Page 3 of 4

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 14:19
by YoHoChecko
Drj820 wrote:
26 Apr 2020 14:03
This is a very good post. My point wasn’t so much in the draft order, but how we are still very different Bc of the multiple ways they have gone about building their roster. And bc they used drafts to load up their DL and OL, then fill the rest out aggressively.
But you did a good job of showing that we might be more similiar than I thought. We just need some Bosas and kinlaws
To be fair, I'm not convinced that trading DeForest Buckner for Javon Kinlaw is an improvement--ESPECIALLY in 2020.

I think the 49ers mostly got a hair worse this year.

They lessened their RB depth by trading Breida. They lessened their WR depth by trading Goodwin (though they have young guys from last season that should improve).

They swapped out Emmanuel Sanders for rookie Brandon Ayiuk.

Joe Staley to Trent Williams is a slight upgrade in my eyes, but mostly a wash.

None of these moves are huge. But they're already 3-4 years into the system, so I don't expect a familiarity jump, and the changes they made this offseason are to swap out proven role players with youthful potential, which is a great long-term plan. These swaps might be better for them in 2021 than they were in 2019, but I'm not sure it's better for 2020. It's all marginal, but the idea that the 49ers aggressively improved while we didn't rings hollow to me. Anyone who thinks swapping proven players for rookies at positions improves the team immediately is usually going to be wrong.

The Saints, however, added a veteran WR2 where they had literally no one of note previously and drafted a high pick at their weakest position on the OLine who may actually be a day one starter. I could see a case that they have improved their offense marginally, which is a bit frightening, given the circumstances.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 14:56
by YoHoChecko
Waldo wrote:
26 Apr 2020 14:10
Rodgers hits half the bombs he underthrew to MVS last year and this whole team speed argument is nonsense. MVS is a legit 4.3's guy.

And frankly, we have a piece of potential either of them could only dream of, that MLF likely had no idea that he had until mideseaon.

Jones has rare receiving ability for a RB. Expect to see A LOT more of that next season. Jones is the whole package a la Marshall Faulk. Lets see if MLF can unlock that potential. If he does I'd be all for resigning him. And if that is the plan, replacing some of his carries is certainly what I'd want to do, plus it would greatly extend his shelf life.
The MVS thing is both fair and false. YES, he is a real speed guy. And yes, Rodgers missed him at time. Their timing has never aligned. But MVS also has a LOT of problems of his own. His ball tracking and body control on deep passes that could have been completed were sorely lacking. I have long felt that MVS was sort of the slowest learner of the group, hence his being a bit raw coming out of college despite having plenty of experience. I think he was probably, in addition to some nagging injuries, thinking too much in a new system last year. But I'm also not sure if he has the receiving instincts and ball tracking to make him a reliable full-time player and routine deep threat.

Time will tell. MVS could improve or stay static. But as I've mentioned elsewhere, his speed isn't necessarily a versatile speed, either, due to his long, angular, thin frame. So even if he becomes our consistent #2 or 3 WR, I'd still want one more piece to move around a la an Antonio Gibson from this year's draft. I'm not ignoring MVS, but I'm also not counting on him, nor am I content with him. I like our weapons a lot more than a lot of people, but I think they fit contextually much better if we add a missing one or two pieces that would really make me feel better.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 16:11
by British
I'm happy enough considering MVS is our #4 right now. ESB, who may turn out to be better than him, our #5.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 16:35
by go pak go
I think the team we should view as a model that I haven't heard much about is actually the 2016 Atlanta Falcons.

MLF was actually coach there. They had two great running backs that they used on the field at the same time. They had a stud and accurate quarterback. They had a top WR and a below average 2nd WR but teams feared because of all the other weapons.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 16:53
by YoHoChecko
go pak go wrote:
26 Apr 2020 16:35
I think the team we should view as a model that I haven't heard much about is actually the 2016 Atlanta Falcons.

