Despite the Packers 5-2-1 record, there's been a continual and consistent drumbeat of complaints about offensive play calling (double entendre intended). Losing to the Browns and Panthers, while not solely attributable to the offense, has still put a focus on the inability of what's supposed to be a high-powered offense to actually look like one with any sort of consistency. Play calling is the favorite target of the pitchforks and torches internet mobs, and I fully concede that I've joined in from time to time. Personally, I don't disagree with some of the complaints, but I think the problem goes deeper than that. I think it's the game planning itself that could be at fault. During the game, LaFleur calls the plays they have selected to put on the call sheet for the week for specific down and distance situations based on the opponent and what they've seen on film. This game plan is put together by the higher-level offensive staff, with LaFleur, Offensive Coordinator Adam Stenovich and Senior Offensive Assistant Luke Getsy as the main contributors. According to LaFleur, they knew exactly what to expect from Carolina.
LaFleur at halftime - (paraphrasing) "Carolina is doing exactly what we expected them to try to do this game."
LaFleur after the game - "They played the game they wanted to play. They wanted to play keep-away, run the football, make it a game where we have to consistently execute on offense."
So why wasn't there a specific plan to counteract what you knew they would do? Did the Packers game approach vary much from what they have shown all season? Not really. They continue to lean on establishing the run at all costs and hoping to hit some explosive plays to generate points. Does LaFleur think they had the perfect game plan and the players just didn't execute? I would argue with that since when they finally did take a different approach on the Packers' final drive it was executed extremely well and they looked like the team they've shown they can be.
There haven't been any games over the last six where the game plan impressed me. The other problem, and this is more on LaFleur, is his resistance to scrapping the game plan when things aren't going right. I can't count how many times I've yelled "go tempo" at the screen when the offense is looking stagnant.They wait until desperation time, as they did in this game, and it was pretty darn successful when they finally did it, as it usually is. Love seems to thrive in that mode of play, where he makes quicker decisions, gets the ball out quickly and moves the team down the field. There's no reason that approach can't be mixed in elsewhere in the course of a game. And note, this is just one possibility I've landed on. I'm no offensive genius, but I'm sure there plenty of other ways they can vary their approach during the course of a game when the offense is struggling. And that brings me to the other aspect of my argument. The other problem, and this is purely on LaFleur, is his resistance (stubbornness) to scrapping the game plan when things just aren't going right. Sometimes, you just need to make a new plan, Stan. Yes, even on the fly - that's what head coaches do.
As for the Panthers, after rewatching the game two times, I can see they had some specific things they wanted to do. I pointed one out in my "Three things..." post yesterday - attacking the outside edge around Rashan Gary. They ran at least four plays that I can remember, three times with a running back and once on a jet sweep where they took advantage of Gary taking an inside rush path. Another thing I saw continually was the Panthers' offensive line, playing with anywhere from 3-4 backups during the game, dominate the Packers defensive line and push them out of their gaps, creating wide lanes for their running backs. On the defensive side, the Panthers obviously saw something on tape and found they could scheme a free untouched blitzer right up the A gap into Jordan Love's face, which they did at least three times that I can remember. The Panthers had a definite specific plan beyond just, "lets run the ball, limit the Packers possessions and play soft zone on defense. They found weaknesses on tape and exploited them. I can't say studying what the Packers did gave me the same impression.
Other polluted thoughts:
Panthers backup and old friend Yosh Nijman looked like a Pro Bowl tackle on Sunday, handling Rashan Gary with relative ease. No sacks, no QB hits, 2 QB hurries, 1 tackle, 2 assists..
Lafleur calling for an inside handoff at the 50 yard line and 1 minute left in the half screams playing for field goal position instead of going for a touchdown.
I'm not sure what happened to the suffocating and swarming defense we saw in the first two games of the season, but if you do, please take it upon yourself to call them back to Green Bay.
Packers Identity: They find ways to beat themselves.
Remember my 80% comment on Love last week? Hasn't changed, but I'm beginning to believe it's possible he's being held back a bit by the game plans.
Despite all this, still more than half the season to go.
Go Pack Go