Packers hire OL coach· Page 3

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

5 years ago

Micheal Rodney, spreading the click bait bullshit every writer who needs followers.

45 of the 53 sacks last year came after 4.5 seconds.

Let's not let facts get in the way of your bullshit Micheal!

Hopefully Aaron decides he wants to run Lefleurs offense this year, that should take care of most of the problem.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan

You accurately explain Michael Rodney, and then say something like the quote below which is exactly what Rodney does! Come on man!!

Aaron got his hand picked coach, he probably doesn't want to embarrass him and get him fired
Packers will be fine.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan

beast
Select Member

5 years ago

#22

The Packers were in the middle of the NFL both in terms of success rate of running on 1st and 10 (per attempt) and success in making it on 3rd and short when rushing.

Originally Posted by: KRK

Where does it say per attempt on the 1st and 10 stat? ... that looks like a total ... which completely chaning the outlook of the stat.

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?year=&type=Rushing&range=NFL&rank=016

I wasn't, thanks for posting these stats! I've been telling you the OL/rushing isn't as bad as you're saying.

Percentage/Average Stat
#2 in yards per carry
#1 in first down per carry
#18 in stuffs per carry
#13 on percentage 3rd and short conversion
#3 in TDs on runs percentage inside the 3 yard line
#32 in rushing percentage
#2 on yards per carry of the first 10 rushes in a game
#11 on yards per carry of the 11-20 rushes in a game
Other than the stuffs, the Packers are in the top 13 in all rushing percentage/average numbers

Total stats (which are strongly effected by the fact the Packers are #32 in rushing attempts)
#14 in rushing first downs
#6 in fumbles lost (negative stat), HORRIBLE considering the low rushing attempts... and looks like most were on QBs as the Aaron Jones and Williams totaled for 1 all year)
#15 in rushes over 10 yards
#27 in stuffed (negative stat) (being #32 in rushing attempts helps this stat)
#21 in rushing yards on 1st and 10 (not surprising considering low rushing attempts)

These numbers are telling as it concerns ability to run the ball when it counts , and it would seem the Packers were not horrible, just average.

Originally Posted by: KRK

If you look at the percentage / average, I would say the efficiency was above average... the biggest problems were 1) Not enough run plays were actually run (that's on the play callers), 2) The fumbles stat is horrible (most on the QBs) 3) The stuff per carry rate ... but the rest of the percentage / average stats looked good.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, The need (at least) a very good, and I would prefer dominant right guard and adequate back up at right tackle.

Originally Posted by: KRK

I think we'd all want dominating players at every Packers position and adequate back-ups at them all too! 😁
It's what brings us together [cheers]

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member

5 years ago

#23

You accurately explain Michael Rodney, and then say something like the quote below which is exactly what Rodney does! Come on man!!

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

I think I explained myself when I replied to whomever called my statement a crock of shit!!!!!

I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!

go.pack.go.
Veteran Member

5 years ago

#24

I think I explained myself when I replied to whomever called my statement a crock of shit!!!!!

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan

He did not “hand pick” his coach. He may have been consulted with after he was interviewed, just like all of the 9 players on that committee they made (can’t remember what they called it).

Regardless, wouldn’t you rather Aaron approve of the coach & get along with him, as opposed to not liking the hire & butting heads with him the entire time? Only makes sense & I personally am glad that his opinion may have been part of the hire.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

5 years ago

#25

I think I explained myself when I replied to whomever called my statement a crock of shit!!!!!

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan

I too think your statement is a crock of shit. You phrased it as if it is fact, and it is not a fact, it is your cynical (my opinion of your opinion) opinion. You're free to state it, of course, but yeah, to say he hand picked Matt LaFleur? No. Nothing even comes close to supporting that opinion, yet you keep throwing it down our throats as if it's fact.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

5 years ago

#26

Where does it say per attempt on the 1st and 10 stat? ... that looks like a total ... which completely chaning the outlook of the stat.

I wasn't, thanks for posting these stats! I've been telling you the OL/rushing isn't as bad as you're saying.

Percentage/Average Stat
#2 in yards per carry
#1 in first down per carry
#18 in stuffs per carry
#13 on percentage 3rd and short conversion
#3 in TDs on runs percentage inside the 3 yard line
#32 in rushing percentage
#2 on yards per carry of the first 10 rushes in a game
#11 on yards per carry of the 11-20 rushes in a game
Other than the stuffs, the Packers are in the top 13 in all rushing percentage/average numbers

Total stats (which are strongly effected by the fact the Packers are #32 in rushing attempts)
#14 in rushing first downs
#6 in fumbles lost (negative stat), HORRIBLE considering the low rushing attempts... and looks like most were on QBs as the Aaron Jones and Williams totaled for 1 all year)
#15 in rushes over 10 yards
#27 in stuffed (negative stat) (being #32 in rushing attempts helps this stat)
#21 in rushing yards on 1st and 10 (not surprising considering low rushing attempts)

If you look at the percentage / average, I would say the efficiency was above average... the biggest problems were 1) Not enough run plays were actually run (that's on the play callers), 2) The fumbles stat is horrible (most on the QBs) 3) The stuff per carry rate ... but the rest of the percentage / average stats looked good.

