MLF was asked in a press conference why they line up with only 2 down linemen when they’re in nickel defense, while the offense is in a 3 TE set. MLF went off on the reporter, he was a total ass hole about it and very condescending. I believe it was his Monday presser if anybody wants to go watch.
Originally Posted by: go.pack.go.
https://www.packers.com/video/matt-lafleur-emphasizes-needing-all-11-on-the-same-page I just went to watch it, and I'm completely on LaFleaur side there, the reporter was wrong to word it that way, and LaFleaur is educating him for the future.
The Reporter in that series had multiple
attempts and kept screwing up... starting at 14:10 mark.
1) The first seems like a total screw up by the reporter... basically attempting to ask the questions, but all he does is ramble on.... and I had to listen to it multiple times to figure out what he was asked, but what he actually asked was, "do you guys have conversations"... ramble ramble ramble ... "facing didn't teams with a younger QB that maybe wants to run the ball more" ... made no sense.... then he stopped and waited for an answer.
LaFleaur asked, what was the question? (and I'm still counting this as number one question) the reporter then said "is that maybe something you
2) Then stops, waiting for an answer and LaFleaur is like "what's the question?", and the reporter followed with, "Maybe that's something you guys didn't do a good enough job of contemplating going into the game ..."
My reaction, was wooo .. he's really going after the coach there ... suggesting that the coaches are smart enough to consider the Steelers are going to run the ball more, when that's clearly what the struggling passing attack Steelers do, and LaFleaur quite literally had said that exact thing multiple times since the game. And you're asking it as you're out smarting what the coaches already told you? I would of went off on him right there.
But LaFleaur gave a nice, long, clam answer! After the Reporter basically couldn't form a question, and then basically insulted the coaches.
3) Then the reporter at 15:08 (maybe or maybe not interpreting LaFleaur, let's say not interrupting) state that he should of asked this question better...
That's when he screws up for the 3rd time... saying "Nickel Defense with the two down linemen"
And yes, LaFleaur went off on him and was condescending towards him, suggesting someone that saying there is only two down linemen in nickel doesn't know what they're talking about... (and it's the truth).
LaFleaur then explained nickel is 4 down linemen as the edge rushers are down linemen, and how they consider if someone is a down linemen or not.
============
Then at 16:32 the reporter asks another simple question and LaFleaur calmly and nicely gave a long answer.
==============
Was LaFleaur an ass for a short while? yeah... but what do you expect when someone comes into their job, suggest they're stupid, and then doesn't seem to know what they themselves are talking about?
And LaFleaur was nice enough to try to educate him going forward....
The real problem here is that the NFL has over simplified the 4-3 and 3-4 defenses to the point that it's wrong... and when someone takes that wrong information to the guys on the inside like coaches, they don't like it, especially when you're trying to criticize them with that wrong information.
The wrong part of the over simplification is 3-4 OLB vs 4-3 OLB and 3-4 DE vs 4-3 DE which the public and media screw up too often.
Which is why I like Edge Rusher labels so much better for 3-4 OLB and 4-3 DE because they play very similar roles.
Then just call all the big men inside DTs.
But nickel packages are basically 4-2 defenses, so there are 4 down linemen, not 2. And after that reporter sorta (maybe accidentally) suggested the coaches are stupid... to say a 3rd wrong thing, someone needed to correct him.
Maybe LaFleaur didn't need to do it with so much attitude, but that was fairly short lived. I would of given attitude much sooner and would of carried it much longer.