Fire Matt LaFleur

[adambr2]

for the thread

and I am a very big critic of MLF - but this ship is sunk it lies next to the Titanic - this last loss is NOT NOT his fault! Can we dig up Lombardi (or a reasonable facsimile thereof (a 3 Stooges quote)). I think the GB HOF should try and sell mirrors - we may need to turn the bad joo-joo - and then break them...

with the troops thinned ; I am very happy for the 3rd stringers who got to really showcase their talent (in a real game) , Better tomorrows to them. Not even PO'ed or upset over this loss

Yeah I don’t see any point in placing blame on a loss that wasn’t relevant. It was absolutely the he equivalent of a preseason game.

 

[OldSchool101]

Earning in the top 25% while 325 other players recorded at least half a sack is, in my opinion, very overpaid. I think someone in another thread brought up this stat.

Please Explain I lost you there on the 0.5 Sack part. What does that refer to?

 

[Magooch]

Please Explain I lost you there on the 0.5 Sack part. What does that refer to?

He's referring to this:

Matt Schneidman... there were 325 players in the league who recorded at least 1/2 sack from Weeks 9-18.

Rashan Gary....was not one of them.

Statistically speaking Rashan Gary is getting paid FAR better than "top 25%" for what it's worth. Looking at the salaries paid to EDGE players in the league, his AAV of ~24m is not just top 25%...it's more like top 5%. Even if you remove the absolute bottom of the barrel, guys on vet minimums or practice squadders or whatnot he's still in the 94th percentile for EDGE salaries.

OTC does an interesting "player valuation" metric that basically compares their "performance value" with their contract value. Of course you ideally want a player who is either getting paid roughly commensurate to the value they bring, or better yet providing more value than they're being compensated for. Gary unfortunately finds himself on the wrong side of that equation. Now to be fair they have assigned a season-long valuation of roughly 18m, which is still quite handsome. But that's also been buoyed by some big performances vs Detroit (week 1), Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. Those weeks all came in above his ~24m AAV, but every other week of the season has graded out below it... and since week 9 he's been given a valuation of less than 10m for every remaining week of the season.

I am not really sure how it got to this point in the "Fire LaFleur" thread though lol.

 

[rmontro]

Oh I agree and if MLF is given the choice of being fired or stepping down to being just the OC, he would probably say "no thanks". That said, I doubt his next gig in the NFL would be as a HC, so that is something for him to consider.

If we move on from MLF, I don't see much point in keeping him as OC.

 

[adambr2]

If we move on from MLF, I don't see much point in keeping him as OC.

Yeah, and the hierarchy just doesn’t work like that in the NFL. This just never happens this way. Too disruptive to locker room dynamics, too weird for the former HC to be the OC and suddenly take orders from the new HC.

It’s like mom and dad get divorced, but stay living together, and now new boyfriend also moves in.

If his next gig is OC, it’ll be somewhere else. Sticking around just doesn’t work, unless it’s well in the future.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If we move on from MLF, I don't see much point in keeping him as OC.

I would disagree. If word on the street and the NFL community is correct, MLF has a brilliant offensive mind. Now some Packer fans would read that as "He has a very offensive mind, so fire him."

For me, Matt's problem isn't his ability to create a good offense, his problem has been being to overwhelmed with play calling and head coaching. The Packers would be better served if he gave up one of those hats.

 

[adambr2]

I would disagree. If word on the street and the NFL community is correct, MLF has a brilliant offensive mind. Now some Packer fans would read that as "He has a very offensive mind, so fire him."

For me, Matt's problem isn't his ability to create a good offense, his problem has been being to overwhelmed with play calling and head coaching. The Packers would be better served if he gave up one of those hats.

It’s one of those things that makes total sense on paper but just can never happen in real life.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Write the NFL and every major sport outlet. I’d recommend telling them to pull pressure rates and give them your suggestion and arguments about hiw none of it matters anymore, and it’s all just lazy accounting. I really don’t care it’s a little bit crazy talk if I’m being honest. But I’m sure they’ll be as amused as I am! They use QB pressures as one of the primary group of measurements for production at Edge and it’s inextricably linked to Sacks also. I also listed Double Teams efficiency and % and Run stop metrics. There’s more to an Edge than just a line Sack number and it’s why I said your argument is partial and incomplete. Which is why I called it a lazy argument. It doesn’t tell the whole story.