I think we'd all want dominating players at every Packers position and adequate back-ups at them all too! 😁
It's what brings us together [cheers]

Originally Posted by: beast

That's a pretty throrough analysis.

I think our o-line is pretty good and while I really like the breakdown and these stats, I also find it hard to say that they prove our O-line's worth. Mainly because no one actually respects the run game when you always abandon it in critical situations and the fact that every defense respects Rodgers' ability quite a bit.

It's the same as with Coleman for the Falcons or Kamara for the Saints. Defenses, understandably, just don't respect the run. None of those runners got over 200 carries on the year, while posting 4.6, 4.8 en 5.5 ypc.

Again, I think our O-line is pretty good, though, and that the sensationalist headline used by Micheal Rodney is pure BS. Haven't read it any further, as I refuse to get him more ad revenue by posting bullshit clickbait.

That said, if you just look at the PFF numbers, it's pretty clear our guards can use an upgrade, much like the eye-test already proved to most. Bell, especially, is nowhere near a starting-caliber player.

LT - David Bakhtiari - 88.4 (Nr. 1 T)
LG - Lane Taylor - 64.3 (Nr. 25 G)
C - Corey Linsley - 73.7 (Nr. 7 C)
RG - Byron Bell - 47.4 (Nr. 72 G)
RT - Bryan Bulaga - 75.0 (Nr. 20 T)

I just don't agree with KRK about agressively pursuing guards, who hold very little positional value, early on in the draft or spending big in free agency. It's a hole you can fill with a day 2 selection or just a cheap guy in FA. I'd love to see us get a guy like Levitre in for a year and just draft two T/Gs on day 3.

Levitre should come relatively cheap at 33 years of age and having lost the 2018 season to injury and guards is pretty much the position to draft and develop.

KRK
Veteran Member

5 years ago

#27

RM said

I just don't agree with KRK about agressively pursuing guards, who hold very little positional value, early on in the draft or spending big in free agency.

I think you’re half right. Is my understanding that Lane Taylor was hurt a lot of the year. He was decent in previous years. So let’s assume that’s the case. But I fundamentally disagree that the position has a weak value such that you can scheme around a weak link at right guard and expect to be a top level offense. I’m not saying you’re wrong and I’m right, I’m saying we have a difference in philosophy.

I also believe that there’s something fundamentally to be improved about the way our line run blocks. Perhaps it’s scheme, and perhaps it’s coaching. If our general manager and the new head coach didn’t believe that, Campen would still be here.

However, IMO, if you want to have a Super Bowl caliber offense, you can’t keep patching has/beens and never-weres at the right guard position.

My preferred move would be to get Massey at right tackle from the Bears, weakening them and strengthening us. You slide Bulaga into right guard, thus strengthening two positions and giving yourself a back up at right tackle. Plan B is Saffold from the Rams.

In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK

Smokey
Veteran Member

5 years ago

#28

KRK, I half agree with you. As great as Bulaga has been, time waits for no man. He also has become more injury troubled too. A ready starting OT from the draft is difficult to come by. The step up to the NFL level, to me, is like going from catching a 6 lb Bass to landing a 600 lb Tuna. The weight and endurance training alone requires from 1 to 2 seasons. Also the greater speed of the game requires an adjustment s well. That is why GB and other teams acquire good linemen from the top quality colleges and get them ready to replace a Bulaga or other in the near future.

If I were building a team from scratch, I'd begin with the BEEF on the O and D lines. They are the foundation of a team and all else grows from the strong roots that the lines must furnish. I'd cheer if GB were to choose a OT first in the April draft, but I suspect that an Edge Rusher will be GB's first choice. That is also a great way to go as well.

Perhaps the FA market will resolve this choice and make GB's first draft pick a more agreed upon one.

beast
Select Member

5 years ago

#29

It's the same as with Coleman for the Falcons or Kamara for the Saints. Defenses, understandably, just don't respect the run. None of those runners got over 200 carries on the year, while posting 4.6, 4.8 en 5.5 ypc.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder

Packers and Falcons were two of the three teams (Steelers were the other) that ran the ball less than 35% of the time... so of course if it's not balanced defense are going to focus on the one that offenses are doing the clear majority of the time...

