Game 14: Packers at Ravens - 3:25 - Fox

[rilamann]

It's easy to forget after going 37-9 over the past 3 seasons, but it's not like MLF walked into a dream situation. Rodgers looked kinda washed up and the team overall looked like a mess when MLF showed up.

I remember when we first hired MLF, I thought he'd be a lock for coach of the year if he could get the Packers to 9-7.

[TJ_Ford_11]

For a very casual fan like me, can somebody explain why the Ravens went for the 2 pointer at the end there? Wouldn't it make sense to take the easier option and go into OT?

Harbaugh didn't trust his team's defense.

[Bernman]

So ignoring the fact that Rodgers just had a season of experience in the system and that may have been a factor

It could have been a factor, but Rodgers is a smart guy when it comes to football, at minimum, so I don't think it would take him that long to pick up.

Don't we also know that Rodgers uses perceived slights, like falling to 24, as motivators to bring the best out of him too? Which is why I said this in the Jordan Love draft pick thread:

Yeah, look at the bright side, maybe it lights a fire under Rodgers' ass, and so the Packers get some extra improvement from w/in. God knows he's needed to be more accountable the last couple of years well under-performing his talent.

and btw, it was pretty well received at the time. Now it comes to fruition and there's hostility toward the theory? Rodgers, for a couple years, was missing wide open receivers w/ regularity btw. Can do that under LaFleur, and did for a yr.

Rodgers was just tanking?

That's not the binary. Genius is part inspiration and perspiration. He wasn't a genius-level QB for a while until 2020.

The Packers only needed to draft a QB in round one for all those years the offense looked like ****? Okay.

The offense looked pretty amazing under Mike McCarthy when we went 15-1 and Rodgers was setting just about every record in the book. Then they weren't. So those ebbs and tides could happen under LaFleur, or maybe they don't.

[ReasonablySober]

The offense looked pretty amazing under Mike McCarthy when we went 15-1 and Rodgers was setting just about every record in the book. Then they weren't. So those ebbs and tides could happen under LaFleur, or maybe they don't.

Yes, the offense looked amazing, until it was figured out and MM didn't adapt. A lot of ink was spilled at how bad the scheme was. It's just another sign that coaching matters.

[HaroldinGMinor]

MM's offense was - "Everyone run in a straight line for 15 - 20 yards or so, turn around, see what Aaron's up to and adjust accordingly"

[PintSizedBox10]

Special teams will be our undoing. The hottest of takes I know

Sent from my SM-G981U using RealGM mobile app

[trwi7]

MM's offense was - "Everyone run in a straight line for 15 - 20 yards or so, turn around, see what Aaron's up to and adjust accordingly"

Basically. And that worked great when we had prime Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, Jones, Finley etc. Then those guys, left, got hurt, got old, etc. and it all fell apart.

[HKPackFan]

Why are Troys eyes always bloodshot red?

[LikeABosh]

MM's offense was - "Everyone run in a straight line for 15 - 20 yards or so, turn around, see what Aaron's up to and adjust accordingly"

Don't forget: "Bench Aaron Jones after every big play"

Every idiot on this board knew Jones needed to be used more and as soon as MLF was here, Jones had a 19 TD season

[HKPackFan]

For a very casual fan like me, can somebody explain why the Ravens went for the 2 pointer at the end there? Wouldn't it make sense to take the easier option and go into OT?

Harbaugh didn't trust his team's defense.

Exactly. He'd rather take a chance on his offense on gaining two yards on one play which was rolling.

Instead of going into OT and risk giving up a td to Rodgers where he as no one left in his secondary. Keeping the ball away from Rodgers.

[HKPackFan]

That was a weird game.. I went from we should roll over these guys Rodgers should get 4TDs to, I can't believe we are going to lose this game, to I can't believe we won this game.

[coolhandluke121]

So ignoring the fact that Rodgers just had a season of experience in the system and that may have been a factor

It could have been a factor, but Rodgers is a smart guy when it comes to football, at minimum, so I don't think it would take him that long to pick up.

It's actually very well-documented that they talked a lot about the offense and Rodgers made a lot of compromises after year 1. That just so happens to jive with finally listening to the coach who is consistently rated among the best, if not THE BEST play-caller in football, instead of being an arrogant egomaniac who still thinks he can buy all the time he wants in the pocket and throw 20 yards downfield every time like he's still 29 years old or something. He had slipped into some very bad tendencies and MLF played a big part in designing an offense that would get Rodgers to buy in instead of always assuming he knows better than everyone else. He finally started taking the shorter chunks of plays on a consistent basis and that's the primary reason for his return to MVP form. I think his receivers led the NFL in YAC last year, and he might have had the best offensive line in the league. He has never had as much help as he did last year. I don't think it was even a top-5 year for him after controlling for supporting cast. He used to be able to have one of the worst lines in football, be sacked more than anyone (although that was partly his fault for holding it so long), have a receiving corps that would lead the league in drops, have much less in the way of run-game support, and still put up numbers comparable to last year and lead the league in passer rating by a pretty wide margin.

[th87]

Matt LaFleur may be helping. Gonna need some more time to evaluate.

37-9 and 2 NFC Championship games in 2 playoffs. Yeah, I might have to think about this one for a minute too.

Apparently you've never heard correlation doesn't prove causation. And you even ignore, like I said, Rodgers' turnaround wasn't until year 2, after another major variable entered the equation.

My statements were about as high praise I'm going to go for a newer coach that doesn't influence personnel choices. To get greater praise, he'd have to win over time, and after major shake-ups in personnel. Then we can reasonably attribute more causation.