MLF was actually coach there. They had two great running backs that they used on the field at the same time. They had a stud and accurate quarterback. They had a top WR and a below average 2nd WR but teams feared because of all the other weapons.
OH I like this. 2016 Falcons, the #1 offense and Super Bowl participant

QB: Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan

WR1: Davante Adams, Julio Jones
WR2: Allen Lazard?, Mohammed Sanu
SlotWR: Devin Funchess, Taylor Gabriel

RB1: Aaron Jones, Devonta Freeman
RB2: AJ Dillon, Tevin Coleman

TE1: Jace Sternberger, Levine Toilolo
TE2: Robert Tonyan, Jacob Tamme
H/FB: Josiah Deguara, Patrick DiMarco

Sanu was a slow but savvy possession receiver. Gabriel was a burner gadget who scored 7 TDs in his career best year. Austin Hooper was a rookie on this team, but Toilolo notched 11 starts and Tamme notched 5. FB DiMarco actually started 8 games, so he was utilized. Freeman and Jones are a similar mold. Coleman is faster than Jamaal Williams and AJ Dillon (4.40 at Pro Day, no combine time), and more physical than Freeman.

This lines up exceptionally well, absent that speedy gadget player I want very badly in Taylor Gabriel. Maybe Tyler Ervin fills that role for us this year? Their WR depth included Justin Hardy, another slower possession receiver and Aldrick Robinson, more of a downfield threat, while ours includes EQSB and MVS, which seems superior. Our TEs are unproven, but Toilolo and Tamme are nothing special and convention TEs like our two guys are.

What an excellent comparison. Thanks GPG.

Let's sign Taylor Gabriel just in case.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 17:03
by go pak go
Yeah great comparisons Yoho.

I think the quarterbacks are a wash... slight edge to ATL right now. 2016 Ryan > 2019 Rodgers
Julio > Adams but not by much.
I honestly will have a hard time buying that Sanu is better than Lazard.
I think we have the better tailbacks. Especially if Dillon is who we hope.
We could have a lead on the H back role and TE role too, but those are far too early to tell.

As you stated, we are missing that #3/#4 WR who has speed. The wildcard we have there is we do have two WRs who are sub 4.5 guys. If one of those two can figure it out, that could be our last piece.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 17:19
by Yoop
go pak go wrote:
26 Apr 2020 17:03
Yeah great comparisons Yoho.

I think the quarterbacks are a wash... slight edge to ATL right now. 2016 Ryan > 2019 Rodgers
Julio > Adams but not by much.
I honestly will have a hard time buying that Sanu is better than Lazard.
I think we have the better tailbacks. Especially if Dillon is who we hope.
We could have a lead on the H back role and TE role too, but those are far too early to tell.

As you stated, we are missing that #3/#4 WR who has speed. The wildcard we have there is we do have two WRs who are sub 4.5 guys. If one of those two can figure it out, that could be our last piece.
who's our #2 this week :idn: Funchess???? I always liked it more when we had long tenured high ceiling established vets year after year, versus long tenured unestablished low floor ones, but I know I tend to be finaky that way :munch:

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 17:26
by YoHoChecko
Yoop wrote:
26 Apr 2020 17:19
go pak go wrote:
26 Apr 2020 17:03
Yeah great comparisons Yoho.

I think the quarterbacks are a wash... slight edge to ATL right now. 2016 Ryan > 2019 Rodgers
Julio > Adams but not by much.
I honestly will have a hard time buying that Sanu is better than Lazard.
I think we have the better tailbacks. Especially if Dillon is who we hope.
We could have a lead on the H back role and TE role too, but those are far too early to tell.

As you stated, we are missing that #3/#4 WR who has speed. The wildcard we have there is we do have two WRs who are sub 4.5 guys. If one of those two can figure it out, that could be our last piece.
who's our #2 this week :idn: Funchess???? I always liked it more when we had long tenured high ceiling established vets year after year, versus long tenured unestablished low floor ones, but I know I tend to be finaky that way :munch:
Literally read the post... right above these? It goes fully position by position including depth.

