Discuss competency of Brian Gutekunst -- Fire him?

[red4tribe]

There's been a lot of blame on MLF dating back to last season and continuing into this season, especially considering the exact same problems we had last year manifested themselves again in week 1. There hasn't been quite the same scrutiny on Gute, but maybe there should be.

I want to look at how many Pro Bowl selections there have been for players drafted by Gute. He's been the GM since 2018, so it's not a small sample size at this point. And I will preface all this by saying that I know Pro Bowl selections are not a perfect metric. Some deserving players aren't selected, while some undeserving players are. But it's safe to say that Pro Bowlers are, on average, better than non-Pro Bowlers. In Gute's entire time as GM, here are his draft picks that have made the Pro Bowl:

Jaire Alexander (x2)
Rashan Gary (x1)
Elgton Jenkins (x2)

To me, that looks like a pretty bad record considering he's been at the helm for 9 drafts now. Yeah, maybe Love should have made it at least once, and perhaps there are a few other oversights. But it isn't good.

Do you prefer first-team All-Pro? There's no one. Second-team All-Pro? Jaire twice, but that's all.

Let's look at Ted Thompson's pro bowlers, by comparison.

Aaron Rodgers (x10)
Nick Collins (x3)
A.J. Hawk (x1)
Greg Jennings (x2)
Jordy Nelson (x1)
Josh Sitton (x4)
B.J. Raji (x1)
Clay Matthews (x6)
T.J. Lang (x1)
Randall Cobb (x1)
Mike Daniels (x1)
Eddie Lacy (x1)
David Bakhtiari (x3)
Ha Ha Clinton-Dix (x1)
Davante Adams (x5)
Corey Linsley (x1)
Kenny Clark (x3)
Aaron Jones (x1)

That doesn't count Pro Bowl selections that players had elsewhere, like Micah Hyde and Casey Hayward. TT's list of AP-1 draft picks is also much longer than Gute's.

Davante Adams (x2)
David Bakhtiari (x2)
Clay Matthews (x1)
Aaron Rodgers (x4)

Obviously, TT was a GM longer than Gute, and his draft picks have had many more opportunities to be selected to the Pro Bowl or AP-1. But the gap, to me, is pretty striking.

 

[Magooch]

I hate to sound like a broken record but I will keep saying it so long as it is relevant: we either have a problem with coaching or we have a problem with roster construction. And IMO it could perhaps be both, but it definitely CANNOT be neither.

- if we have a well-constructed roster, then there is an issue with maximizing the talent available to us. We are not getting the most out of our players and are not putting them in a position to succeed. We are not developing the guys we have to reach their best and overall the result is that our end-product is less than the sum of its parts.
If this is the case then the issue lies primarily with coaching. You can put that all on LaFleur or you can divvy it out to some of the positional/assistant coaches (who LaFleur chooses to retain, to be fair) but suffice to say if we are getting the "right" players then the issue is with those responsible for getting them to perform.

- if we have a well-coached roster then the issue comes down to talent acquisition. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and our coaching staff is doing the best they can with the resources afforded to them. We have a team who is performing AT or above their talent level and the issue is with Gute and those responsible for talent identification and acquisition.

And like I said, it could be that both are an issue. But after all these years there's simply no way I can look at this team's performances and conclude that we are doing just fine with regards to both roster construction and coaching said roster.

 

[mradtke66]

I'm coming around to the idea that we don't have the line coach. I admit I'm biased because I like Wahle's pod cast, but I see his consistent notes about footwork and false steps.

I don't know who the right person for that would be, but it sure seems like there is lack of attention to detail.

 

[milani]

There's been a lot of blame on MLF dating back to last season and continuing into this season, especially considering the exact same problems we had last year manifested themselves again in week 1. There hasn't been quite the same scrutiny on Gute, but maybe there should be.

I want to look at how many Pro Bowl selections there have been for players drafted by Gute. He's been the GM since 2018, so it's not a small sample size at this point. And I will preface all this by saying that I know Pro Bowl selections are not a perfect metric. Some deserving players aren't selected, while some undeserving players are. But it's safe to say that Pro Bowlers are, on average, better than non-Pro Bowlers. In Gute's entire time as GM, here are his draft picks that have made the Pro Bowl:

Jaire Alexander (x2)
Rashan Gary (x1)
Elgton Jenkins (x2)

To me, that looks like a pretty bad record considering he's been at the helm for 9 drafts now. Yeah, maybe Love should have made it at least once, and perhaps there are a few other oversights. But it isn't good.

Do you prefer first-team All-Pro? There's no one. Second-team All-Pro? Jaire twice, but that's all.

Let's look at Ted Thompson's pro bowlers, by comparison.

Aaron Rodgers (x10)
Nick Collins (x3)
A.J. Hawk (x1)
Greg Jennings (x2)
Jordy Nelson (x1)
Josh Sitton (x4)
B.J. Raji (x1)
Clay Matthews (x6)
T.J. Lang (x1)
Randall Cobb (x1)
Mike Daniels (x1)
Eddie Lacy (x1)
David Bakhtiari (x3)
Ha Ha Clinton-Dix (x1)
Davante Adams (x5)
Corey Linsley (x1)
Kenny Clark (x3)
Aaron Jones (x1)

That doesn't count Pro Bowl selections that players had elsewhere, like Micah Hyde and Casey Hayward. TT's list of AP-1 draft picks is also much longer than Gute's.

Davante Adams (x2)
David Bakhtiari (x2)
Clay Matthews (x1)
Aaron Rodgers (x4)

Obviously, TT was a GM longer than Gute, and his draft picks have had many more opportunities to be selected to the Pro Bowl or AP-1. But the gap, to me, is pretty striking.

With that said TT never had more than 1 SB in what, 13-14 years. If Gute is here that long and gets none, then we can condemn him. And was TT responsible for the devastation of the O line in 2005? Yes and No. Interesting to see what the winning % was through the TT years vs the Gute years up until now. It is 60.6 to 60.0 in favor of Gute. Negligible.

 

[shockerx]

I'm coming around to the idea that we don't have the line coach. I admit I'm biased because I like Wahle's pod cast, but I see his consistent notes about footwork and false steps.

I don't know who the right person for that would be, but it sure seems like there is lack of attention to detail.

Honest question, I like Wahle too, wish he was the line coach. Of all the things wahle says i dont think ive ever heard him say lets replace Butkus....I wish he would, just not sure he has called that out.

 

[milani]

Honest question, I like Wahle too, wish he was the line coach. Of all the things wahle says i dont think ive ever heard him say lets replace Butkus....I wish he would, just not sure he has called that out.

I wish Wahle was our guard.

 

[Magooch]

There are plenty of others here who are more keyed into the draft and our general "Talent acquisition profile" than I am but I would say from my layman's perspective it feels like a lot of the time we kind of lack a clear drafting/roster construction strategy or "philosophy"?

Like, yes...we know that we like our high RAS guys. We know that there are certain measurables that we unofficially-officially have draft (or don't draft) benchmarks for certain positions - we don't wanna draft short CBs, we like experienced collegiate OLs, we don't like undersized (weight) WRs, we tend to like traits over production for a lot of defensive players, etc.

But at the same time I don't really feel like that always speaks too clearly to consideration for how these pieces actually fit together? I guess what I mean is that sometimes it feels like our roster construction approach is like handing a chef a well-defined set of specific ingredients but not actually giving him a recipe or telling him what exactly the final dish is meant to be. It's like "You're the chef, you know what you want to cook, you can make it work. Here's your ingredients you have to work with"

In some ways I feel like the transition to the Love-era has been defined by what feels like a fairly scattershot approach to roster construction. On one hand, we were seemingly very convinced by Love. We traded up to get him and did so in spite of having Rodgers playing great football. But then at the same time it felt like we were often handling him with kid gloves, even after Rodgers was gone. It was like we had this QB who we spoke so highly of but at the same time didn't trust to be "the guy". And maybe this was LaFleur's original desired strategy and he just couldn't do it with Rodgers at QB, but we started shifting towards this zone heavy power running team and putting together our roster accordingly.

So we start drafting much bigger on the OL, we spend draft capital on really physical guys like Dillon and Deguara, we transition from Jones to Jacobs...all of these moves that signify we want to get bigger and stronger and meaner and to be able to physically dominate our opponent. Guys like Banks and Belton and so on are meant to get us a lot bigger and nastier.

But then at the same time this is happening it feels like the league as a whole is already somewhat catching up and adjusting to this and the "Shanahan school" itself had started to move on. And at the same time it's like we're finally starting to realize that hey, this Love kid can actually sling the ball pretty well! And maybe it's that some of those bigger-stronger-meaner guys just didn't pan out well but it felt like just as quickly as we started a push to get bigger and meaner and stronger and more ball-dominant it's like we suddenly reverse course and decide actually we need to get smaller and more agile again and let's let Love cook and whatnot. And so it ends up with this very disjointed feeling where it's like we had one type of "roster philosophy" with Rodgers and then started to shift away from it with Love. At the same time, it's often felt to me like Matt has a tendency to want to scheme and game-plan and play-call for the team/players he WISHES that he had but not for the team who he actually has. We'll come up against an opponent who is clearly physically outmatching us but Matt wants to treat that situation as though we're the bullies who can physically dominate our opponent at will and...it just doesn't work like that.

So, I don't know how much of that is on Gute vs coaching and if that really even made sense at all; I do have a big tendency to ramble but I guess what I'm saying is that all around I just don't get a super clear/cohesive sense of direction for what we're trying to build, where we're trying to go, how we're trying to get there, etc....

 

[mradtke66]

Honest question, I like Wahle too, wish he was the line coach. Of all the things wahle says i dont think ive ever heard him say lets replace Butkus....I wish he would, just not sure he has called that out.

He’s gone on record not wanting to coach full time. Too much commitment. He has said he’d be willing to consult/assist here and there, but most position coaches have enough ego he doesn’t think it would fly.

 

[gopkrs]

There are plenty of others here who are more keyed into the draft and our general "Talent acquisition profile" than I am but I would say from my layman's perspective it feels like a lot of the time we kind of lack a clear drafting/roster construction strategy or "philosophy"?

Like, yes...we know that we like our high RAS guys. We know that there are certain measurables that we unofficially-officially have draft (or don't draft) benchmarks for certain positions - we don't wanna draft short CBs, we like experienced collegiate OLs, we don't like undersized (weight) WRs, we tend to like traits over production for a lot of defensive players, etc.

But at the same time I don't really feel like that always speaks too clearly to consideration for how these pieces actually fit together? I guess what I mean is that sometimes it feels like our roster construction approach is like handing a chef a well-defined set of specific ingredients but not actually giving him a recipe or telling him what exactly the final dish is meant to be. It's like "You're the chef, you know what you want to cook, you can make it work. Here's your ingredients you have to work with"

In some ways I feel like the transition to the Love-era has been defined by what feels like a fairly scattershot approach to roster construction. On one hand, we were seemingly very convinced by Love. We traded up to get him and did so in spite of having Rodgers playing great football. But then at the same time it felt like we were often handling him with kid gloves, even after Rodgers was gone. It was like we had this QB who we spoke so highly of but at the same time didn't trust to be "the guy". And maybe this was LaFleur's original desired strategy and he just couldn't do it with Rodgers at QB, but we started shifting towards this zone heavy power running team and putting together our roster accordingly.

So we start drafting much bigger on the OL, we spend draft capital on really physical guys like Dillon and Deguara, we transition from Jones to Jacobs...all of these moves that signify we want to get bigger and stronger and meaner and to be able to physically dominate our opponent. Guys like Banks and Belton and so on are meant to get us a lot bigger and nastier.

But then at the same time this is happening it feels like the league as a whole is already somewhat catching up and adjusting to this and the "Shanahan school" itself had started to move on. And at the same time it's like we're finally starting to realize that hey, this Love kid can actually sling the ball pretty well! And maybe it's that some of those bigger-stronger-meaner guys just didn't pan out well but it felt like just as quickly as we started a push to get bigger and meaner and stronger and more ball-dominant it's like we suddenly reverse course and decide actually we need to get smaller and more agile again and let's let Love cook and whatnot. And so it ends up with this very disjointed feeling where it's like we had one type of "roster philosophy" with Rodgers and then started to shift away from it with Love. At the same time, it's often felt to me like Matt has a tendency to want to scheme and game-plan and play-call for the team/players he WISHES that he had but not for the team who he actually has. We'll come up against an opponent who is clearly physically outmatching us but Matt wants to treat that situation as though we're the bullies who can physically dominate our opponent at will and...it just doesn't work like that.

So, I don't know how much of that is on Gute vs coaching and if that really even made sense at all; I do have a big tendency to ramble but I guess what I'm saying is that all around I just don't get a super clear/cohesive sense of direction for what we're trying to build, where we're trying to go, how we're trying to get there, etc....

I like your whole article. But I'm just going to comment on those traits you were talking about. For the most part I do believe it affects the way we draft. But I think taking all those things too literally really limits you. What about the great corner that is short? imho you don't stay away from a guy like that. Or wanting young guys. Why? How long are they going to be on the team or in the league? So I don't like having these traits determine who you pick. How about the trait of just being a good football player?

 

[gopkrs]

He’s gone on record not wanting to coach full time. Too much commitment. He has said he’d be willing to consult/assist here and there, but most position coaches have enough ego he doesn’t think it would fly.

They need a consultant

 

[tynimiller]

Just FTR Pro Bowls mean ZILCH these days. Argument and discussion can continue but Pro Bowls are NOT the metric they used to be at all.

 

[ClutchTakes82]

Magooch's framing is the right one - it can't be neither - but I think Week 1 actually gives you a way to tell the two apart, and it's the blitz rate.
Minnesota blitzed on 78.3% of their snaps. That isn't a wrinkle, that's a dare. They ran it, it worked, and they kept running it because nothing ever made them stop. If this were purely personnel you'd expect the line to get beaten early and then the staff to spend the second half making a 78% blitz rate expensive - quicker game, more help, tempo, something. That's the part I didn't see.
To mradtke66's point about footwork and false steps, I think that's the same argument from a different angle. Technique that degrades under a known, repeated look is a coaching-detail problem, not a talent problem. Nobody's feet get worse because of who drafted them.
The bit that's hardest to square with the pure-talent case is the sequence. We were up twelve in the third. Their starting quarterback was already gone with a concussion in the first, and the backup then led four straight touchdown drives. A roster that can't compete doesn't build a twelve-point lead. A roster that can shouldn't give up 29 straight from there to a backup. That gap is where the coaching argument lives for me.
Genuinely open to being argued out of it though - the Pro Bowl numbers in the OP are a better long-run measure than anything one afternoon shows.

 

[OldSchool101]

I’m going to reserve my thoughts until about Week 4-5 area. I recall several seasons starting pretty rough and finishing very respectable. Technically all the way through our 4-6 season. Not that I think it’s going to be a replica, but it’s a long season and all we need to do is take 1 week at a time.

I do think this Vikings matchup was also exasperated by our RB1 being gone. Even with poor blocking Josh is a3.5+ yards type RB. His veteran presence was definitely missed.

I also think this play calling into the last Quarter was some of our worst. It probably didn’t help that we game planned for Murray and his Running style and then had no adjustments for Wentz style. When McKinney is getting burned you know you’re having a tough day.

I think we bounce back. I think you’re all nutzo.

 

[milani]

Magooch's framing is the right one - it can't be neither - but I think Week 1 actually gives you a way to tell the two apart, and it's the blitz rate.
Minnesota blitzed on 78.3% of their snaps. That isn't a wrinkle, that's a dare. They ran it, it worked, and they kept running it because nothing ever made them stop. If this were purely personnel you'd expect the line to get beaten early and then the staff to spend the second half making a 78% blitz rate expensive - quicker game, more help, tempo, something. That's the part I didn't see.
To mradtke66's point about footwork and false steps, I think that's the same argument from a different angle. Technique that degrades under a known, repeated look is a coaching-detail problem, not a talent problem. Nobody's feet get worse because of who drafted them.
The bit that's hardest to square with the pure-talent case is the sequence. We were up twelve in the third. Their starting quarterback was already gone with a concussion in the first, and the backup then led four straight touchdown drives. A roster that can't compete doesn't build a twelve-point lead. A roster that can shouldn't give up 29 straight from there to a backup. That gap is where the coaching argument lives for me.
Genuinely open to being argued out of it though - the Pro Bowl numbers in the OP are a better long-run measure than anything one afternoon shows.

To say he led 4 straight TD drives may be true. But they really were not complete drives. The yards are not there to show for it. A fumble near the goal line, a pick to the 14, and two suspect penalty aided drives do not mean the back up performed like an MVP or that the defense let us down. Trying to overcome a sub par offensive line is one thing. Having a coach that cannot coach in crunch time is another.

 

[OldSchool101]

Wy

To say he led 4 straight TD drives may be true. But they really were not complete drives. The yards are not there to show for it. A fumble near the goal line, a pick to the 14, and two suspect penalty aided drives do not mean the back up performed like an MVP or that the defense let us down. Trying to overcome a sub par offensive line is one thing. Having a coach that cannot coach in crunch time is another.

Whats weird though is several seasons we would’ve advanced had we just made a FG or not had a blocked Kick etc. I’m not sure I can say Matt is at fault for missing a FG etc. I think there’s several seasons that his Playcalling was not good to end the season though. Maybe a mixed bag

 

[milani]

Wy

Whats weird though is several seasons we would’ve advanced had we just made a FG or not had a blocked Kick etc. I’m not sure I can say Matt is at fault for missing a FG etc. I think there’s several seasons that his Playcalling was not good to end the season though. Maybe a mixed bag

Ironic that the Vikings only had 3 accepted penalties for 15 yards. They are not that disciplined. And yet they call offside on the FG we made.

 

[DABIGZ]

I’m going to reserve my thoughts until about Week 4-5 area. I recall several seasons starting pretty rough and finishing very respectable. Technically all the way through our 4-6 season. Not that I think it’s going to be a replica, but it’s a long season and all we need to do is take 1 week at a time.

I do think this Vikings matchup was also exasperated by our RB1 being gone. Even with poor blocking Josh is a3.5+ yards type RB. His veteran presence was definitely missed.

I also think this play calling into the last Quarter was some of our worst. It probably didn’t help that we game planned for Murray and his Running style and then had no adjustments for Wentz style. When McKinney is getting burned you know you’re having a tough day.

I think we bounce back. I think you’re all nutzo.

If we start 1-4 it's not going to matter, not with our schedule.

 

[milani]

If we start 1-4 it's not going to matter, not with our schedule.

Yes. We would need to be in a division like the NFC South whose teams all lost Sunday. An 8-8 record could win the division. But we are not. And our back schedule is not one that spells optimism.

 

[OldSchool101]

If we start 1-4 it's not going to matter, not with our schedule.

A lot of IFs. Tell that to the 2007 Giants who started 0-2

They lost to Dallas 35-45
Then lost to GB 13-35

 

[gopkrs]

Parsons would have been a difference maker imho. He would have made Wentz very nervous.

 

[OldSchool101]

Speaking of talent. I saw an article today that League Insiders are predicting 4-6 Weeks suspension for Jacobs just kinda based on his scenario.

I suspect both Parsons and Jacobs will be back in October. Hopefully the earlier part.

 

[milani]

Parsons would have been a difference maker imho. He would have made Wentz very nervous.

Like he did last year to Goff and JJ.

 

[OldSchool101]

Look at the bright side. Malik Willis didnt exactly tear it up in Miami!
That would’ve been excruciating had he Won like 41-10. 4TD 0 INT 198.97% Passer Rating

 

[DABIGZ]

A lot of IFs. Tell that to the 2007 Giants who started 0-2

They lost to Dallas 35-45
Then lost to GB 13-35

Ah, yes. The one time In the last 30 plus years to achieve that feat.

 

[OldSchool101]

Ah, yes. The one time In the last 30 plus years to achieve that feat.

GB alone has went 1-2 many times just recently in Rodgers tenure. We really don’t even have to go back very far. How about 3-38 against the Saints at Jacksonville? Was that 30 years ago? Should they have scrapped the entire coaching staff and OL? Everyone is a fire this fire that expert until they’ve actually coached or run a company. Doing that after week 1 out of frustration is a failed plan and only displays impatience.

What’s your plan? Other than complain your way to a Win? lol