For now, he's clearly not screwing things up, and he may be aiding the outcomes to boot. So he can enjoy that level of credit, as well as a big paycheck. So he'll be doing fine w/out getting primary credit in the interim too.

In 11 years with Rodgers, MM has gotten a bye week only twice (2011, 2014).
In 2 years with Rodgers, MLF has gotten it twice in a row, and going for 3 in a row (with now only one team getting a bye).

The offense looks infinitely more innovative.

(and he's a good sideline dresser I must say)

[RRyder823]

MLF has gone 37-9 (!) in his 3 years as coach but gets no consideration for COY because "he has Rodgers". In the 3 years before MLF the team went 23-24-1. Take out the season when Rodgers missed games and we were 16-15-1. MLF is a great, no not perfect, coach.

The Jordan Love pick motivated Aaron & we got more time to recover from TT's decline. Those were likely much bigger factors. But LaFleur clearly hasn't hurt the team and may be helping.

MLF won 13 games BEFORE the Love pick and Rodgers wasn't particularly great that year (which led to the pick)

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[RRyder823]

Matt LaFleur may be helping. Gonna need some more time to evaluate.

37-9 and 2 NFC Championship games in 2 playoffs. Yeah, I might have to think about this one for a minute too.

Apparently you've never heard correlation doesn't prove causation. And you even ignore, like I said, Rodgers' turnaround wasn't until year 2, after another major variable entered the equation.

My statements were about as high praise I'm going to go for a newer coach that doesn't influence personnel choices. To get greater praise, he'd have to win over time, and after major shake-ups in personnel. Then we can reasonably attribute more causation.

For now, he's clearly not screwing things up, and he may be aiding the outcomes to boot. So he can enjoy that level of credit, as well as a big paycheck. So he'll be doing fine w/out getting primary credit in the interim too.

46 games isn't a large enough sample size?



Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[midranger]

Apparently you've never heard correlation doesn't prove causation.

Nope. Everyone has heard it. Which is why bull **** meters go off when you claim the Love pick caused Rodgers to improve, because the timing correlates.

Backing your claim you offer the “slights” argument showing only (checks notes), his draft slide as evidence. An event that transpired almost 17 years ago, and requires us to believe that Rodgers would not have been a good player without sliding in the draft, and said slide is the actual reason he is good. How good would he have been if he slid to the third round? The fourth round?

Like I said, bull **** meters went off.

[JimmyTheKid]

MLF has gone 37-9 (!) in his 3 years as coach but gets no consideration for COY because "he has Rodgers". In the 3 years before MLF the team went 23-24-1. Take out the season when Rodgers missed games and we were 16-15-1. MLF is a great, no not perfect, coach.

The Jordan Love pick motivated Aaron & we got more time to recover from TT's decline. Those were likely much bigger factors. But LaFleur clearly hasn't hurt the team and may be helping.

I love, LOVE, that this is still a thing.

[LUKE23]

To say coaching doesn't matter that much in the NFL is pretty crazy. It's the most scheme-specific sport there is by a wide margin, you have 11 players going against another 11, and plays can be changed throughout a 40-second interval based on what the QB and/or coaches see.

Obviously, it's likely the Love pick motivated Rodgers. But it's also obvious that the advancement of the running game, and MLF's incorporation of pre-snap motion/disguise are huge reasons our offense is tough to stop. We were generally always a one-dimensional offense under MM, under MLF we can win games both through the air and on the ground. Rodgers has also finally accepted that for the most part, short throws/YAC, long drives, and limiting his hits are the way to go. Under MM, it was hold the ball, wait a long time to see if guys could get open on their own, and take a ton of hits.

[M-C-G]

So ignoring the fact that Rodgers just had a season of experience in the system and that may have been a factor

It could have been a factor, but Rodgers is a smart guy when it comes to football, at minimum, so I don't think it would take him that long to pick up.

It's actually very well-documented that they talked a lot about the offense and Rodgers made a lot of compromises after year 1. That just so happens to jive with finally listening to the coach who is consistently rated among the best, if not THE BEST play-caller in football, instead of being an arrogant egomaniac who still thinks he can buy all the time he wants in the pocket and throw 20 yards downfield every time like he's still 29 years old or something. He had slipped into some very bad tendencies and MLF played a big part in designing an offense that would get Rodgers to buy in instead of always assuming he knows better than everyone else. He finally started taking the shorter chunks of plays on a consistent basis and that's the primary reason for his return to MVP form. I think his receivers led the NFL in YAC last year, and he might have had the best offensive line in the league. He has never had as much help as he did last year. I don't think it was even a top-5 year for him after controlling for supporting cast. He used to be able to have one of the worst lines in football, be sacked more than anyone (although that was partly his fault for holding it so long), have a receiving corps that would lead the league in drops, have much less in the way of run-game support, and still put up numbers comparable to last year and lead the league in passer rating by a pretty wide margin.

Reading thru this I have two thoughts, first I agree with all of it and feel like I was trying to make thus point for a year to friends and family. Second you could almost insert Favre and Big Mac into this and be accurate from that saga


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JimmyTheKid]

MLF has gone 37-9 (!) in his 3 years as coach but gets no consideration for COY because "he has Rodgers". In the 3 years before MLF the team went 23-24-1. Take out the season when Rodgers missed games and we were 16-15-1. MLF is a great, no not perfect, coach.

You said it. He is a GREAT coach. Happy to have him. Hopefully Rodgers is happy enough to get something done this offseason and retire a Packer in 5-8 years.