As for the Saints, I don't think we can say teams don't respect Kamara... he touched the ball 275 times, that's one touch short of doubling the next higher Saints weapon (which was another RB), so in some respects that Saints (Rams and Patriots) offenses is/are built around getting the RB going to opening up the passing game for Michael Thomas and Alvin Kamara.

And less than 15 players in the NFL had 200 carries... less than 10 had 220 carries... again that's more a coaching decision of going with a single featured RB or multiple RBs and injuries. David Johnson, Jordan Howard and Peyton Barber all got over 230 carries and less than 4 yards per carry... I don't think defenses necessary respect them, heck I wasn't even sure what team Barber was on... and I was more concerned about a different Bears RB (Tarik Cohen) when we faced them.

As I believe KRK said, reportedly Taylor was banged up though out the year... but he seems to be an average NFL starting OG (we have just gotten used to above average OGs with Sitton/Lang), but I honestly believe simply running the ball more often and having short pass plays, would help the OL a hell of a lot... all these 3.5+ extending the play forever is putting max pressure on the OL... and the OGs (who are less talented) are at times failing to hold up.

But I fundamentally disagree that the position has a weak value such that you can scheme around a weak link at right guard and expect to be a top level offense. I’m not saying you’re wrong and I’m right, I’m saying we have a difference in philosophy.

Originally Posted by: KRK

Philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with it.... because scheme around implies you're actually willing to look outside what you want to do... while philosophy implies what you want to do...

When one is actually willing to scheme around (and not locked into a single philosophy, or unwilling to consider anything outside their philosophy), a single weak interior OL is easiest position to scheme around...

My preferred move would be to get Massey at right tackle from the Bears, weakening them and strengthening us. You slide Bulaga into right guard, thus strengthening two positions and giving yourself a back up at right tackle. Plan B is Saffold from the Rams.

Originally Posted by: KRK

I'll never understand why fans some want to move the better pass blocker to OG and the worse pass blocking to OT... it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

5 years ago

#30

In fairness, I don't think the Molder of Rocks was saying that guards don't have much value to the scheme or the offense. I think he was saying that they don't have much financial value and that therefore there's no point in wasting money chasing talent in the high rounds of the draft. Equivalent talent can be obtained more affordably in later rounds or in free agency.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (12m) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (1h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (1h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (2h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (11h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (11h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (11h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (15h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other

beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)

Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.

beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs

packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.

beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating

Zero2Cool (20-Dec) : There is a rule that if your name starts with 'b' you lose 15 points. Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them!

wpr (20-Dec) : and then there is Beast. Running away with it all.

beast (20-Dec) : As of tonight, 3 way tie for 2nd in Pick'em, that battle is interesting!

beast (20-Dec) : Lions vs Vikings could be the main last game as it could determine division winners or #1 vs #2 seed

Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Or if KC needs to win for the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Right now it looks like the only prime worthy games are Det-Minny and KC-Denver (if Denver can clinch a wild card spot)

Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : The entirety of week 18 being listed as flex is weird

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Matt LaFleur today says unequivocally "Ted Thompson had nothing to do with the drafting of Jordan Love."

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Apparently, the editing is what pieces comments together. That Ted thing ... fake news.

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : LaFleur "opportunity that Ted Thompson thought was too good to pass up"

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Jordan Love pick was Ted Thompson's idea.

Mucky Tundra (19-Dec) : Kyle Shanahan on signing De'Vondre Campbell as a FA last offseason: “We obviously made a mistake.”

packerfanoutwest (19-Dec) : Alexander’s last season with GB

Martha Careful (18-Dec) : if I were a professional athlete, I would probably look to see who the agent is for Kirk Cousins and then use him

beast (18-Dec) : $100 million fully guaranteed Kirk Cousins gets benched for rookie

Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : a lower case b

Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : The real lie is how beast capitalized his name in his message while it's normally spelled with

packerfanoutwest (18-Dec) : haha that's a lie

beast (17-Dec) : Despite what lies other might tell, Beast didn't hate the Winter Warnings, it felt refreshing to Beast for some reason.

Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : whiteout uniforms in general are pretty lame and weak. NFL greed at it's worst

Martha Careful (17-Dec) : The Viking uniforms, the whiteout uniforms specifically absolutely suck

beast (17-Dec) : Thanks Zero2Cool, looks a lot better now

beast (17-Dec) : Seems like someone has a crush on me, can't stop talking about me

Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : Should be gooder now. The forum default theme went to goofy land.

Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : What the hell

packerfanoutwest (17-Dec) : yeah beast hates the Winter Warning Unies

Mucky Tundra (16-Dec) : Okay I'm glad to know it's not just something happening to me lol

Mucky Tundra (16-Dec) : Zero, did you copy the Packers uniforms from last night and white out the board?

beast (16-Dec) : Oh crap, is the board going to the Winter Warning Uniforms too?!? It's all white on white right now!

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS