Facing 4th and 1 at their own 44-yard line with about 1:30 left on the clock, down by three points, the Green Bay Packers ran a pathetic-looking inside run to Josh Jacobs that the Philadelphia Eagles' defense just absolutely blew up for a loss of 3-4 yards. If not for Philly's questionable calls following that play, trying to end the game, this would have been it for the Packers' offense in their loss Monday night. Even if they converted, the offense was called for illegal formation, which would have pushed them five yards back, making the 4th down conversion less manageable.
It was a rushed, seemingly uninspired play call. The Packers had 26 seconds left on the play clock and two timeouts if they needed some extra time to maybe choose a better play and get set. To make matters worse, it was revealed later on, via replay, that a Philadelphia defender, DT Moro Ojomo, was calling out the play as they lined up. He could be heard yelling, "Inside zone this way, inside zone this way!" Right before the snap, as he pointed exactly where the Packers would later try to run Jacobs.
Does it get any more embarrassing than that?
You can go ahead and hand credit over to Ojomo in recognizing the play before it got off. That shows a high football IQ and that he did his homework on the Packers' offense. But the frustrating part is the reminder that the Packers had 26 seconds left on the play clock and two timeouts. You have to imagine Jordan Love, or at least someone on Green Bay's side of the ball, had to have heard Ojomo shouting this. So, why couldn't they can the call and move to a different play? Or even call a timeout to think it over? It was perhaps one of the most important calls of the game, and it was unnecessarily rushed. The levels of frustration of having to watch this happen as a powerless fan are very high.
When defensive opponents watch film leading up to a game, they learn an offense's tendencies and try to predict what they're going to do on any given play. The job of the offense is to either change it up a bit to confuse the defense or execute the plays so flawlessly that the defense can't stop them despite knowing what's coming. Any Packer fan who knows their history could tell you that Lombardi's Packers succeeded on discipline and flawless execution more than anything. Everybody knew of Lombardi's power sweep; they couldn't stop it because the Packers did it so well. Expecting today's Packers to execute like Lombardi's would be a pipe dream, considering that era saw ten future Pro Football Hall of Famers. But they can tone down the predictability.
These last few games, I can't tell you how often I've called the Packers running the ball on first down. Or even running the ball on 2nd and long. While it's true that you need to establish the run to open up the pass, that doesn't mean running the same predictable hand-off over and over in the same situation, expecting different results. That's just the definition of insanity in football form. But whether improving that comes in the form of changing play calls or pushing for better execution, that's up to Matt LaFleur to decide. And he needs to figure that out before it's too late.
Avoiding the Same Fate
One of the top complaints regarding the former Packers Head Coach, Mike McCarthy, was that his approach and philosophy grew stale. He all but refused to deviate from "what worked before." As a result, the Packers grew to be predictable at times. It isn't quite the same situation, but perhaps Matt LaFleur can learn a thing or two from his predecessor.
As of late, the Packers often appear undisciplined and unprepared. Every player on that roster is a professional. They didn't get to where they are today by coasting through everything and not taking it seriously. So, we can easily toss out the "they don't care" ideas and that LaFleur needs to turn into a drill sergeant or something. Sure, Lombardi held a high standard of discipline with his players, but he still loved them all like they were his family and wasn't a stranger to having a drink or two with them in the locker room after a game. But perhaps LaFleur does need to change his approach a little bit. Ensure a focus on certain aspects of the team's preparation to avoid that stale, predictable outcome.
Does Matt LaFleur need to turn over play-calling to someone else? I don't think so. In fact, we saw Mike McCarthy turn over play-calling duties to Tom Clements years ago so he could "focus elsewhere." The result wasn't pretty. When McCarthy took back the call sheet, things got back on track. The same, in my opinion, might happen with Matt LaFleur. However, I do believe LaFleur needs to evaluate his other duties to see what he may be able to allocate to his assistants so that he may focus more on areas of greater need. Many successful coaches are very hands-on. LaFleur already excels in that category, but perhaps where he's hands-on needs to shift a bit.
It's time to get away from the stale predictability we've seen over the last few games. That isn't going to win us anything down the stretch. Whether that is achieved by changing what is called or by focusing more on execution and perfection, is something Matt LaFleur is going to have to discover quickly, before it's too late.