29, etc. A large percentage of the runs were on first down. A sprinkling of that is fine, but it shouldn't be all the damn time, putting pressure on the QB on second and third down. You fail on first and be forced to throw on later downs, and the numbers come out equal, but the outcome tends to be worse - it would be worse yet if Love wasn't so damn good. Also, a lot of the RPO passes or other short passes count as passes but in effect are nothing more than runs.

And not going for it on 4th and short around mid-field? That's a matter of balls even more than the running on first down thing. Part of the "balls or no balls" factor is trust of your defense. There too, sometimes it's justified, and sometimes it's not. Way too often, the Packers haven't been able to get off the field on D on third down. Way too often, our great pass rush has been negated by quick throws into shoddy coverage. So keeping possession is preferable to relying on the D.

[sharpe1027]

Unless it's going for it on 4th and long instead of taking a chip shot FG that likely would have won the game...

Most NFL teams should be going for it on 4th down more often than they actually do. Coaches have started figuring it out. Fans tend to still not understand the probalilties.

[Fritz]

Most NFL teams should be going for it on 4th down more often than they actually do. Coaches have started figuring it out. Fans tend to still not understand the probalilties.

It's interesting to me to see the evolution of the NFL. I remember well when coaches routinely opted to punt on fourth down, even a fourth-and-one or fourth-and-two from an opponent's forty five yard line. Then they'd allow for the intentional delay of game penalty so the punter had less room for error by punting it into the end zone. To me, it was maddening, especially when your team did it and did not have a good defense, which meant that three plays after the punt, the opponents were right where your team punted from . . .

There are of course many reasons for the shift that has occurred, but one that sticks in my mind is reading about this high school coach in the south somewhere - Mississippi? Arkansas? - who never, ever had his team punt. And his team's success rate was astounding. I think that was one of the factors that changed the way coaches began to think of fourth down. I also think Dan Campbell's success going for it on fourth down affected other coaches. Campbell really was the one who I think showed the way in the NFL.

[bobblehead]

Most NFL teams should be going for it on 4th down more often than they actually do. Coaches have started figuring it out. Fans tend to still not understand the probalilties.

How has Campbell (The king of "go for it") fared recently? I think I understand probabilities better than the vast majority of the population but those probabilities don't factor in a lot of things. If my defense is lights out against a bad offense and my offense is facing a really good defense do the probabilities stay static vs. historical averages??

[texaspackerbacker]

The guy actually made it to Google. His name is Kevin Kelley. It is Arkansas where he coached, He advanced to a bigger high school, and has now advanced to coaching a college team - Presbyterian.

[bobblehead]

It's interesting to me to see the evolution of the NFL. I remember well when coaches routinely opted to punt on fourth down, even a fourth-and-one or fourth-and-two from an opponent's forty five yard line. Then they'd allow for the intentional delay of game penalty so the punter had less room for error by punting it into the end zone. To me, it was maddening, especially when your team did it and did not have a good defense, which meant that three plays after the punt, the opponents were right where your team punted from . . .

There are of course many reasons for the shift that has occurred, but one that sticks in my mind is reading about this high school coach in the south somewhere - Mississippi? Arkansas? - who never, ever had his team punt. And his team's success rate was astounding. I think that was one of the factors that changed the way coaches began to think of fourth down. I also think Dan Campbell's success going for it on fourth down affected other coaches. Campbell really was the one who I think showed the way in the NFL.

This is largely my point and thank you for making it. In the Rodgers era of not stopping anyone ever with game on the line I would have really liked to go for it more often and that was always my beef with fat mike. He just knew for sure the "right" thing to do, but he never factored in the current reality. Pass plays average more yards than running plays so why should I ever run. I'm badly paraphrasing but he actually made that argument once.

And my point to sharpe was just that. Statistics have a lot of uses, but game theory can't factor everything in. I think Campbell was 0-5 the other day against philly on 4th down and probably would have won if he had punted in a couple of those situations instead of giving a not so great offense great field position.

[ThunderDan]

How has Campbell (The king of "go for it") fared recently? I think I understand probabilities better than the vast majority of the population but those probabilities don't factor in a lot of things. If my defense is lights out against a bad offense and my offense is facing a really good defense do the probabilities stay static vs. historical averages??

It also doesn’t take into account emotion and momentum in the game.

When the Packers stuff the Lions deep in our territory it gives us a huge boost. Taking the 3 makes it a 1 score game again and doesn’t pump up the other team.

[Fritz]

This is largely my point and thank you for making it. In the Rodgers era of not stopping anyone ever with game on the line I would have really liked to go for it more often and that was always my beef with fat mike. He just knew for sure the "right" thing to do, but he never factored in the current reality. Pass plays average more yards than running plays so why should I ever run. I'm badly paraphrasing but he actually made that argument once.

And my point to sharpe was just that. Statistics have a lot of uses, but game theory can't factor everything in. I think Campbell was 0-5 the other day against philly on 4th down and probably would have won if he had punted in a couple of those situations instead of giving a not so great offense great field position.

I would think, in terms of probabilities, that you'd factor in how good your offense is, how good the other team's defense is, how good your own defense is (in case you don't make it), and so on and so on. As you said, there's a lot to factor in. My own sense is that Campbell is a very emotional guy and wants to pump up his guys by being aggressive. Which worked last year for him, not so much this year. I suppose it mostly, in the end, comes down to talent. The margins of that are slim but real. Jeff Halfley is a better defensive coordinator this year (based on team stats) because, well, he's got one of the best players in football on his defense now.

Part of Campbell's going for it on fourth down was the fake punt. I think that worked really well, until he'd done it for a while, because at that point teams finally cottoned on to it and changed their punt return units to account for the possibility of a fake. Maybe not so much personnel as responsibilities - not rushing mindlessly but looking for the snap to the up back, staying in gaps, and so on.

As good as the Packer D is this year, I liked that LeFleur went for it at the end of the Thanksgiving game. The idea of punting and basically handing control of the game over to the opponent's offense has screwed the Packers so, so many times. See Sherman, Mike, playoffs against the Iggles in 2003. He went for it in the first half and Ahman Green had his foot stepped on and failed to score. This spooked Sherman, so when he had a chance to put the game away at the end - and at that point the Eagles' defense was absolutely gassed and Green was running at will - Sherman opted to kick the ball back to the Iggles on fourth and a foot from the Iggles 40 yard line. Yes, the Eagles 40 yard line.

Would any NFL coach do that today? I don't think so.

[CaptainKickass]

Part of Campbell's going for it on fourth down was the fake punt.

I wonder:
1. When is the last time the Packers ran a fake punt or fake field goal?
2. When is the last time the Packers ran a successful fake punt or fake field goal?

I ask this because Rich Bisaccia was hired, ostensibly, to make the Packers special teams into a weapon. Not just make it average or mediocre, but to have it be an actual threat in each and every game. I feel like it hasn't yet achieved that.

I do however, eagerly await the day it actually does become a weapon.