Plus, the #2 in this comparison for the Falcons was Muhammed Sanu. He's a guy who ran a 4.67 and in his now 8-year career has career highs in receiving yards of 838 and 67 catches and 5 TDs (not all the same year). He's a guy who consistently averages 10-12 yards per catch. He's a guy who, at the time of this comparison, was a 27-year old in his first year in the new system with the new team. So he was a short-tenured, low-ceiling WR. Funchess is a 26-year old guy who ran about a 4.7 and has a career high of 63 catches and 840 yards and 8 TDs. Sanu is a comparable player to Funchess or maybe Lazard. Slow your roll and actually read/think about what we're posting here.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 18:57
by British
Great comparison with the Falcons.

Lots of talk that we don't have a burner like Gabriel. But MVS ran 4.37. Gabriel ran 4.40.

MVS may need to improve his ball tracking but he has what you can't coach.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 26 Apr 2020 19:09
by YoHoChecko
British wrote:
26 Apr 2020 18:57
Great comparison with the Falcons.

Lots of talk that we don't have a burner like Gabriel. But MVS ran 4.37. Gabriel ran 4.40.

MVS may need to improve his ball tracking but he has what you can't coach.
Yeah, Gabriel is just more of a versatile player. One of his TDs was a rushing TD. He did more after the catch and with short screens. MVS' speed is real, and if he beats a CB at the line, that CB is stacked immediately and that is great. But speed is only valuable if you put it to use, and MVS has a lot to improve upon to stay on the field above Lazard and Funchess and even EQSB next year in order to be utilized.

Here's to a year of good health, mental improvement, and deep balls for MVS! I'm all for it! But they need to make it happen

Interestingly, Tyler Ervin caught a LOT of passes in college, but almost none in the pros. Tyler Ervin also ran a 4.41 and has a chance at a roster spot due to his punt returns. With a second year in the system and MLF getting more comfortable with what he can do, it wouldn't surprise me to see Ervin be sort of a Taylor Gabriel for us. But the glut at the RB position might make that tough to execute.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 27 Apr 2020 04:25
by British
Good point. I'd lean towards Ervin keeping a roster spot at this stage. His arrival seemed to improve our return game and as you say, he offers something a bit different. Wouldn't mind bringing in Taylor Gabriel to camp too if he can be had on the cheap.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 27 Apr 2020 05:02
by Scott4Pack
YoHo, you get employee of the month for posting all that info! Oh yeah, you aren't an employee. Darn.

;-)

But seriously, it's great info. I had been listening to Guty's interview online and I could hardly make out what he was saying.

So, Guty says to put Runyan outside and MLF thinks Runyan is best suited inside. Let's see how that works out.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 27 Apr 2020 15:36
by dokhogg
Interesting read right here...

https://www.eventusa.com/2020/04/27/pac ... e-offense/

Gutekunst goes QB, RB, TE and multiple O-linemen to upgrade LaFleur’s attack

GREEN BAY, Wis. – Based on fan reaction to the Packers’ 2020 NFL draft you might think head coach Matt LaFleur’s preferred way to play is “3 yards and a cloud of dust.”

Or that GM Brian Gutekunst’s draft strategy basically amounted to “three picks and a cloud of disgust.”

The Packers’ draft certainly triggered an avalanche of questions and an onslaught of second-guessing.

This year’s draft brought more than most.

Why trade up in the first round for a quarterback? Why pass on receivers in a draft replete with them? Why ignore a defense that was run off the field by San Francisco in the NFC Championship game?

The reason should be clear enough by now.

These aren’t Mike McCarthy’s Packers anymore.

LaFleur’s offense is predicated on using the run to set up the pass, not the other way around. It has been his stated philosophy since Day One. Perhaps fans weren’t listening, or only hearing what they wanted to.

LaFleur intends to run the football.

It’s why the Packers drafted Boston College’s A.J. Dillon in the second round. Dillon is a six-foot, 247-pound beast that ran a 4.53 40-yard dash and posted an impressive 41-inch vertical (best among running backs).

It’s also why they drafted tight end/H-back Josiah Deguara.

