Packers Huddle

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 08:38

They didn't need a hail mary to win... They needed 15 yards. Prevent with middle of the field open made absolutely no sense given the situation.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 09:56

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 08:38

They didn't need a hail mary to win... They needed 15 yards. Prevent with middle of the field open made absolutely no sense given the situation.

the point I'am trying to make is that head coaches tell cords what to do in that situation, and the analytics, which everyone here uses when it conveniently fits their agenda, say to play prevent, that they took it to extremes and gave up all that space just seems like poor communication, and I suppose if ya want to nitpick, that is Hafley's fault, or a coverage assistants fault, as Ringo said, up to me I would have brought a 11 man rush package, with zero in coverage, it would have worked just as well as that overly deep prevent.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 10:25

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 09:56

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 08:38

They didn't need a hail mary to win... They needed 15 yards. Prevent with middle of the field open made absolutely no sense given the situation.

the point I'am trying to make is that head coaches tell cords what to do in that situation, and the analytics, which everyone here uses when it conveniently fits their agenda, say to play prevent, that they took it to extremes and gave up all that space just seems like poor communication, and I suppose if ya want to nitpick, that is Hafley's fault, or a coverage assistants fault, as Ringo said, up to me I would have brought a 11 man rush package, with zero in coverage, it would have worked just as well as that overly deep prevent.

Head coaches do not generally tell coordinators what to do in a situation like that. Matt Lafleur may have, but it is not something usually done. If you have a Defensive head coach they would tell the OC to punt, kick the FG, or go for it, but very rarely would a head coach like LaFleur tell a defensive coach exactly what to play on a specific play. In a general sense he might tell Hafley to not give up anything big, but in that situation it wouldn't have made any sense.

No, analytics did not say to play prevent in that specific situation. What you brought specifically had to do with the hail mary play and it was not in any way analytics. It was an AI generated synopsis. The Bears didn't need a hail mary, nor should we have thought they would run such a play.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 13:56

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 10:25

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 09:56

the point I'am trying to make is that head coaches tell cords what to do in that situation, and the analytics, which everyone here uses when it conveniently fits their agenda, say to play prevent, that they took it to extremes and gave up all that space just seems like poor communication, and I suppose if ya want to nitpick, that is Hafley's fault, or a coverage assistants fault, as Ringo said, up to me I would have brought a 11 man rush package, with zero in coverage, it would have worked just as well as that overly deep prevent.

Head coaches do not generally tell coordinators what to do in a situation like that. Matt Lafleur may have, but it is not something usually done. If you have a Defensive head coach they would tell the OC to punt, kick the FG, or go for it, but very rarely would a head coach like LaFleur tell a defensive coach exactly what to play on a specific play. In a general sense he might tell Hafley to not give up anything big, but in that situation it wouldn't have made any sense.

No, analytics did not say to play prevent in that specific situation. What you brought specifically had to do with the hail mary play and it was not in any way analytics. It was an AI generated synopsis. The Bears didn't need a hail mary, nor should we have thought they would run such a play.

I think hea coaches set parameters and tell cords what to do plenty, and the analytics say that coaches use prevent coverage over pass rush in that situation with the Bears more than they don't, course you would know this, because we see it with us and other teams more than the all out blitz, which has a lower success rate, reality, I swear you argue just to argue

Prevent coverage prioritizes preventing long touchdowns, minimizing the risk of a Hail Mary catch and score... Ultimately, the analytics suggest that prevent coverage is a more strategically sound approach than all-out pass rush for Hail Mary plays.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 14:20

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 13:56

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 10:25

Head coaches do not generally tell coordinators what to do in a situation like that. Matt Lafleur may have, but it is not something usually done. If you have a Defensive head coach they would tell the OC to punt, kick the FG, or go for it, but very rarely would a head coach like LaFleur tell a defensive coach exactly what to play on a specific play. In a general sense he might tell Hafley to not give up anything big, but in that situation it wouldn't have made any sense.

