MLF decision making process

[OldSchool101]

Here's the reality. We needed two scores to win this game, and LeFleur foolishly passed on a FG on a 4th and 8. This is NOT the first time I've seen him do this, and it infuriates me every time. As someone else said, there were over 8 minutes remaining in the game, and he squandered a critical scoring opportunity in a low scoring game, that cost us a win against a mediocre team, at best. For every genius move LeFleur makes, he seems to make 2 bad decisions, often at crucial junctures. I've been a Packers fan for over 60 years, and his decsion making leaves me angry and disappointed.

I’d agree in part. I don’t agree he’s making 2 bad decisions per 1 good one. I think it’s we naturally have high expectations. We don’t expect him to make ANY bad decisions when it comes to scoring.
When Rodgers was here. He controlled much of the common sense decisions. I truly believe had Matt wanted to go for it Rodgers would literally point at the scoreboard and gameclock to question that. He was bold that way he’d at minimum want to discuss it. He’s confident but not stupid either. Anything <5 yards he’d go along with that. I truly believe he reminds LaFleur that there’s 10:45 minutes left. I can actually see him arguing with him on the sideline and bickering. He’s going to make sure Matt knows he’s off his rocker.

With the 5:00 clock stop at sideline. A 2-minute and potentially 3-6 timeouts? Plus increased passing (incomplete stopping the clock) there’s an argument it feels like 15-20:00 minutes of gameclock. At least a full Quarter. Not the place to panic there. 55% chance we see the ball on Offense 3 more times
95% we see the ball at least 2X

 

[Pkrjones]

I’d agree in part. I don’t agree he’s making 2 bad decisions per 1 good one. I think it’s we naturally have high expectations. We don’t expect him to make ANY bad decisions when it comes to scoring.

Maybe MLF's wife can be on the sidelines? When he makes a predictable/dumb playcall she can give him "the look" allowing him to change it?

 

[weeds]

Maybe MLF's wife can be on the sidelines? When he makes a predictable/dumb playcall she can give him "the look" allowing him to change it?

Oh man ... not "THE LOOK". That's brutal

 

[adambr2]

IMO, “take the points” is far too simplified of an approach in this day and age of analytics. There are times when it’s the correct approach of course … but coaches are much more data driven than they once were.

For example, I can’t see very many instances where kicking a FG inside your opponents’ 3 yard line is ever a good idea.

The overlooked part of going for it is that if you fail here, your opponent gets the ball on their own 1 or 2. That’s an awfully nice consolation prize and gives you a great chance to get the ball back for another possible drive.

Versus only adding 3 points and your opponent is going to get it on their own 30-35 instead.

 

[milani]

IMO, “take the points” is far too simplified of an approach in this day and age of analytics. There are times when it’s the correct approach of course … but coaches are much more data driven than they once were.

For example, I can’t see very many instances where kicking a FG inside your opponents’ 3 yard line is ever a good idea.

The overlooked part of going for it is that if you fail here, your opponent gets the ball on their own 1 or 2. That’s an awfully nice consolation prize and gives you a great chance to get the ball back for another possible drive.

Versus only adding 3 points and your opponent is going to get it on their own 30-35 instead.

It is not so simplified. Hey, in 1965 the Packers were locked in a 3-3 tie late in the 4th quarter. The Packers forced a turnover and managed to get to the Ram 6 inch on 4th down. With the LA defensive line suffocating our line all day Lombardi decided to have Don Chandler kick a 7 yard FG. And knowing that we had smothered Roman Gabriel all day he knew we had the game won at 6-3.

 

[adambr2]

It is not so simplified. Hey, in 1965 the Packers were locked in a 3-3 tie late in the 4th quarter. The Packers forced a turnover and managed to get to the Ram 6 inch on 4th down. With the LA defensive line suffocating our line all day Lombardi decided to have Don Chandler kick a 7 yard FG. And knowing that we had smothered Roman Gabriel all day he knew we had the game won at 6-3.

Well, I understand that late game potential game winning FGs are exceptions to the thought process. I wasn’t really thinking about a 7 yard FG from a defensive slugfest in 1965 when I posted that.

 

[DoURant]

I believe when it was 3rd and 3, the plan was they were in 4 down territory and going for the TD. After not scoring a TD in the Red Zone all day, he wanted to show confidence in the offense, and what better way to do that, than go for the TD. The wind, the fumble, the missed FG, and the fact that drives were at a premium all game, all contributed to why. I was all for the 4 down territory on 3rd and 3, and I'm sure 90% of you all were too... The problem all started with the 3rd down call. We were running the ball well on that drive, so why didn't we run the ball on 3rd down, vs running that bubble screen to Wilson, that lost 5 yards on 3rd down? After that play was blown up, and it went to 4th and 8, the plan should have been blown up too, and the FG should have been kicked... instead MLF pulled out his inner Dan Campbell and stayed with his decision made on 3rd and 3, regardless of the outcome. Going for it on 4th and 3 or less is a whole lot different than 4th and 8... it made you one dimensional, there was no threat to defend the run.

 

[scooter_1954]

I think the bottom line is, it was a terrible decision by MLF, and it cost us the game. 4th and three, maybe, but even that is very dicey. 4th and 8 was suicidal, and speaking of analytics, the chances of converting on 4th and 8 are abysmally low. It's not complicated.

