"LaFleur has to outcoach Todd Bowles."

Yup...AND Rodgers MUST throw to the open man. In week one after the Watson drop, Rodgers wasn't looking his way NO WAY NO HOW. Several times during the first two games I've seen WIDE OPEN receivers open and either Rodgers doesn't see them or just flat out won't throw them the ball. I understand this whole "Trust" thing, I really do. But Rodgers needs to understand these are now his guys. Adams is gone, so is Nelson and Cobb is getting old. But what you do have is two uber-talented WRs who will make mistakes, but will also makes some plays if you just throw them the damn ball!

The scheme is just fine and I wouldn't rank it below anyone's...ESPECIALLY Shannahan and his 40-43 regular season record. IMO we just haven't seen everything the MLF offers because his QB is a friggen Diva. Granted, Rodgers seems to have gotten better these last 4 years, but IMO he still handcuffs the MLF scheme and EVERYTHING it can offer an offense.

“The best way to smooth out variance is with scheme”. The assumption of that statement is that all players have the same skill. Football is more complex than that because you also have to factor in the skills of the players. Of course you are right that savvy coaching and player preparation is also key. Another consideration is, as mentioned, the total team skill and ability. Player A may be better than player B. But what about those around him? That’s where your point is best made. Thanks.

Just get on the field, win your match ups, score points, repeat. GO PACK, GO!!!

What you are really saying is that a team should make the play with the best odds each time, if I understand correctly. Allowing for the imperfections in humans, even NFL players, that is a good recipe. I think it’s one instinctively close to Rodgers mindset. He’s made a name limiting risk as he sees it.

The difference between football and Poker though Is the variability in the cards. A jack is a jack, an eight an eight and both have a fixed match with the others in the opponent’s hand. In football players have good games and bad, they vary in every given week by virtue of being human, but also though niggles and conditions. Each is different to. My TE is not the same as yours, your ILB is very different than the one we faced last week.

Why does that matter? I think because it changes the odds calculation by week and by player. Throwing to Adams in coverage was often a higher odds call than throwing to an open MVS. Conversely, completing to Doubs might be more challenging but have a better chance of resulting in the outcome you need than an easier pass to another.

The concept you espouse is a fair one, and I agree with its conclusion. The challenge on this team though is balancing the value of the target. In the past Rodgers knew his pieces. I think that’s the essence of trust in the positive. Right now he knows some, but those he does may not have the greatest value: they may be low risk but they may also not have enough value to get the job done. Completions aren’t a guarantee of a score or even a first down.

Right now The conundrum is that the highest value players physically are the most unpredictable, whether open or not. That tends to result in caution that can preclude success. At some point that risk:reward calculation has to be faced. Against the Bears we just played our Jokers and ran to success.

Interesting thoughts, but in the end I would imagine that, as in QBs, Poker players have traits that you try to exploit. In football DCs are doing that constantly and with a huge body of evidence. That’s where game changing talent is the wild card. Adams’ super power was to tilt the odds in his favor dramatically. Right now we don’t have that. There is the potential to do the same through big plays but, as noted, that lies in the most unpredictable targets and thus the greatest variance.

Consistently taking the low risk option can be self-defeating if the return is too low to win. It doesn’t matter if you win lots of hands but the opponent ends up with the money in the end because they hit the plays that define the game.

You gave me an interesting concept to mull. I enjoyed that and the perspective despite concluding that it’s only half the calculation because it potentially conflicts with the end value of the result.

The coaching staff has to succeed on game day as much as the players.

VS MN, neither ML’s or Barry’s staffs maximize their player strengths into opportunities to win more plays than they lost.

ML decided to pass pass pass to an inexperienced WR group and made the experienced run game second fiddle. Three and outs and stalled drives followed.

Barry stubbornly cling to zone D and abandoned the blitz. Kirk Cousins played catch with Jefferson all game long.

Neither coach adjusted during the game which was perplexing as the vyqueens dominated the Packer scheme with a far better one of their own.

However vs bares, ML and coaches rediscovered a potent run game that set up passing opportunities.

The Defense still played zone given the bare WRs (pedestrian), but did crowd the box and it worked well EXCEPT for the opening drive (figuring out the run scheme) and the 4th qtr drive (tackling incompetence.)

This gave me hope the coaches will (finally?) play O and D to maximize the strengths of their players to the weakness of the adversary.

"If you want to be reminded of how much the Packers needed to improve in this regard before Matt LaFleur arrived, check out this video analysis from a 2018 game against the Patriots. More important, note how some of these key issues remain."

Amen. The video analysis was excellent. MLF is trying to change these past schemes and has had better results, but he is absolutely correct that there are some key issues remaining. They sorted some of it out better against the hapless Bears. Hopefully they don't regress against the Bucs.

Excellent article and straight to the point with the last sentence and the part about play designs in the middle of the field. Watch the Chiefs. I sometimes marvel at the way they sometimes sweep down the field, and one reason is that their receivers are able to find open spaces on the move and produce big YAC. I also liked the video because it showed the Pats using flea flickers and lateral passes--something you rarely, if ever, see the Packers try. Maybe these plays are going to have a higher success rate against suspect defenses, but I still think they're worth a shot once in a while, especially in low-scoring games. Unfortunately we're probably not going to be seeing this anytime soon with so many new parts on offense.