When the going gets tough for this Green Bay Packers offense, they do not have an identity to lean on to get them back on track. We’ve seen this here and there throughout the season, but it was clear as day on Monday night against the Las Vegas Raiders.
There is no MVP quarterback that can put the offense on his back. There isn’t a consistent go-to option in the passing game to target. The run game has been far from reliable, and even from a play-calling standpoint, Matt LaFleur has not established any core concepts that can do the heavy lifting when the offense finds itself in a free fall.
“Obviously searching for a little bit of an answer right now,” said LaFleur after the game. “I think this week will give us an opportunity to go back, and I thought we did that over the mini-bye, but we got to find something to get us going. To jump-start us.”
Although far from great, the run game — led by AJ Dillon — did give the Packers some positive momentum on a few occasions. Specifically, between the tackles in the first quarter, the Packers were finding success moving the ball and staying ahead of the sticks. Their opening drive in the second half, which featured six runs by Dillon, including five in a row, resulted in a touchdown. This helped set up a number of play-action opportunities for the offense.
Dillon finished the game rushing for 76 yards on 20 attempts and looked like a much more decisive and physical runner than what we had seen previously. However, for whatever reason, the Packers went away from what was working at times, either relying on a disjointed passing game or trying to utilize misdirection in the run game when the Raiders hadn’t shown they could stop Dillon between the tackles.
“Just reflecting on how the game laid out,” added LaFleur, “probably needed to stick with the run a little bit more. In the second half we got under center for a majority of the second half, and I thought really helped us with some more downhill runs.
“I thought AJ was running really hard. I thought our O-line was coming off the ball, and that kind of got us going a little bit, but we’ve got to look at everything because it seemed like when we dialed up some passes, they had some timely calls defensively.”
For a large portion of the game, Love looked uncomfortable in passing situations, which led to a completion rate of 53 percent, 5.5 yards per attempt, and three turnovers. Even in the red zone, where Green Bay had been one of the more efficient offenses this season, they were just 1-for-3 on Monday night.
Not to absolve Love from his performance, the play calls didn’t exactly provide him with a lot of help, either. There was nothing to really help him find a rhythm as a passer. It felt like LaFleur was limiting what options Love had–not to mention that there were dropped passes. Pre-snap motion feels like it’s being used for the sake of doing so rather than to confuse the defense. Green Bay’s playmakers weren’t touching the ball early on and also weren’t being put in the best positions to consistently make plays.
Patrick Taylor finished with the third most receptions on the team, ahead of Romeo Doubs. Luke Musgrave tied for the most targets with seven but totaled only 34 yards on six receptions. That’s not exactly the output you would expect from a tight end with elite athleticism and big play ability like Musgrave has.
Christian Watson also had seven targets but was frequently targeted on downfield throws. Sure, he brings that element to the offense, but as the team’s No. 1 receiver, he needs to be utilized in a greater variety of ways–with versatility being something that LaFleur has regularly praised when discussing Watson’s game.
There’s really not a whole lot about what happened in the passing game that made any sense, from the execution to the play call and designs. I know this wasn’t the case, but each play call felt random. As LaFleur said following the Detroit game, they have to be better about getting their playmakers the ball, even if that includes schemed-up play calls.
“There’s some things we will look at and we could do better, and there’s some things I need to do a better job in terms of what we are asking him to do,” said LaFleur about Love’s play, “and not putting him in a position where he’s susceptible to maybe throwing those picks. The second interception was a get-back-on-track situation, and we’ve got to do a better job offensively.
“It just seems like we put ourselves in those situations quite a bit over the course of the first five games of the season, and that’s hard to overcome, especially when you have a lot of youth on that side of the ball. We’ve got to do a better job of trying to avoid those situations and not put ourselves in them.”
Love came into the game ranked fourth on both intermediate pass attempts and downfield pass attempts, yet we saw LaFleur relying on screens in third-and-long situations or throws to the tight ends or running backs in the flat. And when Love did try to push the ball downfield, it felt forced.
Was this approach a product of concern about the offensive line in pass protection after last week’s performance against Detroit? While Maxx Crosby is a fantastic player, he is the only one along that Raiders’ front who has found any sort of regular success this season. Or was this due to Green Bay’s game plan, which reportedly had “big plans” for Aaron Jones, having to be altered at the last minute?
The Green Bay offense has been one of the best in the NFL in the third quarter this season. The Packers entered Monday’s game ranked first in second-half points per game with 19.3, and a lot of that damage occurred in the third quarter. Even in this game, with the offense sputtering, the Packers opened the half with a score.
“I think we are able to adjust once we kind of get a feel of what the defense is doing,” said Love. “We can start moving the ball in the second half.”
This shows their ability to make effective adjustments. However, this is also far too late in the game for that to be taking place. In the New Orleans and Detroit games, the Packers were already down three scores at that point and could have been down multiple scores to the Raiders had the defense not come up with some crucial stops.
Jones is a fantastic playmaker and often what makes this offense go. But the pendulum and Green Bay’s overall effectiveness on offense can’t swing so far in the other direction without him, either. There has to be more from this offense.
“Obviously, we miss Aaron Jones not being out there,” said Love, “but that’s not an excuse, we’ve got to find a way to go win. AJ had a great game tonight. He stepped up and was running the ball great. PT stepped up and had some big plays but we’ve just got to find a way to win.”
Without the use of tempo, this offense has had trouble finding a rhythm. When they did find some success against New Orleans and Detroit, it was often when in two-minute mode. However, we didn’t see much of that versus the Raiders. Realistically, teams can’t play that way the whole game, but it could be used to provide this offense with a spark when moving the ball is not coming easy.
The Packers now reach a much-needed bye week where the offense will have to take a long, hard look in the mirror. Yes, there is a lot of inexperience on the offense, which will lead to inconsistency, but rather than progressing, this unit seems to be going backwards. Defenses have more film, can see what the Packers like to do and what they can’t do and are adjusting. Green Bay hasn’t shown that they can counter those adjustments.
I’m not sure it’s something that can be found during the bye week, but ultimately, this offense needs an identity. Who and what from a play-calling standpoint can they lean on?
“It’s a good break and I think we’ll just all come together and bounce back,” said Love. “But that’s how it goes, it’s week to week, and we’ve got to find a way to bounce back. Obviously, like you said, we didn’t this week, but now it’s on to the next week.”