The third-round pick out of Cincinnati is a powerfully built 6-foot-2, 242-pound athlete who is used to lining up all over in the offense.

When I see A.J. Dillon, I think of Derrick Henry.

When I see Josiah Deguara, I think of Delanie Walker.

When I see all of the offensive linemen the Packers drafted, I think of replenishing a position that had been neglected far too long.

While this isn’t what some fans and media wanted or expected to see, it’s all in keeping with LaFleur’s plan.

When a first-year coach leads his team to a 14-4 record and gets it one win away from the Super Bowl, you’d think he’d get some slack.

Instead, LaFleur is getting grief. It goes with the territory.

The important thing is Gutekunst and LaFleur are executing a plan.

Disgruntled fans should give it a chance.

“I think as we’ve gone through a full season we have a much better idea of who we are, of what we do well, and now it’s on us to put that plan in place,” LaFleur said after the draft. “If I look back at our Day 1 install from last season to our Day 1 install that is approaching this offseason, it’s night and day different. We have a better identity of who we are.”

None of this should be as surprising as the negative reaction to it.

“I think Matt certainly wants to the run the ball,” Gutekunst said after Day 2 of the draft. “I think he’s talked to (the media) repeatedly about how much he’d like to run the ball and have the pass work off of that.”

What’s the better scenario: Rodgers dropping back to pass and being hit on practically every down … or Rodgers relying on play-action to loft tight spirals to wide-open receivers?

“The best teams pass when they want to, not because they have to,” former Packers offensive coordinator Sherman Lewis would say.

It’s a cliché because it is true.

The Packers were the NFL’s most pass-happy outfit in recent years. They led the league in drop-back percentage from 2013-2018. They tried to replicate their high-powered 2011 offense year after year.

They failed to do so.

The problem was they didn’t have the weapons to pull it off. And when they did have the weapons – see Aaron Jones – McCarthy had no clue how to incorporate him into the attack.

The Packers didn’t have the defense to back it up, either.

That dreadful combination of sandlot offense and slipshod defense proved the catalyst for a slow, steady decline. And that was with the great Aaron Rodgers at quarterback.

Gutekunst and LaFleur aren’t forcing Rodgers out the door. They’re implementing an attack that he can flourish in while not having to be the do-everything quarterback fans are accustomed to seeing.

It is what’s best for the team. It’s what’s best for Rodgers.

Early on, LaFleur said he intended to take pressure off the quarterback by successfully running the football. That hasn’t changed.

“Matt really wants to tie everything to the run game and off the run game, and these guys will help us do that,” Gutekunst said.

Some fans and media don’t see it that way.

It’s their prerogative.

What matters most is how quickly the rookies can develop in the system. Dillon, Deguara and the rest were drafted because their skills are best-suited for LaFleur’s preferred way to play.

While Rodgers’ career is winding down, the Packers’ new regime is still in its infancy.

Imagine the Packers trading up four spots to select Utah State quarterback Jordan Love in the first round after a losing season.

Rodgers’ fans would be irate.

Instead, they gripe and grouse about Gutekunst and LaFleur somehow disrespecting their quarterback by not getting him adequate weaponry.

What about Gutekunst’s and LaFleur’s need to get the right kind of weaponry to do the job? After all, it’s their team to build, and it doesn’t mean they don’t expect to win in the process.

Gutekunst said the drafted unfolded in such a way that they couldn’t justify selecting a receiver over another position at any point.

“I think it’s a little bit the way everything kind of fell early in the draft,” Gutekunst said of the receiver board. “Just didn’t work out that we weren’t able to select some of the guys that we had rated really highly. And once we got to the middle and toward the end of the draft, I just didn’t think there was great opportunity to add a player that was going to make an impact on our roster this year.”

That’s right. Gutekunst said he wanted players who could make an impact this year.

That doesn’t sound like a GM who is mailing it in.

Trading up to draft Love was a bold but necessary move. If Gutekunst and LaFleur believe he can be the Packers’ quarterback for the next decade after Rodgers departs they were obliged to draft him.

