Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Arizona - Studs and Duds
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Magooch" data-source="post: 1075458" data-attributes="member: 17987"><p>Even more interesting <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/tongue.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" data-shortname=":p" /> </p><p></p><p>I guess I would say in a nutshell, my issue was that it felt like yesterday (and this has been somewhat a theme in recent weeks in general too) that it felt like LaFleur was just kind of all over the place with regards for when to be conservative vs aggressive. On one hand you have many instances where it feels he's calling things a little too predictable, but then swings too far the other direction. Like you'll go ultra-conservative with a slow developing outside rush on 3rd...and then dial up the aggression on 4th. Or call it conservative on 1st and 2nd and then dial up a low-percentage deep bomb on 3rd and short. </p><p></p><p>But I guess the short of it is...I think you might have actually mentioned as much elsewhere...it feels like LaFleur's "conservative vs aggressive" moments are largely down to him wanting to be a guy who wants to establish the running game to open up the passing game, and IMO the way this team is built it really would be better suited as a team who establishes the passing game to open up the running game... </p><p></p><p>I remember talking about the Bears a few weeks ago, how in the offseason they went out and retooled their OL and (for the most part) put a big emphasis on guys who lean towards pass pro , seemingly to give Caleb more pocket time upright. But then they would come out and want to play like Philly or something and try to do this smash mouth ground and pound game, but their guys just aren't built for that. Now these are two very different situations but I do see some similarities...I think we have a pass-first OL but often want to try and play like a run-first team and I just don't know how built we are to play that way. I think our best play is to come out aggressive, establish the passing game and then allow our run game to wear them down once we have already hopefully created some distance. Easier said than done though I suppose <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/tongue.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magooch, post: 1075458, member: 17987"] Even more interesting :P I guess I would say in a nutshell, my issue was that it felt like yesterday (and this has been somewhat a theme in recent weeks in general too) that it felt like LaFleur was just kind of all over the place with regards for when to be conservative vs aggressive. On one hand you have many instances where it feels he's calling things a little too predictable, but then swings too far the other direction. Like you'll go ultra-conservative with a slow developing outside rush on 3rd...and then dial up the aggression on 4th. Or call it conservative on 1st and 2nd and then dial up a low-percentage deep bomb on 3rd and short. But I guess the short of it is...I think you might have actually mentioned as much elsewhere...it feels like LaFleur's "conservative vs aggressive" moments are largely down to him wanting to be a guy who wants to establish the running game to open up the passing game, and IMO the way this team is built it really would be better suited as a team who establishes the passing game to open up the running game... I remember talking about the Bears a few weeks ago, how in the offseason they went out and retooled their OL and (for the most part) put a big emphasis on guys who lean towards pass pro , seemingly to give Caleb more pocket time upright. But then they would come out and want to play like Philly or something and try to do this smash mouth ground and pound game, but their guys just aren't built for that. Now these are two very different situations but I do see some similarities...I think we have a pass-first OL but often want to try and play like a run-first team and I just don't know how built we are to play that way. I think our best play is to come out aggressive, establish the passing game and then allow our run game to wear them down once we have already hopefully created some distance. Easier said than done though I suppose :P [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
CarryTheG14
Latest posts
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: CarryTheG14
8 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: tynimiller
15 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: Curly Calhoun
Today at 8:28 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 7:58 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 11:14 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Arizona - Studs and Duds
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
