Fire Matt LaFleur

How many wins does MLF need to keep his job?

  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • 4

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • 8+

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • He shouldn’t be fired this year no matter what

    Votes: 20 62.5%

  • Total voters
    32

oompatailgate

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 13, 2025
Messages
47
Reaction score
25
My 2 cents - the team - with all the setbacks played a great game

NOW

4th and 1..4th and 1..4th and 1..4th and 1..4th and 3 FRIGGING FEET

AHHH pass the damm ball!! C'mon man - WHY????

The running game was tearing up the opponent

Time to wait for next year and HOPE the team gets more damm noon games
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,865
Reaction score
1,421
I actually wasn’t all that confident in a designed run, I’ve seen that story before on 4th and 1 and it doesn’t end well. I was hoping for some sort of designed run/pass option play for Willis, but we never got to find out what it was.

We had 4.4 YPC which isn’t terrible but I wouldn’t say we were running all over them.

I actually thought we should let Willis open it up with his arm a little more. Whenever we did, he came through. I think he’s underrated as a passer because of what he offers on the ground.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
21,066
Reaction score
10,834
Per Pro Football reference:

#31 in yards per punt return
#21 in yards per kick return
#23 in field goal percentage
#26 in extra point percentage
#2 in total yards per punt
#7 in net yards per punt
#32 for punts downed inside the 20 (total; #28 by percentage)
#12 in yards allowed per punt return
#18 in yards allowed per kickoff return
#19 in opponent FG percentage
#26 in opponent XP percentage
#25 in yards per punt allowed against

And just for a point of comparison - last season:
#24 in yards per punt return
#14 in yards per kick return
#18 in field goal percentage
#6 in extra point percentage
#24 in total yards per punt
#27 in net yards per punt
#24 for punts downed inside the 20 (total; #22 by percentage)
#8 in yards allowed per punt return
#23 in yards allowed per kickoff return
#16 in opponent FG percentage
#14 in opponent XP percentage
#15 in yards per punt allowed against

McManus is currently #27 in field goal percentage and #17 in XP percentage. He is tied for 23rd in 50+ yard field goals and tied for 30th in 40-49 yard field goals.

Bisaccia's ST ranked 22nd and 29th in 2022 and 2023 (Gosselin) and by DVOA were 16th last season and floating between 21st-28th this season.

This is with, by all accounts, the highest-paid ST coordinator in the league.
Good info.

I would caution you to be careful. What I noticed is many of these stats insinuate rankings.. however they do not factor “per attempt” so thus they are not rankings, they are a “count”.

Using a Raw total such as Whelan (13) Inside <20? His actual % is NOT #32. He only has 42 punts and nearly 1/3 land inside the <20. (32%)

#17 in <20

If you punt 100 times and land 22 inside <20 yard line (22%)
I punt 42 times and land 13 inside the <20 (32%) I’m not ranked behind you.

Several of those become very misleading.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
8,445
Reaction score
4,097
I actually wasn’t all that confident in a designed run, I’ve seen that story before on 4th and 1 and it doesn’t end well. I was hoping for some sort of designed run/pass option play for Willis, but we never got to find out what it was.

We had 4.4 YPC which isn’t terrible but I wouldn’t say we were running all over them.

I actually thought we should let Willis open it up with his arm a little more. Whenever we did, he came through. I think he’s underrated as a passer because of what he offers on the ground.
The Bears appeared ready for the handoff. They also learned from the first fake and run by Willis. And on the first drive they covered the 4th and 1 pass to the boundary. They played it well. But this is when you need a strong offensive line that can move the pile even a little. Jacobs has had to earn his yards. The run blocking is not as good as many other teams.
I like how the Vikings still use Hamm as a FB. That gives you a 3rd option that the defense must account for. But that is not in our playbook or roster. I believe the 9ers still use a FB.
When we faced Dallas, Arizona, and Detroit on the road we converted some do or die 4th downs through the air. But we had a few more if our weapons still on the 45 then.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
21,066
Reaction score
10,834
Listen noone is saying we’re great at Teams. I’m just pointing out that when you do the math a little closer? We’re in that Top 20 area. Probably rising a little bit there because Brandon is no longer injured and his accuracy is notably better in the last month or so.
Call it trending up hard.

Also in KR/ PR we’ve had a merry go round until recently. Trust me I’ve been our biggest critic at PR after lobbying for Hardman to stick that role.
Imo Savion and Doubs was helping at KR/PR until Savion injured recently. That number was trending upwards also.

Everyone in here knows McNamath won’t finish bottom of the league he’s easily a top 16 Kicker. I’m being generous to any natsayer.

GB HAD a Punter/Kicker combo that’s easily top 10-15 area as a group in real time. I don’t care what happened 20 games ago with a fill in scrub a double K

The Return game needs help, particularly at PR. Probably combined in the bottom 10 area.

The Coverage units look about league average area +- it’s not exact science

As I said, Averaging this out were top 15-20 area full spectrum and I’m very close on this one. We need to improve. We don’t need to start firing our Coaches just yet. If that number hard regresses or we lose on another teams blunder I’ll get enough eggs for all of us.
 
Last edited:

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
2,191
Good info.

I would caution you to be careful. What I noticed is many of these stats insinuate rankings.. however they do not factor “per attempt” so thus they are not rankings, they are a “count”.
That's.....that's the whole point of a percentile measure??? Which is precisely why I listed both the aggregate total and the percent ranking... in fact every number given is based on "per attempt" or as a percentage of total attempts. None of those are raw/aggregate numbers/rankings.
Using a Raw total such as Whelan (13) Inside <20? His actual % is NOT #32. He only has 42 punts and nearly 1/3 land inside the <20. (32%)
See above. The Packers (and by extension Whelan) are #32 in total number of punts inside the 20 and #28 in percentage of punts downed inside the 20.
#17 in <20
I cannot find any way to tweak the numbers to make Whelan 17th in <20 percentage. Not sure where this is coming form
If you punt 100 times and land 22 inside <20 yard line (22%)
I punt 42 times and land 13 inside the <20 (32%) I’m not ranked behind you.
I mean, yes and no. Again, that's why both are listed...
Several of those become very misleading.
I disagree. In fact I would suggest that the above-cited numbers such as opponent field goal/extra point, team field goal/extra point percentage, yards allowed against per return, net yards per punt attempt, etc are considerably less misleading than previously-mentioned total net punt yards, opponent XPM/XPA, opponent FGM/FGA, team XPM/XPA, team FGM/FGA, etc., which are indeed all "count-based" numbers.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
7,783
Reaction score
2,744
My 2 cents - the team - with all the setbacks played a great game

NOW

4th and 1..4th and 1..4th and 1..4th and 1..4th and 3 FRIGGING FEET

AHHH pass the damm ball!! C'mon man - WHY????

The running game was tearing up the opponent

Time to wait for next year and HOPE the team gets more damm noon games
You have a lot more confidence in our making it than I do. I hate when it's 4th and a couple of feet and we run right into the teeth of the defense and get stuffed.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
21,066
Reaction score
10,834
That's.....that's the whole point of a percentile measure??? Which is precisely why I listed both the aggregate total and the percent ranking... in fact every number given is based on "per attempt" or as a percentage of total attempts. None of those are raw/aggregate numbers/rankings.

See above. The Packers (and by extension Whelan) are #32 in total number of punts inside the 20 and #28 in percentage of punts downed inside the 20.

I cannot find any way to tweak the numbers to make Whelan 17th in <20 percentage. Not sure where this is coming form

I mean, yes and no. Again, that's why both are listed...

I disagree. In fact I would suggest that the above-cited numbers such as opponent field goal/extra point, team field goal/extra point percentage, yards allowed against per return, net yards per punt attempt, etc are considerably less misleading than previously-mentioned total net punt yards, opponent XPM/XPA, opponent FGM/FGA, team XPM/XPA, team FGM/FGA, etc., which are indeed all "count-based" numbers.
Give me a list (past 17 players) at Punter that have greater > than a 32% Average inside the <20.

and please do NOT include Punters with under a very low ~35 attempts because the sample throws the %.

PS it might be 19 punters I forgot Brian Anger and Wishnowsky at the bottom of attempts, considerable less (32) attempts but barely meets minimum attempts let’s throw him in as a bonus.
 
Last edited:

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
7,783
Reaction score
2,744
I don't think punters and kickers, when good, should give any credit to the coach. When bad though, they should be counted against the coach for not replacing them.
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
2,191
Give me a list (past 17 players) at Punter that have greater > than a 32% Average inside the <20.

and please do NOT include Punters with under a very low ~35 attempts because the sample throws the %.

PS it might be 19 punters I forgot Brian Anger and Wishnowsky at the bottom of attempts, considerable less (32) attempts but barely meets minimum attempts let’s throw him in as a bonus.
Well, okay....
Going to go ahead and round to the nearest percentage point.
Player, team, total attempts, percentage. Players with less than 35 attempts excluded.

1. Rigoberto Sanchez IND - 36 attempts, 53%
2. Bradley Pinion ATL - 55 attempts, 53%
3. Tress Way WAS - 50 attempts, 50%
4. Thomas Morstead SFO - 38 attempts, 50%
5. Jack Fox DET - 51 attempts, 49%
6. Sam Martin CAR - 50 attempts, 48%
7. Matt Araiza KAN - 47 attempts, 45%
8. Austin McNamara NYJ - 64 attempts, 44%
9. Riley Dixon TAM - 57 attempts, 42%
10. Jeremy Crenshaw DEN - 67 attempts, 42%
11. Jordan Stout BAL - 48 attempts, 42%
12. Ryan Rehkow CIN - 58 attempts, 40%
13. Bryce Baringer NWE - 46 attempts, 39%
14. JK Scott LAC - 46 attempts, 39%
15. Ryan Wright - 54 attempts, 39%
16. Michael ****son SEA - 49 attempts, 39%
17. Jake Bailey MIA - 52 attempts, 39%
18. Tory Taylor CHI - 53 attempts, 38%
19. Tommy Townsend, HOU - 64 attempts, 38%
20. Corliss Waitman PIT - 54 attempts, 37%
21. Bryan Anger DAL - 38 attempts, 37%
22. Logan Cooke JAX - 55 attempts, 36%
23. Kai Kroeger NOR - 49 attempts, 35%
24. AJ Cole LVR - 62 attempts, 34%
25. Daniel Whelan GNB - 41 attempts, 32%

Do note that the league average for punts downed inside the 20 this year is 38.8% and Whelan is 27th in total punt attempts. Even if you exclude ALL players with less punts attempted than Whelan, he is still 23rd.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
37,217
Reaction score
11,585
Location
Madison, WI
The Bears appeared ready for the handoff. They also learned from the first fake and run by Willis. And on the first drive they covered the 4th and 1 pass to the boundary. They played it well. But this is when you need a strong offensive line that can move the pile even a little. Jacobs has had to earn his yards. The run blocking is not as good as many other teams.
I like how the Vikings still use Hamm as a FB. That gives you a 3rd option that the defense must account for. But that is not in our playbook or roster. I believe the 9ers still use a FB.
When we faced Dallas, Arizona, and Detroit on the road we converted some do or die 4th downs through the air. But we had a few more if our weapons still on the 45 then.

1 million percent agree.

MLF calling a run up the middle on 3rd/4th and short just seems like a red flag to me, about him as a play caller. He is not acknowledging the fact that his OL is not strong enough on a consistent basis to pick up a yard or 2 on a defense that knows it is coming. Oh sure, there is that mind game of "they won't expect us to run up the middle, so we will", but if that is all your going on, you shouldn't be play calling.

Maybe it is because I watch the Packers play every week, but MLF's play calling is pretty predictable.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
37,217
Reaction score
11,585
Location
Madison, WI
I don't think punters and kickers, when good, should give any credit to the coach. When bad though, they should be counted against the coach for not replacing them.

I think there is a lot more that goes into deciding whether a kicker/punter is good or bad, than just raw stats. How are the other 10 players around them playing? Are they doing their job? Are the collective 11 on the same page?

You can have a perfect 55 yard punt, that should be downed on the 5, but if your punting team doesn't cover it correctly, it could end up being a TB and net 35 yard punt. A Kicker could nail a 60 yarder perfectly, but because a lineman missed their man, it gets blocked.

My opinion of the Packers Special teams, they are far less special, than they are special. In other words, they make more negative plays than positive ones, with a lot of neutral plays in between. I put that on coaching.

Fire Bisaccia
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
7,783
Reaction score
2,744
I think there is a lot more that goes into deciding whether a kicker/punter is good or bad, than just raw stats. How are the other 10 players around them playing? Are they doing their job? Are the collective 11 on the same page?

You can have a perfect 55 yard punt, that should be downed on the 5, but if your punting team doesn't cover it correctly, it could end up being a TB and net 35 yard punt. A Kicker could nail a 60 yarder perfectly, but because a lineman missed their man, it gets blocked.

My opinion of the Packers Special teams, they are far less special, than they are special. In other words, they make more negative plays than positive ones, with a lot of neutral plays in between. I put that on coaching.

Fire Bisaccia
I don't think you have to go by stats to know if your kicker or punter is good or bad. But you can use stats for your STs based on returns and penalties.
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
2,191
In any case, this is getting a bit in the weeds. My point is this: under Bisaccia, the Packers' special teams units have been - on their VERY BEST day - an "average" unit.
And more often than not, they are significantly below average on the whole, generally finding themselves in the bottom 25% of the league for the majority of Bisaccia's time in Green Bay.

As such, when LaFleur refuses to fire Bisaccia - and moreover says things like "special teams have done a pretty good job," it suggests one of two things:

1. Matt is perfectly content with our special teams performances, or at minimum does not feel it is a problem that needs addressed with any urgency.

or 2. Matt is not satisfied with our special teams performances, but is unwilling or unable to make any meaningful personnel changes at this point.

We saw it before with Barry (how long did LaFleur give him his vote of confidence?) and we're seeing it again with Bisaccia.

Now I suppose you could argue that it's not all on Bisaccia and that he isn't getting good enough personnel to work with (although IMO he has been afforded far more special teams "latitude" than most Packers ST coordinators in recent history). Maybe that is the case, but I don't think that speaks too well for LaFleur either as he is likely the one choosing to limit which players are available for special teams snaps, which would more or less loop back to "option 1" in that he seemingly just doesn't value special teams all that much at all.

No matter how you slice it, I don't think Matt's handling of our special teams situation reflects well on him.

(And don't even get me started again on the absolute debacle that was the McManus injury/Havrisik situation)
 

Wayne G

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
173
Reaction score
39
I HOPE tgey move on from Lafluer!
He has git his ceiling. We need a coach who can motivate and coach! We NEED a proven offensive cood. who calls plays!

7 years is enough.....same thing every year...decent to good reg. record with little chance of winning a SB.
 

Wayne G

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
173
Reaction score
39
I actually wasn’t all that confident in a designed run, I’ve seen that story before on 4th and 1 and it doesn’t end well. I was hoping for some sort of designed run/pass option play for Willis, but we never got to find out what it was.

We had 4.4 YPC which isn’t terrible but I wouldn’t say we were running all over them.

I actually thought we should let Willis open it up with his arm a little more. Whenever we did, he came through. I think he’s underrated as a passer because of what he offers on the ground.
The team ran for 200 yds.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
37,217
Reaction score
11,585
Location
Madison, WI
In any case, this is getting a bit in the weeds. My point is this: under Bisaccia, the Packers' special teams units have been - on their VERY BEST day - an "average" unit.
And more often than not, they are significantly below average on the whole, generally finding themselves in the bottom 25% of the league for the majority of Bisaccia's time in Green Bay.

As such, when LaFleur refuses to fire Bisaccia - and moreover says things like "special teams have done a pretty good job," it suggests one of two things:

1. Matt is perfectly content with our special teams performances, or at minimum does not feel it is a problem that needs addressed with any urgency.

or 2. Matt is not satisfied with our special teams performances, but is unwilling or unable to make any meaningful personnel changes at this point.

We saw it before with Barry (how long did LaFleur give him his vote of confidence?) and we're seeing it again with Bisaccia.

Now I suppose you could argue that it's not all on Bisaccia and that he isn't getting good enough personnel to work with (although IMO he has been afforded far more special teams "latitude" than most Packers ST coordinators in recent history). Maybe that is the case, but I don't think that speaks too well for LaFleur either as he is likely the one choosing to limit which players are available for special teams snaps, which would more or less loop back to "option 1" in that he seemingly just doesn't value special teams all that much at all.

No matter how you slice it, I don't think Matt's handling of our special teams situation reflects well on him.

(And don't even get me started again on the absolute debacle that was the McManus injury/Havrisik situation)

I still think the biggest mistake that Matt made with Bisaccia is making him the "assistant HC". Maybe it is just a title, but it sure seems like Bisaccia spends a lot of time next to Matt on the sidelines, when the offense is on the field. I can only assume Matt is using Rich as an advisor on play calling, game management, personnel, etc. The special teams hasn't gotten any better and IMO, the play calling is still slow and predictable. I still think MLF is a good HC, but decisions like keeping Bisaccia in his current role, as well as not giving up play calling to a fulltime OC, will eventually lead to Matt being fired.
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
2,191
Yeah, that's kind of where I'm at, too. The whole ST coordinator/assistant head coach thing....I'm just thinking like... okay, well our special teams marginally improved for the first season and have declined since then. Our overall playcalling, clock management, situational game management/calling haven't improved, so what exactly is this guy doing? With regards to "assistant head coach," it seems there are two very bad possibilities: either A.) he's not really adding anything, or B.) Rich actually IS doing a lot of good as "assistant head coach" and what we are seeing right now is the "improved" version already; without Bisaccia, Matt would be utterly hopeless

I don't like either outcome lol
 

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
1,338
Location
Charlotte County, FL
In any case, this is getting a bit in the weeds. My point is this: under Bisaccia, the Packers' special teams units have been - on their VERY BEST day - an "average" unit.
And more often than not, they are significantly below average on the whole, generally finding themselves in the bottom 25% of the league for the majority of Bisaccia's time in Green Bay.

As such, when LaFleur refuses to fire Bisaccia - and moreover says things like "special teams have done a pretty good job," it suggests one of two things:

1. Matt is perfectly content with our special teams performances, or at minimum does not feel it is a problem that needs addressed with any urgency.

or 2. Matt is not satisfied with our special teams performances, but is unwilling or unable to make any meaningful personnel changes at this point.

We saw it before with Barry (how long did LaFleur give him his vote of confidence?) and we're seeing it again with Bisaccia.

Now I suppose you could argue that it's not all on Bisaccia and that he isn't getting good enough personnel to work with (although IMO he has been afforded far more special teams "latitude" than most Packers ST coordinators in recent history). Maybe that is the case, but I don't think that speaks too well for LaFleur either as he is likely the one choosing to limit which players are available for special teams snaps, which would more or less loop back to "option 1" in that he seemingly just doesn't value special teams all that much at all.

No matter how you slice it, I don't think Matt's handling of our special teams situation reflects well on him.

(And don't even get me started again on the absolute debacle that was the McManus injury/Havrisik situation)
It makes you wonder if MLF really cares about ST...
 

DABIGZ

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 19, 2022
Messages
92
Reaction score
48
I read somewhere (twitter maybe?) that Policy might consider re-doing the power structure, where it would go back to Lafluer-Gutekunst-Policy, whereas now both Gutekunst and Lafluer report to Policy as equals.

If that does happen, I wonder what how the decision around Lafluer would change, in terms of giving him an extension or not.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
21,066
Reaction score
10,834
Well, okay....
Going to go ahead and round to the nearest percentage point.
Player, team, total attempts, percentage. Players with less than 35 attempts excluded.

1. Rigoberto Sanchez IND - 36 attempts, 53%
2. Bradley Pinion ATL - 55 attempts, 53%
3. Tress Way WAS - 50 attempts, 50%
4. Thomas Morstead SFO - 38 attempts, 50%
5. Jack Fox DET - 51 attempts, 49%
6. Sam Martin CAR - 50 attempts, 48%
7. Matt Araiza KAN - 47 attempts, 45%
8. Austin McNamara NYJ - 64 attempts, 44%
9. Riley Dixon TAM - 57 attempts, 42%
10. Jeremy Crenshaw DEN - 67 attempts, 42%
11. Jordan Stout BAL - 48 attempts, 42%
12. Ryan Rehkow CIN - 58 attempts, 40%
13. Bryce Baringer NWE - 46 attempts, 39%
14. JK Scott LAC - 46 attempts, 39%
15. Ryan Wright - 54 attempts, 39%
16. Michael ****son SEA - 49 attempts, 39%
17. Jake Bailey MIA - 52 attempts, 39%
18. Tory Taylor CHI - 53 attempts, 38%
19. Tommy Townsend, HOU - 64 attempts, 38%
20. Corliss Waitman PIT - 54 attempts, 37%
21. Bryan Anger DAL - 38 attempts, 37%
22. Logan Cooke JAX - 55 attempts, 36%
23. Kai Kroeger NOR - 49 attempts, 35%
24. AJ Cole LVR - 62 attempts, 34%
25. Daniel Whelan GNB - 41 attempts, 32%

Do note that the league average for punts downed inside the 20 this year is 38.8% and Whelan is 27th in total punt attempts. Even if you exclude ALL players with less punts attempted than Whelan, he is still 23rd.
Good Work my friend! That really took some work I commend your assembly of information.
So I was wrong, It’s 100% more than I thought! That said he was originally portrayed as #32 ranking, which I kinda knew wasn’t correct either.
Let’s call Whelan in the bottom
20-25% area inside <20 which is still Lower than expected.
So Whelan is crushing the ball almost league best, his coverage unit is top 25%, but his inside <20 is relatively poor range.

Might be Whelan has a big leg, but he’s somewhat unrefined with a few more unnecessary Touchbacks (7) than expected instead of converting those to leaving our opponent deep <20. Interesting.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
8,445
Reaction score
4,097
Listen noone is saying we’re great at Teams. I’m just pointing out that when you do the math a little closer? We’re in that Top 20 area. Probably rising a little bit there because Brandon is no longer injured and his accuracy is notably better in the last month or so.
Call it trending up hard.

Also in KR/ PR we’ve had a merry go round until recently. Trust me I’ve been our biggest critic at PR after lobbying for Hardman to stick that role.
Imo Savion and Doubs was helping at KR/PR until Savion injured recently. That number was trending upwards also.

Everyone in here knows McNamath won’t finish bottom of the league he’s easily a top 16 Kicker. I’m being generous to any natsayer.

GB HAD a Punter/Kicker combo that’s easily top 10-15 area as a group in real time. I don’t care what happened 20 games ago with a fill in scrub a double K

The Return game needs help, particularly at PR. Probably combined in the bottom 10 area.

The Coverage units look about league average area +- it’s not exact science

As I said, Averaging this out were top 15-20 area full spectrum and I’m very close on this one. We need to improve. We don’t need to start firing our Coaches just yet. If that number hard regresses or we lose on another teams blunder I’ll get enough eggs for all of us.
Good assessment. A sudden change in the HC can have an impact if a team is bad. A good team does not always improve unless personnel change. When Jimmy left the Cowboys they still won a SB with Darryl Royal as HC. But they aged after that and went downhill. I admit that MLF could improve his on field decisions and adjustments. But if he was a poor coach we would be 5-9 instead of 9-5.
I still hold that our performance can be a result of 3 other factors:
1) Injuries: Some teams can perform with next man up. Some cannot. You rarely win a SB with 2nd stringers. And replacing several top players and Pro Bowlers in crucial positions just does not happen. We have certainly had them just like AZ, Detroit, and the Vikings.
2) Strength of Schedule: I know this is sometimes viewed as an excuse but it still can easily be the difference between winning and losing a game. Our 2023 schedule was relatively easy but although we were not that good we still managed to make the playoffs and win a game. Our 2025 team was stronger than the 2023 team but will not likely produce better results.
3) Experience: The adage to work smarter not harder does not apply to this team. 3 years running and the Packers are still the youngest team on paper. That means we have turned over players but replaced them with players that are just as young and just as inexperienced. Without McManus our age is younger yet. We added Banks and Hobbs which gives you some experience, but neither has produced. We either need a few more vets or we have to keep the same team intact for several more years to possibly get over the hump. I recall how George Allen hated rookies. He built the 1972 SB Skins around veterans. Only one year, but he did it.
 

Packers4ever

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2025
Messages
59
Reaction score
36
I know I've brought up the stat before (as have others) that most coaches who DO win a Super Bowl will do so (on average) within their first 6-7 seasons with their team, but honestly that's not something I hold a ton against Matt.

At the end of the day, going on a Super Bowl run takes a lot going your way. So the mere fact that Matt hasn't *won* a Super Bowl in 6+ years...I can't put a ton of stock in that. If that were our primary measuring stick for success, then we (and most other teams) would be looking for new coaches all the time.

BUT, I do find it slightly more concerning that he hasn't *made* a Super Bowl yet, much less won one.

OR, even more concerning - to put it another way - if we don't manage a playoff win this year, Matt will have ONE playoff win in his last five seasons (Of course, by extension, as it stands - he has one playoff win in the last four seasons). Consistently making the playoffs is nice and all, but one win in five years (potentially) is unacceptable, IMO.

Beyond that, I find it troublesome that I just don't see a ton of development/progression/growth overall. We had a great run under LaFleur with Rodgers (and to some extent I would say that LaFleur helped Rodgers as much as Rodgers helped LaFleur. They were mutually beneficial for each other).

Since then...
8-9, 3rd in NFCN, missed playoffs
9-8, 2nd in NFCN, made playoffs. win in WC, lose in divisional
11-6, 3rd in NFCN, made playoffs, lost in WC.
This season, at best we will be able to improve by 1/2 game compared to last season. (11-5-1)

This is a coach who constantly preaches about discipline, accountability, sharp execution, etc...yet I just don't see a ton of that. As I've said before, the same issues have came up year after year after year in LaFleur's tenure. Either he is not serious about fixing them, or he is incapable of doing so. Neither one is an appealing option. And I know many will be quick to say, "Well, we have a really young team!" Yes, we do. That's not an accident, though. We have a young team *by design*. We know (or *should* know) the "side effects" that come with that. We're not caught off-guard by having a young team, it's something we have specifically put together year after year. That excuse doesn't hold up for me any more - if that's the best we can come up with year-after-year, maybe it's time to change philosophy, if nothing else.
Totally agree , my opinion time to move on from MLF
 

Packers4ever

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2025
Messages
59
Reaction score
36
Agree with most of this.

I don’t hold it against MLF that he hasn’t won a Super Bowl.

Not being to one after 7 seasons isn’t a dealbreaker, but it definitely counts against him.

The lack of clear progression is the most concerning thing to me. We hear every season — “youngest team in the league!”

Okay. So they should be young and *improving*, right? Being young means nothing without the implication that the arrow is pointing up. Otherwise, it’s just ages.

2023 - 7 seed and a big wild card win followed by close divisional loss

2024 - 7 seed and one and done

2025 - 7 seed (likely) and ?????

That doesn’t look like progression.
Correct , do not see progression from this HC , this looks to me going backward when u r suppose to go forward
 

Members online

Top