The opportunity to get a special player at the most important position doesn’t come along very often. When it does a team should pounce. New England’s Bill Belichick desperately needed a quarterback, but he said the draft didn’t allow it to happen.

“The plan wasn’t to not draft a quarterback,” Belichick said.

He wouldn’t reach, or sell the farm, so he sat tight. The short-term pain is that the Patriots have to live with Jarrett Stidham and Brian Hoyer at quarterback while their search continues.

It’s like the Packers and their search for a receiver. Gutekunst wanted to draft a player LaFleur could line up opposite Davante Adams, but he didn’t see that player on the board when the Packers were on the clock.

What he did see was the Packers’ quarterback of the future. He also saw an athletic, bruising running back who can catch the football with ease, and a tight end/H-back combo player who fits the offense nicely.

Dillon and Deguara aren’t receivers, but they are weapons.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 27 Apr 2020 16:54
by Labrev
I am all for giving LaFleur the pieces he feels he needs, but that has to be balanced with the other side of the ball, which is the bigger issue and thus needed more attention. That was my objection.

That, and the QB pick is stupid no matter how you slice it, but that's another conversation for another time.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 27 Apr 2020 16:56
by Captain_Ben
Yoop wrote:
26 Apr 2020 17:19
go pak go wrote:
26 Apr 2020 17:03
Yeah great comparisons Yoho.

I think the quarterbacks are a wash... slight edge to ATL right now. 2016 Ryan > 2019 Rodgers
Julio > Adams but not by much.
I honestly will have a hard time buying that Sanu is better than Lazard.
I think we have the better tailbacks. Especially if Dillon is who we hope.
We could have a lead on the H back role and TE role too, but those are far too early to tell.

As you stated, we are missing that #3/#4 WR who has speed. The wildcard we have there is we do have two WRs who are sub 4.5 guys. If one of those two can figure it out, that could be our last piece.
who's our #2 this week :idn: Funchess???? I always liked it more when we had long tenured high ceiling established vets year after year, versus long tenured unestablished low floor ones, but I know I tend to be finaky that way :munch:
Careful with that popcorn emoji. Emotional eating is never good, especially during quarantine.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 28 Apr 2020 06:11
by Scott4Pack
That's maybe the best perspective of this draft for the Pack. I only wish I would've thought of it! Some quotes that I hold onto:
dokhogg wrote:
27 Apr 2020 15:36
https://www.eventusa.com/2020/04/27/pac ... e-offense/

LaFleur intends to run the football.

When I see A.J. Dillon, I think of Derrick Henry.

When I see Josiah Deguara, I think of Delanie Walker.

When I see all of the offensive linemen the Packers drafted, I think of replenishing a position that had been neglected far too long.

While this isn’t what some fans and media wanted or expected to see, it’s all in keeping with LaFleur’s plan.

When a first-year coach leads his team to a 14-4 record and gets it one win away from the Super Bowl, you’d think he’d get some slack.

Instead, LaFleur is getting grief. It goes with the territory.

The important thing is Gutekunst and LaFleur are executing a plan.

What’s the better scenario: Rodgers dropping back to pass and being hit on practically every down … or Rodgers relying on play-action to loft tight spirals to wide-open receivers?

“The best teams pass when they want to, not because they have to,” former Packers offensive coordinator Sherman Lewis would say.

The Packers were the NFL’s most pass-happy outfit in recent years. They led the league in drop-back percentage from 2013-2018. They tried to replicate their high-powered 2011 offense year after year.

Gutekunst and LaFleur aren’t forcing Rodgers out the door. They’re implementing an attack that he can flourish in while not having to be the do-everything quarterback fans are accustomed to seeing.

It is what’s best for the team. It’s what’s best for Rodgers.

That’s right. Gutekunst said he wanted players who could make an impact this year.

Dillon and Deguara aren’t receivers, but they are weapons.
Point: Maybe we've fallen victim to the success of 2011. Oh, how that season would've been a seductive drug, taunting us with the desire to replicate a record-setting season. Problem is, our QBs skillset has been evolving as he ages. Do we protect him well enough now? Do we still have the weapons to make that happen? (BTW, how does any team get five, count em, FIVE great WRs and TE on a single season? That just isn't going to happen again.)

