Fire Matt LaFleur

[OldSchool101]

A successful team is kinda like ****...you know it when you see it. But of course, one persons successful team may not be the same as another. I think the Bills have been a successful team for quite awhile now. And their head coach gets fired. Why not fire their QB? I think there is a crazy bug going around. And it's pretty contagious.

The Bills are one of the top 5 most successful teams in the last decade. The Packers with Matt really have not had the same level of success as Buffalo. I’m not sure what Buffalo is thinking other than they might feel like Josh Allen should be wearing a Ring by now and his career is fading into the back 9, so more of the same and expecting a similar result. Another similar team during MLF tenure is Cincinnati. They are our AFC equivalent.


Green Bay has better long term success than both Buffalo and Cincinatti though. Poor Buffalo with Jim Kelly. He played in 4 Super Bowls but never Won.

 

[Pkrjones]

Once Kelly retired after '96 the Bills had 3 more decent seasons with QB Doug Flutie, RB Thurmond Thomas, & WR Andre Reed. Beginning with 2000 they had 19 seasons of single-digit wins, ending only when McDermott arrived (& Josh Allen).

 

[OldSchool101]

Once Kelly retired after '96 the Bills had 3 more decent seasons with QB Doug Flutie, RB Thurmond Thomas, & WR Andre Reed. Beginning with 2000 they had 19 seasons of single-digit wins, ending only when McDermott arrived (& Josh Allen).

Yes. I used to occasionally watch football games at a Bar called Breakers with Jim Kelly’s brother in Richmond VA. I had relocated out there and by then it was mid to late 1990’s. Jim was mostly winding down or retired by then though. On a side note: Lots and lots of Pittsburgh fans they migrate south to VA. Probably more Steelers fans than Redskins fans back then.

 

[rmontro]

Now on 1 hand I’d agree that winning isn’t perfectly aligned with odds. Yet that should be a forgone conclusion, not a rebuttal to stating the odds of winning.

I agree that odds are what you stated, and like you said, that certainly doesn't mean that is what is going to happen. It's just the odds, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal, some teams have better administrations, different players, etc.
But overall the odds are you should be in the Super Bowl every 16 years, and you should win it every 32.

What's interesting is that GB is rapidly approaching that 16 year mark, but have not been back to it since Super Bowl XLV - despite numerous opportunities. What's really interesting about that is that GB has been in the playoffs most of those years (including four NFCCGs), but have not been able to break through. The general idea has been that you try to get into the dance as often as you can, and hope to get hot at the right time. But that hasn't seemed to work for us, for some reason.

 

[OldSchool101]

I agree that odds are what you stated, and like you said, that certainly doesn't mean that is what is going to happen. It's just the odds, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal, some teams have better administrations, different players, etc.
But overall the odds are you should be in the Super Bowl every 16 years, and you should win it every 32.

What's interesting is that GB is rapidly approaching that 16 year mark, but have not been back to it since Super Bowl XLV - despite numerous opportunities. What's really interesting about that is that GB has been in the playoffs most of those years (including four NFCCGs), but have not been able to break through. The general idea has been that you try to get into the dance as often as you can, and hope to get hot at the right time. But that hasn't seemed to work for us, for some reason.

Amen. That’s all I was saying. Nothing more nothing less. I was in discussion with someone claiming we were basically “terrible”. In reality we’re not. We’re still well above an average team both historically and in Matt’s tenure. To do that evaluation you’d naturally do research on other teams and success rates but there has to be a scorecard. I can’t have a proper model test result if I don’t know what the NFL “mean” score is. 59 Superbowls and we’ve ranged from 16 teams to 32 teams. Most seasons far closer to the latter. That’s roughly 2 Superbowls doled out per team to form a “mean”.

Now someone can come in and argue “that’s not correct” because they didn’t take the time to want to know it was just being used as a template for the longer term success compared to expected averages. Just simply defending our franchise and using some basic logic.

I did a little research of my own as objective as I could do the math we tied Cincinatti for the #8 most successful playoff team in Matt’s tenure. So my contention is that our franchise is both well above the total SB curve AND well above the recent playoff success average. It was sll simply a rebuttal to “we suck” if that makes sense?

I think human nature is we like to be critical (not suggesting you in particular just in general we all do it). In doing so we often jump to conclusions and take a post out of context. I don’t think it’s anything personal.. just comes across as little irritating lol. Particularly when it comes from someone you have a great deal of respect.

 

[rmontro]

I did a little research of my own as objective as I could do the math we tied Cincinatti for the #8 most successful playoff team in Matt’s tenure. So my contention is that our franchise is both well above the total SB curve AND well above the recent playoff success average. It was sll simply a rebuttal to “we suck” if that makes sense?

I haven't heard too many people argue that "we suck", even if they might be in favor of changing coaches. We're tied for fifth with the most Super Bowl wins, that's not bad at all out of 32 teams. Steelers and Patriots have six, Cowboys and 49ers have five, and Kansas City and the New York Giants are tied with us with four. We won the first two, and that was a long time ago, so we've only won two since the Lombardi era, and that grates a bit.

And of course we have the most NFL championships with 13, although you rarely see that referenced these days.

 

[OldSchool101]

I haven't heard too many people argue that "we suck", even if they might be in favor of changing coaches. We're tied for fifth with the most Super Bowl wins, that's not bad at all out of 32 teams. Steelers and Patriots have six, Cowboys and 49ers have five, and Kansas City and the New York Giants are tied with us with four. We won the first two, and that was a long time ago, so we've only won two since the Lombardi era, and that grates a bit.

And of course we have the most NFL championships with 13, although you rarely see that referenced these days.

Yes. That’s important that 2 of 4 of our SuperBowls were Won in the 1960’s. A time when the league had 1/2 the number of teams competing.

Probably why there’s a select group of fans who act like we have not Won one. Heck it’s a small % that we’re even alive for the first couple. Also Favre’s Super Bowl was teetering on
3 decades ago. So it sounds weird but there’s probably a big chunk of posters who aren’t even old enough to remember 1996 or at least it’s a vague memory. Your essentially need to be 36 years old and that’s best case scenario.

 

[milani]

I agree that odds are what you stated, and like you said, that certainly doesn't mean that is what is going to happen. It's just the odds, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal, some teams have better administrations, different players, etc.
But overall the odds are you should be in the Super Bowl every 16 years, and you should win it every 32.

What's interesting is that GB is rapidly approaching that 16 year mark, but have not been back to it since Super Bowl XLV - despite numerous opportunities. What's really interesting about that is that GB has been in the playoffs most of those years (including four NFCCGs), but have not been able to break through. The general idea has been that you try to get into the dance as often as you can, and hope to get hot at the right time. But that hasn't seemed to work for us, for some reason.

And GB had the Championship game at home in both 2007 and 2021 and came up empty.

 

[gopkrs]

And GB had the Championship game at home in both 2007 and 2021 and came up empty.

Not The Championship game

 

[rmontro]

I think human nature is we like to be critical (not suggesting you in particular just in general we all do it). In doing so we often jump to conclusions and take a post out of context. I don’t think it’s anything personal..

I do remember the first two Super Bowls, but I was only a child.

I also thought we should have moved on from LaFleur, not because I think he's a bad coach, but just because of the accumulated baggage of the whole thing. As I said, there's a school of thought where you try to get into the dance as often as possible, and hope you get hot at the right time. But more recently it's been the opposite with MLF. The team has been collapsing at the end of the season, and this season there were numerous games where the team collapsed at the end. Can the team psychologically move beyond that? Arguably McCarthy's Packers never recovered from the NFCCG loss against the Seahawks.

 

[shockerx]

Not The Championship game

NFC Championship game

 

[milani]

Not The Championship game

Packers lost in OT to the Giants in the NFC Championship for the 2007 season. They lost to the Bucs in the NFC Championship for 2021. Both the Giants and Bucs then won the SB two weeks later. So what is NOT?

 

[gopkrs]

Just don't think there are two champions in the NFL

 

[rmontro]

Just don't think there are two champions in the NFL

There is such a thing as a conference champion however, and a division champion.

 

[gopkrs]

There is such a thing as a conference champion however, and a division champion.

Yes but not the champion. Except the last team standing

 

[milani]

I do remember the first two Super Bowls, but I was only a child.

I also thought we should have moved on from LaFleur, not because I think he's a bad coach, but just because of the accumulated baggage of the whole thing. As I said, there's a school of thought where you try to get into the dance as often as possible, and hope you get hot at the right time. But more recently it's been the opposite with MLF. The team has been collapsing at the end of the season, and this season there were numerous games where the team collapsed at the end. Can the team psychologically move beyond that? Arguably McCarthy's Packers never recovered from the NFCCG loss against the Seahawks.

Remind you of Marty Schottenheimer in KC.

 

[OldSchool101]

I do remember the first two Super Bowls, but I was only a child.

I also thought we should have moved on from LaFleur, not because I think he's a bad coach, but just because of the accumulated baggage of the whole thing. As I said, there's a school of thought where you try to get into the dance as often as possible, and hope you get hot at the right time. But more recently it's been the opposite with MLF. The team has been collapsing at the end of the season, and this season there were numerous games where the team collapsed at the end. Can the team psychologically move beyond that? Arguably McCarthy's Packers never recovered from the NFCCG loss against the Seahawks.

Oh Matt staying is definitely at minimum reason for debate. It’s very frustrating even as a fan to watch the same finishing style both in games and in seasons. We just literally fall apart when it’s go time, at least for a team that should be able to at least reach the Conference level.
Matt’s early track record from 2019-2021 saved him imo. It was the Offense that carried those teams and it wasn’t just Rodgers. The play calling and scheme accounted for much of it and the OL also didn’t crumble like we’re starting to see. We have a slightly below average LT. Below average Center. Below Average LG, merry go round RG and injury instability at RT just was icing on the disaster cake.

 

[OldSchool101]

There’s going to 100% need to be a harsh critical self evaluation in every game going back at least 3 seasons where we crumbled. I’m not talking about 1 missed Kick I’m talking about what could we have done better to either make the Kick improve odds or not be trying for a FG to begin with.

Are we sometimes trying to settle for a FG instead of a kill shot? I’m not talking going nutzo on 4th n 8 that should never happen unless its a critical last play etc. It does show we’re little to desperate and then a little too conservative. Find some middle ground already.

Are we letting off the gas and trying to protect a fictitious lead? Because ultimately we have hindsight and they ended up being fictitious leads.

What’s the personnel breakdown by snap in each Quarter. How did either overusing a player or not substituting a player(s) affect the outcome. Does Is it appear to be conditioning? Should we maybe change the mixture regarding player substitutions.

Personally each year I’m surprised how we don’t see our better depth players more. Either they are suited or not. I understand snap count but maybe we’re a little too careful. If a guy has been out 6 weeks but been practicing for a couple maybe 13 snaps isn’t enough. Ramp it faster. Just some thoughts but one thing is 100% positive certain. This wasn’t just on our kicker. Heck half of those games we still would’ve lost making a missed XPA or FGA. I witnessed our opponent run the clock it’s not like they couldn’t score again.

Let’s quit blaming the Kicker and assume he’s going to miss. What can the Packer O do to control the outcome outside of a missed FG.

 

[gopkrs]

Oh Matt staying is definitely at minimum reason for debate. It’s very frustrating even as a fan to watch the same finishing style both in games and in seasons. We just literally fall apart when it’s go time, at least for a team that should be able to at least reach the Conference level.
Matt’s early track record from 2019-2021 saved him imo. It was the Offense that carried those teams and it wasn’t just Rodgers. The play calling and scheme accounted for much of it and the OL also didn’t crumble like we’re starting to see. We have a slightly below average LT. Below average Center. Below Average LG, merry go round RG and injury instability at RT just was icing on the disaster cake.

It seems like there is a disconnect between the offense LaFleur wants to run and the players Gute gives him to do it. Above all, imho, LaFleur needs a strong O line to run his offense. He doesn't get that from Gute for whatever reason yet Matt continues to run his offense as if that piece didn't matter. That's what drives me crazy. Yeah, sometimes it works but the odds aren't with it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It seems like there is a disconnect between the offense LaFleur wants to run and the players Gute gives him to do it. Above all, imho, LaFleur needs a strong O line to run his offense. He doesn't get that from Gute for whatever reason yet Matt continues to run his offense as if that piece didn't matter. That's what drives me crazy. Yeah, sometimes it works but the odds aren't with it.

I tend to think that at times, it is more of a disconnect between MLF and his offense on game days. I will keep saying this, but I just don't think MLF is a consistently good play caller. His weakness show in a number of ways.

1. Getting play in quickly. Too often we see Love and the offense break the huddle and the play clock is dangerously low. This doesn't afford Love enough time at the LOS to look at the defense and make appropriate changes. It gets so bad that the Packers burn timeouts, just to avoid a 5 yard delay of game call.

2. Making appropriate adjustments during the game. I just don't get the sense that during the course of the game, MLF makes adjustments based off of what is and isn't working that day. How many failed runs up the middle on short yardage does he need to run to realize, it just isn't there?

3. I call this one the "Rodgers Effect". I really think Rodgers would tick MLF off when he would audible out of plays that MLF called, especially if it was happening too often in a game. Once Rodgers was gone MLF instilled into Love that it was Matt that was running the show and to stick to his called plays. 3 seasons in as the starter and while Jordan is probably audibling moree, I get the sense that it isn't as often as it should be. Also, as I said in point 1, does he even get the time to do it in many situations?

4. Not good at playing with a lead. No killer instinct with MLF. When your defense isn't playing that well, you can't take your foot off the accelerator. Trying to be cute and just run as much clock off as you can and then punt the ball, isn't how you win games against good teams.

5. "Deer in The Headlights". I just don't see MLF as a good play caller under pressure. Too many bad play calls, timeouts and again....situation #1 happening.

6. Bad Hiring Decisions (see Rich Bisaccia). Besides Hafley, I just don't see that impressive of hires by MLF.

The easy solution for the Packers to fix most of this would have been to only extend MLF if he had agreed to hire an OC and let them call all the plays. I don't see MLF ever agreeing to that, so here we are.

 

[gopkrs]

I tend to think that at times, it is more of a disconnect between MLF and his offense on game days. I will keep saying this, but I just don't think MLF is a consistently good play caller. His weakness show in a number of ways.

1. Getting play in quickly. Too often we see Love and the offense break the huddle and the play clock is dangerously low. This doesn't afford Love enough time at the LOS to look at the defense and make appropriate changes. It gets so bad that the Packers burn timeouts, just to avoid a 5 yard delay of game call.

2. Making appropriate adjustments during the game. I just don't get the sense that during the course of the game, MLF makes adjustments based off of what is and isn't working that day. How many failed runs up the middle on short yardage does he need to run to realize, it just isn't there?

3. I call this one the "Rodgers Effect". I really think Rodgers would tick MLF off when he would audible out of plays that MLF called, especially if it was happening too often in a game. Once Rodgers was gone MLF instilled into Love that it was Matt that was running the show and to stick to his called plays. 3 seasons in as the starter and while Jordan is probably audibling moree, I get the sense that it isn't as often as it should be. Also, as I said in point 1, does he even get the time to do it in many situations?

4. Not good at playing with a lead. No killer instinct with MLF. When your defense isn't playing that well, you can't take your foot off the accelerator. Trying to be cute and just run as much clock off as you can and then punt the ball, isn't how you win games against good teams.

5. "Deer in The Headlights". I just don't see MLF as a good play caller under pressure. Too many bad play calls, timeouts and again....situation #1 happening.

6. Bad Hiring Decisions (see Rich Bisaccia). Besides Hafley, I just don't see that impressive of hires by MLF.

The easy solution for the Packers to fix most of this would have been to only extend MLF if he had agreed to hire an OC and let them call all the plays. I don't see MLF ever agreeing to that, so here we are.

Quite a list and I agree with much of it. There is another year coming up. I'm going to try and not get so frustrated this year. And I can hope that I won't have to. I still think he needs a top notch O line to run his offense like he wants to. Not sure Gute can give it to him.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Quite a list and I agree with much of it. There is another year coming up. I'm going to try and not get so frustrated this year. And I can hope that I won't have to. I still think he needs a top notch O line to run his offense like he wants to. Not sure Gute can give it to him.

I probably should have put in my post that I don't think that Matt is dogsh*t bad as a HC and play caller, but the things I was pointing out are things he needs to improve upon. If he doesn't, I just don't see him ever coaching a team that wins a Super Bowl.

 

[rmontro]

Remind you of Marty Schottenheimer in KC.

Fortunately for them, they eventually got their Andy Reid/Patrick Mahomes period.

 

[CarryTheG14]

I would make a thread on this but I still don't have access!! How many posts do I need?

https://x.com/BillHuberNFL/status/2022400447676571906?s=20

I don't necessarily agree with all of these, but this is quite a list.

Losing Collins set us back a ton. Finley too, I think he and Rodgers would have gotten to a dominant level together.

I'll go to my deathbed saying we woulda won in 2020 ( and maybe 2021) with David Bahktiari. How sad.

It doesn't even talk about all the ST blunders.

If we had a healthy Kraft, Parsons and Wyatt, I would have loved our chances this past year.

Takes a lot of things to go right winning a SB. A lot of luck.

 

[CarryTheG14]

I tend to think that at times, it is more of a disconnect between MLF and his offense on game days. I will keep saying this, but I just don't think MLF is a consistently good play caller. His weakness show in a number of ways.

1. Getting play in quickly. Too often we see Love and the offense break the huddle and the play clock is dangerously low. This doesn't afford Love enough time at the LOS to look at the defense and make appropriate changes. It gets so bad that the Packers burn timeouts, just to avoid a 5 yard delay of game call.

2. Making appropriate adjustments during the game. I just don't get the sense that during the course of the game, MLF makes adjustments based off of what is and isn't working that day. How many failed runs up the middle on short yardage does he need to run to realize, it just isn't there?

3. I call this one the "Rodgers Effect". I really think Rodgers would tick MLF off when he would audible out of plays that MLF called, especially if it was happening too often in a game. Once Rodgers was gone MLF instilled into Love that it was Matt that was running the show and to stick to his called plays. 3 seasons in as the starter and while Jordan is probably audibling moree, I get the sense that it isn't as often as it should be. Also, as I said in point 1, does he even get the time to do it in many situations?

4. Not good at playing with a lead. No killer instinct with MLF. When your defense isn't playing that well, you can't take your foot off the accelerator. Trying to be cute and just run as much clock off as you can and then punt the ball, isn't how you win games against good teams.

5. "Deer in The Headlights". I just don't see MLF as a good play caller under pressure. Too many bad play calls, timeouts and again....situation #1 happening.

6. Bad Hiring Decisions (see Rich Bisaccia). Besides Hafley, I just don't see that impressive of hires by MLF.

The easy solution for the Packers to fix most of this would have been to only extend MLF if he had agreed to hire an OC and let them call all the plays. I don't see MLF ever agreeing to that, so here we are.

I agree with most of these except 3 and 5, just because I'm not sure they're true.I do believe Jordan has the ability to change plays.

I don't agree that he doesn't have what it takes to win a SB. Many bad coaches have gotten there and some have won ( Nick Sirriani and Doug Peterson).

Matt has warts. But I think of them like I think of players being 'injury prone' . They're injury prone, until they're not.