No, analytics did not say to play prevent in that specific situation. What you brought specifically had to do with the hail mary play and it was not in any way analytics. It was an AI generated synopsis. The Bears didn't need a hail mary, nor should we have thought they would run such a play.

I think hea coaches set parameters and tell cords what to do plenty, and the analytics say that coaches use prevent coverage over pass rush in that situation with the Bears more than they don't, course you would know this, because we see it with us and other teams more than the all out blitz, which has a lower success rate, reality, I swear you argue just to argue

Of course head coaches talk to their DCs about parameters and philosophy and such. They rarely ever micromanage and tell them what coverages to run and when.

Yoop... you brought an AI synopsis on the prevent of a HAIL MARY! Did the Bears run a hail mary? No they did not... Did the Bears need to run a hail mary, or even a deep pass, to win the game? No they did not...

Prevent coverage prioritizes preventing long touchdowns, minimizing the risk of a Hail Mary catch and score... Ultimately, the analytics suggest that prevent coverage is a more strategically sound approach than all-out pass rush for Hail Mary plays.

Playing prevent that left the intermediate middle wide open lost us the game. Plain and simply. It was an inexcusable call especially coming out of a time out.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 14:52

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 14:20

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2025 13:56

I think hea coaches set parameters and tell cords what to do plenty, and the analytics say that coaches use prevent coverage over pass rush in that situation with the Bears more than they don't, course you would know this, because we see it with us and other teams more than the all out blitz, which has a lower success rate, reality, I swear you argue just to argue

Of course head coaches talk to their DCs about parameters and philosophy and such. They rarely ever micromanage and tell them what coverages to run and when.

Yoop... you brought an AI synopsis on the prevent of a HAIL MARY! Did the Bears run a hail mary? No they did not... Did the Bears need to run a hail mary, or even a deep pass, to win the game? No they did not...

Prevent coverage prioritizes preventing long touchdowns, minimizing the risk of a Hail Mary catch and score... Ultimately, the analytics suggest that prevent coverage is a more strategically sound approach than all-out pass rush for Hail Mary plays.

Playing prevent that left the intermediate middle wide open lost us the game. Plain and simply. It was an inexcusable call especially coming out of a time out.

hail mary situation, and how we dealt with late game against Chicago is the same thing, we rushed 3 and depended on coverage, the execution of that is what went wrong, not the scheme, most fans would opt for pass rush, most coaches don't, and that's what those analytics point out.

head coaches are in the ear of there cords all game, you seem to forget when they were all on the side lines, with no head sets, when Holmgren would hunt down Shumer, now they are all mic'd up, and you can be sure they talk to one another, and since the HC is the most accountable why wouldn't he give advice or even command his DC to use a certain scheme, especially sense the analytics are in that favor, people hate prevent, I get that.

BSA wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2025 20:21

.
The 2024 Regular season is over, but perhaps we could take a one moment out to appreciate what the Hafley's delivered in Year 1
( without CB1)

Points per game
Packers finished 6th in the entire league !
19.9 pts per game

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game

That stout D allows MLF to lean on the run game and Jacobs - because if you're giving up a ton of points- its tough to stick with the run calls

Hats off to Hafley, I can imagine he and his crew will do even better in Year 2

Oh and one more thing of note - check out the Packers ranking in 4th quarter points allowed: That suggests a DC who gets better as the game rolls along and that's exactly what his former pupils said about him

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game
.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2025 21:41

BSA wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2025 20:21

.
The 2024 Regular season is over, but perhaps we could take a one moment out to appreciate what the Hafley's delivered in Year 1
( without CB1)

Points per game
Packers finished 6th in the entire league !
19.9 pts per game

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game

That stout D allows MLF to lean on the run game and Jacobs - because if you're giving up a ton of points- its tough to stick with the run calls

Hats off to Hafley, I can imagine he and his crew will do even better in Year 2

Oh and one more thing of note - check out the Packers ranking in 4th quarter points allowed: That suggests a DC who gets better as the game rolls along and that's exactly what his former pupils said about him

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game
.

