I do wonder also if a big wrinkle in the whole Gute-LaFleur dynamic and/or who's on the hot seat or not has to do simply with our organizational structure...
Some of you may recall when Policy took over and there was discussions around renewing (or not) Gute and/or LaFleur's contracts, some of that discussion entailed a possible change to the organizational structure - GB doesn't have such a "traditional" hierarchy where the HC reports to the GM and the GM reports to the president; instead for us both HC and GM report straight to the president. There was some talk about reverting that to the more traditional structure but that didn't end up happening.
IIRC some of the motivation there in the first place was to work on reducing "friction" that had existed with TT and McCarthy - I think there was some sentiment that Ted kept things very close to the chest and worked without as much coaching input and at times it led to McCarthy feeling like he had been stuck with Ted's players rather than his guys. So the idea was that LaFleur and Gute would work collaboratively on the team building process. Makes some sense in theory but I also feel it's muddied the waters a bit when it comes to role responsibilities and "authority" (for instance, could Gute unilaterally fire Butkus? Or does that have to come from LaFleur?).
More than that however I feel like Matt has recently had a hard time committing to a scheme/direction. At times there has been a focus on changes in the run scheme to get bigger and more physical, hence guys like Banks and Belton, but then at other times it seems like we have wanted to shift more athletic and skill/shifty based rather than pure physicality. Gute then is the one tasked with finding/acquiring these guys for Matt, but it seems like they are still just not always on the same page and occasionally it feels like Gute will get a guy for one scheme fit only to have Matt turn around and decide he wants to move in a different direction...and so the result is that we end up with a hodgepodge of players without very clearly defined roles and it's all compounded by shoddy positional coaching.
So again that's not me being a Gute apologist by any means but I guess all that to say that I'm just not 100% clear on assessing a lot of our players, both as individuals and scheme fits. Hobbs for instance was a big whiff, he just flat out stunk. Looks to be trending that way with Banks. But then I look at guys like Morgan or Belton or the like and I have to question if they are simply the "wrong" players - if they are just straight up not good enough at all - or if it is more a question of scheme fit, indecision, and an inability to commit to a particular role/application for them. As I've said a million times now I don't think there's any reality in which I can say NEITHER are at fault but I guess it's also like...I also can't say with complete confidence that it is all on Gute for poor roster construction but I ALSO can't say with total confidence it's all on Matt for not getting the most out of the talent at his disposal, I guess