Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Brian Gutenkunst FA and Draft Grades
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Magooch" data-source="post: 1094204" data-attributes="member: 17987"><p>I guess the big question for me is whether we think the "Rodgers-Era" or the "Love-Era" under LaFleur represents his "true" ceiling (or, alternatively, I guess one could propose we have not yet seen MLF's "true ceiling")</p><p></p><p>As we saw with Rodgers we were able to reach the heights of being the #1 seed and making the conference championship but never beyond that. </p><p></p><p>Since then, our ceiling's been second-place in the division and one-and-done in the playoffs. So is #1 seed and conference championship appearance or is #7 seed and wild-card team more representative of what we should expect out of LaFleur? </p><p></p><p>I've said many times before I'm a big fan of Love but I think we can all admit he's no Rodgers. And that's not meant to be a slight on him, but I guess what I'm getting at is that... if our "ceiling" under LaFleur WITH Rodgers is losing in the NFCCG....is it reasonable to expect us to surpass that ceiling with a lesser QB? At minimum I'd assume we would be in agreement that the team as a whole would need to be of a much higher quality than the "Rodgers-era" if we aim to surpass those heights without a Rodgers-level QB. Is that the case?</p><p></p><p>So, I don't know. I'm mostly repeating myself at this point and there's little new information to add, but I guess that my sense is - regardless of our timetable or how much time we think LaFleur should have - at this point I struggle to find many reasons to believe that we are going to see LaFleur "unlock" a higher level than he has already shown here with us. I would love to be mistaken but I guess my gut feeling is at this point we probably have a fairly good idea of what we have and what we can hope to achieve in Matt. Hope springs eternal though I suppose and I will probably be singing a different tune come August <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/tongue.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magooch, post: 1094204, member: 17987"] I guess the big question for me is whether we think the "Rodgers-Era" or the "Love-Era" under LaFleur represents his "true" ceiling (or, alternatively, I guess one could propose we have not yet seen MLF's "true ceiling") As we saw with Rodgers we were able to reach the heights of being the #1 seed and making the conference championship but never beyond that. Since then, our ceiling's been second-place in the division and one-and-done in the playoffs. So is #1 seed and conference championship appearance or is #7 seed and wild-card team more representative of what we should expect out of LaFleur? I've said many times before I'm a big fan of Love but I think we can all admit he's no Rodgers. And that's not meant to be a slight on him, but I guess what I'm getting at is that... if our "ceiling" under LaFleur WITH Rodgers is losing in the NFCCG....is it reasonable to expect us to surpass that ceiling with a lesser QB? At minimum I'd assume we would be in agreement that the team as a whole would need to be of a much higher quality than the "Rodgers-era" if we aim to surpass those heights without a Rodgers-level QB. Is that the case? So, I don't know. I'm mostly repeating myself at this point and there's little new information to add, but I guess that my sense is - regardless of our timetable or how much time we think LaFleur should have - at this point I struggle to find many reasons to believe that we are going to see LaFleur "unlock" a higher level than he has already shown here with us. I would love to be mistaken but I guess my gut feeling is at this point we probably have a fairly good idea of what we have and what we can hope to achieve in Matt. Hope springs eternal though I suppose and I will probably be singing a different tune come August :P [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
28 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Cornelius Weems
51 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:29 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 7:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:52 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Brian Gutenkunst FA and Draft Grades
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