What's our points per game vs the teams we lost to?

salmar80 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 01:35

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2025 21:41

BSA wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2025 20:21

.
The 2024 Regular season is over, but perhaps we could take a one moment out to appreciate what the Hafley's delivered in Year 1
( without CB1)

Points per game
Packers finished 6th in the entire league !
19.9 pts per game

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game

That stout D allows MLF to lean on the run game and Jacobs - because if you're giving up a ton of points- its tough to stick with the run calls

Hats off to Hafley, I can imagine he and his crew will do even better in Year 2

Oh and one more thing of note - check out the Packers ranking in 4th quarter points allowed: That suggests a DC who gets better as the game rolls along and that's exactly what his former pupils said about him

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game
.

What's our points per game vs the teams we lost to?

30, which is definitely worrying.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 05:42

salmar80 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 01:35

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

09 Jan 2025 21:41

What's our points per game vs the teams we lost to?

30, which is definitely worrying.

Well then someone needs to fix this situation. Defense needs stiffen and the offense can't be stalled with turnovers.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 06:09

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 05:42

salmar80 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 01:35

30, which is definitely worrying.

Well then someone needs to fix this situation. Defense needs stiffen and the offense can't be stalled with turnovers.

So, you're saying we need to play well to beat the top teams? Quick, someone run to LaFleur's house and tell him!

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 09:51

Hafley addressed it immediately in his presser yesterday. There was miscommunication and that wasn't the call they were supposed to be in.

That doesn't absolve anything, but at least that's not what the defense was supposed to be trying to do.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 07:27

salmar80 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 06:09

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 05:42

Well then someone needs to fix this situation. Defense needs stiffen and the offense can't be stalled with turnovers.

So, you're saying we need to play well to beat the top teams? Quick, someone run to LaFleur's house and tell him!

someone should run and tell Hafley and his assistants that preventing a offenses to gain 18 yards with 18 seconds left in the game which allows Philly to kick a game winning FG, after doing so the week prior with the Bares will not be forgiven, again, and we all are sick of excuses, well at least Me, Ringo, and Papa are fed up with hearing these lame excuses

NCF wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 09:52

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 09:51

Hafley addressed it immediately in his presser yesterday. There was miscommunication and that wasn't the call they were supposed to be in.

That doesn't absolve anything, but at least that's not what the defense was supposed to be trying to do.

Disappointing, but I suppose not surprising, that those are the answers we got from the pressers of Hafley and Biscaccia.

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 09:55

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 07:27

salmar80 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 06:09

So, you're saying we need to play well to beat the top teams? Quick, someone run to LaFleur's house and tell him!

someone should run and tell Hafley and his assistants that preventing a offenses to gain 18 yards with 18 seconds left in the game which allows Philly to kick a game winning FG, after doing so the week prior with the Bares will not be forgiven, again, and we all are sick of excuses, well at least Me, Ringo, and Papa are fed up with hearing these lame excuses

I haven't heard one excuse from the coaching staff about the final play.

The coaches all said they f*cked up.

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 09:55

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 07:27

salmar80 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 06:09

So, you're saying we need to play well to beat the top teams? Quick, someone run to LaFleur's house and tell him!

someone should run and tell Hafley and his assistants that preventing a offenses to gain 18 yards with 18 seconds left in the game which allows Philly to kick a game winning FG, after doing so the week prior with the Bares will not be forgiven, again, and we all are sick of excuses, well at least Me, Ringo, and Papa are fed up with hearing these lame excuses

I haven't heard one excuse from the coaching staff about the final play.

The coaches all said they f*cked up.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2025 10:49

so why did our defense play it like it was.