Point: Shift your priorities from pass-first to run-first. McCarthy, no matter how many times he said it, did NOT prioritize the run. The scheme is going to change now, or MLF just won't be around for very long. We needed to draft differently. We did.

Point: Aaron doesn't run like he used to. Since that fracture two years ago against da Bears (in the miracle-ending season opener), Aaron has been reticent to run. He occasionally does when he has a clear path. But he doesn't escape the pocket anything like he used to. He is more likely to take hits now. We need to protect him more than ever, scheme in a way that takes pressure off of him, AND provide a quality backup QB. Guty did that.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 28 Apr 2020 09:25
by British
NCF wrote:
25 Apr 2020 10:12
So, through 3 rounds we have a general direction that our offense is going. It is no longer the Mike McCarthy match-up offense. This Draft is a clear indication that this offense is moving philosophically away from everything we are used to and much more towards what so many of you seem to envy in SF.

I thought it would be good to collect some thoughts about what we know about Matt LaFleur in his time prior to GB, some of the things he showed last year, and what similar offenses like SF and LA do in order to better understand our personnel and some of the decisions being made over the past few days.
Going back to the original post I thought it would be interesting to collect some stories about LaFleur's offense. Feel free to add any others that you find.

Exploring Matt LaFleur's Titans offense: 'You've got to be yourself'
https://eu.tennessean.com/story/sports/ ... 927182002/

Mariota whisperer? Titans hope Matt LaFleur's rapid rise continues
https://eu.tennessean.com/story/sports/ ... 921302002/

A sneak peek at what a Matt LaFleur offense might look like in Tennessee
https://www.musiccitymiracles.com/2018/ ... -tennessee

Packers coach Matt LaFleur has taken big steps since stint with Rams in 2017
https://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/sto ... ms-in-2017

What Packers fans need to know about new head coach Matt LaFleur
https://eu.tennessean.com/story/sports/ ... 508482002/

With Matt LaFleur’s offense, don’t expect next slot WR to be Randall Cobb clone
https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2019 ... draft-2019

What to Expect from the Packers' Offense Under Matt LaFleur
https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/what-to-e ... afleur-201

Matt LaFleur can offer more than pedigree to Packers
https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2019/0 ... o-packers/

Film Study: LaFleur's Playbook - Slant/Flat
https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/film-stud ... um=twitter

Dougherty: Sky's suddenly the limit for Matt LaFleur's Packers' offense
https://eu.packersnews.com/story/sports ... 869601002/

Matt LaFleur has made big impact in 1st year as Packers coach
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/ ... ear-as-pa/

How the Packers’ Extreme Makeover Turned Green Bay Into the Class of the NFC
https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/10/2 ... on-rodgers

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 28 Apr 2020 13:34
by Waldo
There are 3 primary branches of the original WCO; the Hackett variant, the Holmgren variant, and the Shanahan variant. Interestingly MLF closes the loop, now all 3 have been in GB.

Obviously Holmgren brought high variant with him. Holmgren's variant tends to be what people think of when they think WCO (Dennis Green also ran this variant) with spread formations and screen passes as runs.

McCarthy ran the Hackett variant, which used deeper route concepts and much less screens. It was much closer to the Air Coryell that the WCO is descended from. But McCarthy did try to emulate Shanahan's variant in the running game (albeit with limited success).

People tend to forget that the Shanahan offense was also a WCO variant, he was the OC that replaced Holmgren when he left for GB. Unlike Holmgren who used the pass as a run, Shanahan just ran it.

Mac's 2011 is pretty much the most successful the Hackett variant has ever been. The Holmgren variant found a ton of success, between the late 80's 49ers, the mid 90's Packers, the 00's Eagles and now the Chiefs, though Andy has evolved quite a bit from the late 80's 49ers root.

The Shanahan variant was strongest in the early 90's in SF and the late 90's in Den and found success again in the 2018 Rams. Though there has been an absolute explosion in the tree as of late with MLF, Kyle, Sean McVay, and Antony Lynn all young head coaches. The renaissance of running in the NFL is being led by this group.

While the 2011 Packers will always be the/a model for the Hackett/McCarthy variant, for the Shanahan variant the peaks are the 1994 49ers, the 1998 Broncos, and 2018 Rams.

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 28 Apr 2020 14:32
by Waldo
Some stats about the best of each variant.

(Its notable that Hackett was NOT 49ers OC, he was passing game coordinator, Walsh didn't have an OC, Hackett/McCarthy's running game is rooted in Martyball moreso than Walsh's, Hackett's branch wouldn't really be a branch without Mac)

Hackett Variant:
2011 Packers, 560 pts scored, 395 rush, 1558 ruyd, 552 pass, 4924 payd
2014 Packers, 486 pts scored, 435 rush, 1917 ruyd, 536 pass, 4261 payd
1984 49ers, 475 pts scored, 534 rush, 2465 ruyd, 496 pass, 3901 payd

Holmgren Variant:
2018 Chiefs, 565 pts scored, 387 rush, 1855 ruyd, 583 pass, 4955 payd
1998 Vikings, 556 pts scored, 450 rush, 1936 ruyd, 533 pass, 4328 payd
1987 49ers, 459 pts scored, 524 rush, 2237 ruyd, 501 pass, 3750 payd
1996 Packers, 456 pts scored, 465 rush, 1838 ruyd, 548 pass, 3697 payd
2005 Seahawks, 452 pts scored, 519 rush, 2457 ruyd, 474 pass, 3458 payd
2019 Chiefs, 451 pts scored, 375 rush, 1569 ruyd, 576 pass, 4498 payd

Shanahan Variant:
2016 Falcons, 560 pts scored, 421 rush, 1928 ruyd, 537 pass, 4725 payd
2018 Rams, 527 pts scored, 459 rush, 2231 ruyd, 568 pass, 4507 payd
1994 49ers, 505 pts scored, 491 rush, 1897 ruyd, 511 pass, 4163 payd
1998 Broncos, 501 pts scored, 525 rush, 2468 ruyd, 491 pass, 3624 payd
2019 49ers, 479 pts scored, 498 rush, 2305 ruyd, 478 pass, 3792 payd
2017 Rams, 478 pts scored, 454 rush, 1953 ruyd, 518 pass, 3831 payd
1993 49ers, 473 pts scored, 463 rush, 2133 ruyd, 524 pass, 4302 payd
1997 Broncos, 472 pts scored, 520 rush, 2378 ruyd, 513 pass, 3494 payd

********************

2019 Packers, 376 pts scored, 411 rush, 1795 ruyd, 573 pass, 3733 payd

Re: Matt LaFleur's Offense

Posted: 29 Apr 2020 08:51
by Waldo
Breaking out the passing distribution (targets) of the four 500+ pt Shanahan WCO variants (plus the 49ers last year)

2016 Falcons (540 pts):
WR1 - 129
WR2 - 81
RB1 - 65
WR3 - 50
RB2 - 40
WR4 - 32
TE1 - 31

2018 Rams (527 pts):
WR1 - 130
WR2 - 117
RB1 - 81
WR3 - 55
WR4 - 53
FB/HB - 50
TE1 - 34

1994 49ers (505 pts):
WR1 - 151
RB1 - 88
TE1 - 72
WR2 - 64
WR3 - 28
FB/HB - 26

1998 Broncos (501 pts):
WR1 - 139
TE1 - 107
WR2 - 99
RB1 - 38
FB/HB - 30
WR3 - 25

2019 49ers (479 pts):
TE1 - 107
WR1 - 81
WR2 - 53
WR3 - 44
RB1 - 30
FB/HB - 24

*******************************

2019 Packers (376 pts)
WR1 - 127
RB1 - 68
TE1 - 60
WR2 - 56
WR3 - 55
WR4 - 52
RB2 - 45