Fire Matt LaFleur

[adambr2]

The whole “Policy doesn’t want a lame duck” idea is overblown. MLF is the one who doesn’t want to be a lame duck. He has no incentive for that. He has a hot market now. If he coaches as a lame duck in 2026 and the season is a disaster, then the Packers obviously move on and then maybe MLF can only find an OC gig, or just totally out of work like Mike McCarthy after his 2024 lame duck season.

He’s fighting for as many years at as many $ as he can get right now, because it’s all guaranteed that point. Coaching as a lame duck in 2026 is the worst case scenario for him.

And while Policy said he doesn’t really like the idea of a lame duck coach, he also said “But there are certain situations that probably call for it, so I would not say never.”

 

[DABIGZ]

This is turning into a really tricky situation.

Honestly, in spite of our total collapse this year...it kinda feels like LaFleur still has more leverage here?

- He knows that we don't want a "lame duck" or "prove it" year...and by extension understands that if Hafley leaves it's going to be very hard to sign a replacement DC (and possibly other assistants) when the HC is going to be gone in a year

- He knows that any even somewhat "proven" replacement will likely cost us as much as LaFleur is asking for. Look at guys like Ben Johnson, Liam Coen, Mike McDonald, etc. They had no HC experience and immediately got like 13m+ per year.

- He recognizes that nearly 1/3rd of the league is looking for head coaches right now. That means he will likely have a bigger "market" AND that we'll potentially have more competition in signing a replacement. This ties into the above - if we want an "in-demand" hire, we will have to outbid others (and I don't think there is really any "Ben Johnson" type guy available this cycle)

- He effectively has complete "veto control" over any possible trade

- He knows that at the end of the day we DO want to continue with him as HC, at least to some extent. The fact that they are still in negotiations and haven't cut them off and/or fired him makes that pretty clear

- He knows that he does have a "market" and can likely find a team that would meet his requested contract demands. So the idea of a "conditional" deal (i.e. 3 year deal that adds +2 years with a NFCCG or something) doesn't carry any weight when he can get 5 years no-strings-attached elsewhere

- He knows that it would be best for us to resolve the situation sooner than later. Getting a deal done enables us to work on assistant positions sooner (esp. if Hafley leaves); if we ultimately decide to move on from LaFleur we don't want to find ourselves in a situation where our top candidates have already signed elsewhere. Either way, a speedier resolution is preferred

So, I don't really know what we do here.
I can certainly understand that position from LaFleur's perspective (and anyone saying things like "He should take a worse contract cuz he hasn't won anything for us!" are being ridiculous lol), but I get the team's trepidation as well. LaFleur has been here for 7 years; if we sign him to a 5-year extension (as he seemingly wants) we could very well find ourselves in a spot where he's been here for 10 years with no Super Bowl and we're still on the hook to pay him another $30m or something. So yeah...I don't really know lol

Here's my $0.02.

I'd say try and do a four-year deal. With the window we have it'll fit in, especially in 2026 and 2027. If there's no signs of significant improvement. Gut the team. Players, Coaches, maybe even Gute.

Is it an over-reaction? Maybe. But we pushed all our chips forward, we should see it through and see what happens. But after a couple of years? Reevaluate, because there is going to be a LOT of money owed to only a few select players. At that point, if we don't get to a Super Bowl, much less win the dang thing. Start cutting ties.

 

[Magooch]

The whole “Policy doesn’t want a lame duck” idea is overblown. MLF is the one who doesn’t want to be a lame duck. He has no incentive for that. He has a hot market now. If he coaches as a lame duck in 2026 and the season is a disaster, then the Packers obviously move on and then maybe MLF can only find an OC gig, or just totally out of work like Mike McCarthy after his 2024 lame duck season.

He’s fighting for as many years at as many $ as he can get right now, because it’s all guaranteed that point. Coaching as a lame duck in 2026 is the worst case scenario for him.

And while Policy said he doesn’t really like the idea of a lame duck coach, he also said “But there are certain situations that probably call for it, so I would not say never.”