 

[scooter_1954]

And for the record, DoURant, I agree with you, the problem was on the 3rd down play. That created a nightmare scenario, and AGAIN, we needed two scores to win. MLF passed on a surefire score. I thought it was foolish, and psychologically defeating.

 

[OldSchool101]

I feel like Matt kinda threw a wild dart to the right in Tampa (didn’t apply 4-down concept in 1st n goal Tampa8). Then he said he kinda rethought that. Then here he kinda threw a wild dart to the left on 4th n 8. Heck someone showed where Dan Campbell has never been that aggressive by probability variances.
My hope is this brings some focal awareness to this and we plug the next dart smack dab on the bullseye. We all know he’s a smart guy, but sometimes we’re a little too up close to see the big picture. Probably felt like the game was completely out of hand and just got a little jumpy

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Can you explain to me that he uses analytics and logic in his decisions, rather than just flying by the seat of his pants and making whatever emotional decision he feels like doing in the moment?

Honestly, I think this is the exact problem with Matt and one that I have pointed out before, he coaches with emotion, not "facts" and analytics. Now Matt does have a great football mind, but not in the moment, with the play/game clock ticking down. I think this is why we see him take timeouts so often, even when he has the defense on their heals and the Packers should be running a quicker offense because of it. His decision making or lack of quickness in it, is constantly leaving Jordan in the huddle far too long or having to burn a timeout, instead of taking a 5 yard delay of game penalty. Stop sending your QB to the LOS with under 10 fricking seconds on the play clock Matt!

How many time have we heard Matt say "I felt that it was a good decision at the time." or "I just think we had a good feel for....."

Bottom line for me. Matt has a good offensive minded brain. However, if he wants to be a HC, then he shouldn't also be the OC. He can't juggle both jobs effectively enough. Hand that job off to someone in the booth, with a team of people that could run laps around MLF with analytics. Of course Matt can stay plugged into the decisions, but for FFS and Jordan's sake...hand the job over Matt or you may not be a HC for much longer.

 

[gopkrs]

Personally, I say to hell with ananytics. If you need those for that kind of a decision we are talking about; your coaching acumen is sorely suspect. And sometimes you have to make your own decisions w/o a computer. imho. But obviously you have to be aware of what's going on and in control.

 

[milani]

I think the bottom line is, it was a terrible decision by MLF, and it cost us the game. 4th and three, maybe, but even that is very dicey. 4th and 8 was suicidal, and speaking of analytics, the chances of converting on 4th and 8 are abysmally low. It's not complicated.

The only justifiable reason for not kicking is if your kicker suffered an injury and no one else was could kick.

 

[adambr2]

Anyone out there still want to defend Matt Lafleur?

 

[longtimefan]

1st it was Matt rides on Aaron coat tails

He proved that wrong

He had a qb that wasn’t even on the team as the season started last year and got 2 wins


I say it’s the players . They just aren’t good enough

 

[Magooch]

Coaching purgatory.

Never going to be bad enough to get fired but I seriously doubt we'll ever get to where we want to go with him in charge.

 

[adambr2]

1st it was Matt rides on Aaron coat tails

He proved that wrong

He had a qb that wasn’t even on the team as the season started last year and got 2 wins


I say it’s the players . They just aren’t good enough

So it’s on Gute.

 

[longtimefan]

So it’s on Gute.

It very well might be

Or that the players aren’t coached up by their position coaches

I’ve already stated why I don’t think it’s Matt with hard fact

 

[adambr2]

It very well might be

Or that the players aren’t coached up by their position coaches

I’ve already stated why I don’t think it’s Matt with hard fact

I think Matt is a bottom half of the NFL head coach.

But agree to disagree.

 

[longtimefan]

Might even be Love . I really listened to Troy . More than once he indicated Love didn’t look where he should have

 

[longtimefan]

I think Matt is a bottom half of the NFL head coach.

But agree to disagree.

According to stats he is no where near that

How many wins and losses and compare that to other coaches

 

[adambr2]

Might even be Love . I really listened to Troy . More than once he indicated Love didn’t look where he should have

It’s definitely a possibility that Love ain’t it and that is more problematic than a GM or HC.

 

[adambr2]

According to stats he is no where near that

How many wins and losses and compare that to other coaches

Don’t care about regular season winning percentage. Meaningless. Has he won anything tangible outside of a division championship? Mike McCarthy was once the winningest head coach in Packer history (besides Lambeau). At least he’s got a Lombardi and a street named after him.

 

[longtimefan]

Don’t care about regular season winning percentage. Meaningless. Has he won anything tangible outside of a division championship? Mike McCarthy was once the winningest head coach in Packer history (besides Lambeau). At least he’s got a Lombardi and a street named after him.

Ok so he could go 4-13 then win a SB and all is good?

 

[Magooch]

It’s definitely a possibility that Love ain’t it and that is more problematic than a GM or HC.

Yeah, I dunno what’s worse.

That we might have a 240m QB who isn’t “the guy”

Or that we’ve shackled him to a coach who doesn’t trust him to put the game in his hands… and still opted to pay him that contract and keep him with that coach.