Some truth to that for sure, but I would also think that's one of those cases where if that was something we were really good with....we would've already called it by now? Our ongoing negotiations makes it pretty clear that's not a preferred outcome for us and probably only happens if we absolutely can't get an agreement with MLF to continue AND can't find agreeable trade offer (both for us and Matt).

And then like I said we're in a bind for any assistant positions, which is amplified the longer the negotiations get drawn out. We lose Hafley (or Covington, Ansley, etc) and we're gonna have a hard time convincing anyone decent to replace them when the HC status is up in the air. And the longer it takes the less good options are left, so then we're in a spot where we're trying to convince the leftover scraps to sign on for what may very well amount to a one-year DC / assistant gig. Not many folks are going to want that, and the ones who are still available at that point AND willing to take on the role....are probably guys who are still left available for a reason. Maybe it is worst-case scenario for Matt in some ways, and maybe it is technically still an option for us, but I think Policy and Co would very much like to avoid that

 

[Sanguine camper]

Being a lame duck doesn't help anybody. If Hafley leaves, attracting a good coordinator is not going to happen if MLF is on the last year of a contract.

The Packers can extend MLF and still send him 'packing' next year if the team looks anything like it did in the final 5 weeks. An extension helps with hiring assistants but shouldn't be misconstrued that MLF would have much more security.

 

[Magooch]

Being a lame duck doesn't help anybody. If Hafley leaves, attracting a good coordinator is not going to happen if MLF is on the last year of a contract.

The Packers can extend MLF and still send him 'packing' next year if the team looks anything like it did in the final 5 weeks. An extension helps with hiring assistants but shouldn't be misconstrued that MLF would have much more security.

What does that contract look like though?

Coaches contracts are pretty much always fully guaranteed (and if we won't offer him a guaranteed contract, someone else most likely will)

This is almost assuredly why there seems to be a dispute over the contract length...if we're okay with 15m/yr (which is basically the going rate nowadays) but Matt wants a 5 year deal and we're only offering 2 years, there's still a gap of 45m between our two positions. And if we sign him to a long-term deal like he wants and turn around and fire him next offseason we're still on the hook for 60m+. But if it's a shorter deal like we'd prefer, maybe it's half that amount

Even though that's outside the cap, given how cheap we've historically been with coaches I'd be awfully surprised if we came to any kind of long-term deal with Matt that didn't imply considerably more "job security" than he currently holds

 

[Magooch]

Albert Breer on a possible trade value:

"I’ve said from the start that the Packers want to extend Matt LaFleur. But sometimes, if talks stall, eyes (on both sides of the table) wander. And on a wide-open coaching market that’s requiring some creativity, rather than chasing prominent names, you don’t have to twist yourself into a pretzel mentally to find executives in Atlanta and Miami that might throw their hats into that ring if things play out a certain way.

First things first: I think it’d take an impasse in those talks to open up this discussion. We may get there. Ben Johnson got $13 million per year, and Liam Coen got $12 million per year in January of 2024. Those two guys brought a combined zero games of experience as head coaches to the proverbial negotiating table. Logically, that gives LaFleur, who’s been to two NFC title games, and is 16th all-time in winning percentage (.654), plenty of room to ask for between $15 million and $20 million. Will the Packers go there?

If they won’t, and next week comes, could someone like Atlanta’s Matt Ryan or Miami’s Jon-Eric Sullivan, with their ties to LaFleur, call? Sure. And at that point, I’d think we’d be talking about maybe a top-60 pick, and something else (worth mentioning here, by the way, that the Falcons don’t have a first-rounder)."

 

[OldSchool101]

I fully realize MLF will most likely be resigned or extended etc by us.

That said, if someone came a knocking with high draft picks I’d be open ears. Particularly an AFC team I’d be very interested.

If the Steelers offered
2026 1st
2027 2nd

I’d tell them throw in their 2026 2nd RD and I’ll kick them back our
3rd Rounder and I’ll put a pretty pink bow on Matt and drive him there myself.

If Miami called and offered a
1.11
for our
2.52 + Matt

I’d likely ask them to sweeten it with our 5th to their 4th round swap and I’d remove the pink bow and send him on a Greyhound.

As you can see I’m not firmly tied to MLF. I’m not necessarily trying to kick him out, but we were looking for a HC when we found Matt and we can be looking again. While there’s a valid argument that “the grass isn’t always greener” there’s also a valid argument that Matt isn’t an irreplaceable, big picture, head coach.

 

[pacmaniac]

We sent Mike Holmgren, who had a 9-5 playoff record and won a Super Bowl and made it to a second SB, to Seattle for a second round pick. Why would we get equivalent or better draft picks for a coach who's never made it to the Super Bowl and has a 3-6 playoff record?

 

[SudsMcBucky]

We sent Mike Holmgren, who had a 9-5 playoff record and won a Super Bowl and made it to a second SB, to Seattle for a second round pick. Why would we get equivalent or better draft picks for a coach who's never made it to the Super Bowl and has a 3-6 playoff record?

I guess supply and demand would be my best guess. A LOT of demand with very little supply.

 

[DoURant]

We sent Mike Holmgren, who had a 9-5 playoff record and won a Super Bowl and made it to a second SB, to Seattle for a second round pick. Why would we get equivalent or better draft picks for a coach who's never made it to the Super Bowl and has a 3-6 playoff record?

His market is what teams are willing to pay, and potential they feel he will bring to their franchise. His reputation is more favorable around the league, than it is on this forum.

 

[OldSchool101]

We sent Mike Holmgren, who had a 9-5 playoff record and won a Super Bowl and made it to a second SB, to Seattle for a second round pick. Why would we get equivalent or better draft picks for a coach who's never made it to the Super Bowl and has a 3-6 playoff record?

I don’t know but I’d sure love it!

Jon Gruden Netted
2-1st Round picks
2-2nd Round picks

He had zero Super Bowl wins until he landed in Tampa. It’s all what a team is willing to offer. Mike Holmgren is not some lone trade template or he’s at minimum an example of being in the bottom dweller spectrum of trades that have occurred.

 

[AGreen2AJones]

I fully realize MLF will most likely be resigned or extended etc by us.

That said, if someone came a knocking with high draft picks I’d be open ears. Particularly an AFC team I’d be very interested.

If the Steelers offered
2026 1st
2027 2nd

I’d tell them throw in their 2026 2nd RD and I’ll kick them back our
3rd Rounder and I’ll put a pretty pink bow on Matt and drive him there myself.

If Miami called and offered a
1.11
for our
2.52 + Matt

I’d likely ask them to sweeten it with our 5th to their 4th round swap and I’d remove the pink bow and send him on a Greyhound.

As you can see I’m not firmly tied to MLF. I’m not necessarily trying to kick him out, but we were looking for a HC when we found Matt and we can be looking again. While there’s a valid argument that “the grass isn’t always greener” there’s also a valid argument that Matt isn’t an irreplaceable, big picture, head coach.

The board of directors should be replaced by you...or you should be hired by them

 

[Magooch]

Sports Illustrated posted something a bit ago speculating what a possible trade would look like (in their view, Atlanta was the team trading) and they estimated his value as a 2027 first, 2026 4th, and 2026 6th (Atlanta doesn't have a 2026 1st).

Generally speaking "next-year" picks are valued at roughly a round later in the present year so it would be like the "equivalent" of a 2026 2nd/4th/6th. Now admittedly this is wildly imprecise but given Atlanta's draft position (13), if you were to "convert" that 2027 - 1st to a 2026 - 2nd, the value of those picks (48/114/192) would be roughly equal to pick #38-40 (depending on your value model - Jimmy Johnson, Rich Hill, etc).

Albert Breer doesn't get much into specifics but estimates a "top 60 pick" (and again notes the Falcons don't have a 1st. But of course a 2nd fits the bill)

Steve Palazzolo (PFF) says "I don't know about a first, because I don't think his stock is that high. His stock's low. I don't think you'd have to give up a first," but when asked if a "top 60" pick would be a sensible value, he said yeah, I'd make that deal.

In other words, seems like the ceiling is probably a high-end 2nd round pick. I think your absolute best-case scenario is something like getting a 2nd+3rd (that combine for a late first-round "value") but have to give up something in return.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Demarcus Covington getting DC interview calls....

Can't say I'm surprised. If/when Hafley leaves, Covington should be on the list to replace him.

Another thing to consider - if Hafley leaves, he's likely to take a number of his assistants with him. Hopefully someone in the Packers' organization has been looking at candidates for a while - for all coaching spots on D.

I seems like we've waited forever for a DC like Hafley. Hopefully candidates are already lined up.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Some interesting but troubling scoring stats for 2025:

Defense:

- The Packers defense was the best in the NFL when it came to points allowed in the 1st Q: 1.6 pts/game.

- However, the defense was 29th in the NFL in the 4th Q. Giving up 8.8 pts/game.

Offense:

The offense was somewhat the polar opposite.

- Offense scored only 3.2 pts/game in the 1st Q. which was 28th lowest in the NFL

- Offense scored 7.7 pts/game in the 4th Q, their best Q statistically, which ranked them 8th in the NFL.

Thanks for the stats. Those are just downright weird. So for most games, the first quarter play of the D was offset by the O, and just the opposite in the 4th Q. That's an unhealthy consistency.

I'd like to see a consistently good effort from start to finish. I doubt I'm alone. That will require MLF to make adjustments DURING the game, and not just at halftime. We saw what happens when that doesn't take place a few times this season, but especially in the playoff loss.

Is MLF even capable of this? I'm sure that is being discussed at 1265 this week.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Sports Illustrated posted something a bit ago speculating what a possible trade would look like (in their view, Atlanta was the team trading) and they estimated his value as a 2027 first, 2026 4th, and 2026 6th (Atlanta doesn't have a 2026 1st).

Generally speaking "next-year" picks are valued at roughly a round later in the present year so it would be like the "equivalent" of a 2026 2nd/4th/6th. Now admittedly this is wildly imprecise but given Atlanta's draft position (13), if you were to "convert" that 2027 - 1st to a 2026 - 2nd, the value of those picks (48/114/192) would be roughly equal to pick #38-40 (depending on your value model - Jimmy Johnson, Rich Hill, etc).

Albert Breer doesn't get much into specifics but estimates a "top 60 pick" (and again notes the Falcons don't have a 1st. But of course a 2nd fits the bill)

Steve Palazzolo (PFF) says "I don't know about a first, because I don't think his stock is that high. His stock's low. I don't think you'd have to give up a first," but when asked if a "top 60" pick would be a sensible value, he said yeah, I'd make that deal.

In other words, seems like the ceiling is probably a high-end 2nd round pick. I think your absolute best-case scenario is something like getting a 2nd+3rd (that combine for a late first-round "value") but have to give up something in return.

Interesting stuff from you and OS. Thanks to both of you.

I don't think MLF has much trade value, certainly not a 1st round pick. That's just my take.

Silverstein wrote another excellent article in the JS about how the Packers move forward if MLF is retained. He used the playoff loss to highlight the many critical errors MLF and the organization made in that game, and during the season. It goes well beyond just that game. It's hard to read, but it is instructive for the future of the team.

Don't much like Silverstein, but here he is spot on.

 

[Heyjoe4]

It is the way of the NFL.....The pie just keeps getting bigger and bigger!

So even if your performance stays the same, you still want your slice of the pie to grow just as much as the rest of the pie grew.

Here is the thing folks. The Packers basically print their own money and "money" is really only a concern in how it is accounted for in terms of the salary cap. Coaches salaries do not impact the cap in any way. This is the same for all teams. So if you hear that the Packer retained MLF and gave him a 30% increase in doing so, stay away from the ledge!

Good points. The NFL is a money machine. As you note, the pie will get split accordingly. If (when) it gets bigger, everyone gets paid more.

 

[Heyjoe4]

No way should Matt get much…if any…raise, and certainly not a long extension. He has earned neither.

If MLF stays, and that looks likely, the organization needs to change. Specifically, Gluten should be promoted to VP of Football Staffing and Operations. with MLF and Russ Ball reporting to him. That's for starters.

And they either have to change the nature of MLF's duties (to me, he is a glorified OC and too involved in that part of the game) or get him some help with clock management and personnel changes during a game. This is an inelegant way to run a team.

I'd much rather just have a HC who does not call plays on offense or defense, but keeps an eye on the game in its entirety, and gets involved where or as needed, with all three teams. The OC and DC should be calling plays for their unit. Same with STs.

We'll probably know this week. My best guess, and it's no more than that, is that MLF gets a one year extension at $10 mil AAV (he's currently around $7-8 mil AAV, well below Johnson and McConnel at $13 mil AAV. He'l be assigned some kind of assistant to help with clock and personnel management, a lousy but probably necessary compromise.

And finally, I'd like to see "OC" Stevanich snt back to the OL. He's just a placeholder at OC, as were his predecessors.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Practically speaking they will go hand-in-hand... I have my complaints but all in all LaFleur's salary currently is pretty reasonable as far as most head coaches go, and probably less than you would expect to pay a new one... Guys like Aaron Glenn, Ben Johnson, Liam Coen, Mike McDonald all walked into higher salaries as first-time head coaches than LaFleur was earning *after* his first extension with the team. In all likelihood if you move on from LaFleur you are going to have to spend every bit as much and more on a new guy as it would cost you to retain LaFleur.

That's not to say he has earned it or that we SHOULD go that direction, but that's the practical reality of the situation. If you're keeping LaFleur, he's getting a pay raise...and if you're not keeping him, you're going to pay that amount for a replacement (or less for a total no-name, I suppose. Which is perfectly possible lol)

Well said. MLF is getting about $7-8 mil AAV, compared to Johnson and McDonnel at $13 mil AAV. I don't know what Campbell is being paid.

If MLF is retained, for one year or three or four, he'll get paid accordingly.

I don't care much about his pay as I do his in-game coaching ability, and his creativity. He seems to have run out of ideas on offense.

I won't be surprised if he's fired or extended. I do think other org changes will happen. The current structure isn't built to win SBs, even though most of the player talent is there. It's a shame.

 

[rmontro]

If it goes the way of the last 4 games, I'm afraid he loses and Policy wins.

Lol, yeah, maybe Policy is waiting to drag the negotiations out until LaFleur chokes.

 

[milani]

Interesting stuff from you and OS. Thanks to both of you.

I don't think MLF has much trade value, certainly not a 1st round pick. That's just my take.

Silverstein wrote another excellent article in the JS about how the Packers move forward if MLF is retained. He used the playoff loss to highlight the many critical errors MLF and the organization made in that game, and during the season. It goes well beyond just that game. It's hard to read, but it is instructive for the future of the team.

Don't much like Silverstein, but here he is spot on.

The whole idea of " Trading " MLF is like George Steinbrenner trading George Costanza.

 

[Catamount1971]

How many fans will be emotionally invested if he stays? The outcome will be the same as the last several years. We continue to be locked in a Groundhog Day, season after season. Kind of done with it.

 

[rmontro]

How many fans will be emotionally invested if he stays? The outcome will be the same as the last several years. We continue to be locked in a Groundhog Day, season after season. Kind of done with it.

If he stays, I do think we will likely get more of the same. The only thing that makes me think otherwise is because maybe Parsons comes back mid to late season and gives a big boost to the team for a late run - right when MLF's teams usually give up for the season and start phoning it in.

The problem with replacing MLF is I don't know who could come in and be our "Ben Johnson".

 

[adambr2]

If he stays, I do think we will likely get more of the same. The only thing that makes me think otherwise is because maybe Parsons comes back mid to late season and gives a big boost to the team for a late run - right when MLF's teams usually give up for the season and start phoning it in.

The problem with replacing MLF is I don't know who could come in and be our "Ben Johnson".

Does anyone really know until they’re made?

When we fired McCarthy was there anybody at all saying “what about that Matt Lafleur guy in Tennessee?”

 

[rmontro]

When we fired McCarthy was there anybody at all saying “what about that Matt Lafleur guy in Tennessee?”

He was a fairly unexpected choice, true. Johnson was definitely the sought after golden boy last year though.