Btw. When paired with Micah, Gary was pacing 14 sacks as you alluded to earlier. While that might be small consolation now that Micah is out. It showed to be a formidable and dynamic pairing.

Would you care to venture how many non-sack tackles-for-loss Gary has this season? The answer is ZERO!

I would urge you to go to the Acme Packing Company site and read the articles they have describing Gary's disappearance since October. I'm far from the only one who's noticed.

If you want to pretend Gary is getting the job done, so be it but I'd rather see his snaps go to other guys.

As I've posted before pass rushers have the worst measures of performance. Even sacks are far from a great measuring stick. Not every sacks is the same. Certainly a 10 yard sack on third down has much more impact than a 1- yard sack on first down.

I think a much better way to measure performance is add up all the yards lost from sacks and TFL's and divide by the number of snaps.

I also think that forced incompletions would be a huge improvement. On any given pass play there are only a few outcomes: 1. Completion, 2. Dropped pass.3 Pass knocked away by a DB. 4. Interception 5. Throw away 6. Forced incomplete.

Any time the QB can't follow through on his delivery or is knocked off his throwing base by the pass rusher should count as a forced incomplete

I've seen too many QB's scramble for a first down or step into the pocket, or throw a quick check down to know 'pressures' frequently don't lead to success.

While pressures are better than nothing, that's not saying much.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It’s one of those things that makes total sense on paper but just can never happen in real life.

I don't think it will happen, that is Matt handing the HC hat off and staying as OC. I just merely said that I would be fine with it. Nor do I see Matt voluntarily giving up the OC hat and just sticking around as the HC.

 

[DABIGZ]

Statistically speaking Rashan Gary is getting paid FAR better than "top 25%" for what it's worth. Looking at the salaries paid to EDGE players in the league, his AAV of ~24m is not just top 25%...it's more like top 5%. Even if you remove the absolute bottom of the barrel, guys on vet minimums or practice squadders or whatnot he's still in the 94th percentile for EDGE salaries.

OTC does an interesting "player valuation" metric that basically compares their "performance value" with their contract value. Of course you ideally want a player who is either getting paid roughly commensurate to the value they bring, or better yet providing more value than they're being compensated for. Gary unfortunately finds himself on the wrong side of that equation. Now to be fair they have assigned a season-long valuation of roughly 18m, which is still quite handsome. But that's also been buoyed by some big performances vs Detroit (week 1), Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. Those weeks all came in above his ~24m AAV, but every other week of the season has graded out below it... and since week 9 he's been given a valuation of less than 10m for every remaining week of the season.

I am not really sure how it got to this point in the "Fire LaFleur" thread though lol.

Thanks @Magooch. Worded it better than I could've. As for how we got here? LOL I think at points stuff gets rehashed and brought up elsewhere.

 

[Magooch]

I don't think it will happen, that is Matt handing the HC hat off and staying as OC. I just merely said that I would be fine with it. Nor do I see Matt voluntarily giving up the OC hat and just sticking around as the HC.

This is kind of what I was getting at. It's just hard for me to see a good "Goldilocks solution" where we can both A.) Keep Matt and B.) minimize his weaknesses AND C.) Maximize his strengths

For instance, I would say Matt has shown himself to be able to "craft" and install/implement an extremely efficient offense. Even in what appears to be down periods our per-play efficiency is amongst the league's elite (but has also been amongst the league leaders in "explosive plays," too). In my estimation he is amongst the very best in the league when it comes to "game script".
In the right circumstances I think we have seen that he can be versatile in approach too. Sometimes that is with an extremely patient run game and protection schemes that open things up for deep shots. Other times it's playing more tempo and more RPO to neutralize the opposing defense's front.

But when I look at weaknesses... I think a lot of times LaFleur regresses in key situations to being conservative to a fault. He wants to play it safe, low-risk, and close out games with his "system" and solid defense. I think sometimes he wants to push the offense in a way that he might not necessarily have the personnel for. It's like in principle he wants to be able to play aggressive QB-driven football, but when push comes to shove, under pressure in practice he reverts to playing conservative, "system-driven" football that takes the game out of his QB's hands. And so there is this weird identity confusion that comes out at times.

And so I'm just not sure the best way to minimize that. At bare minimum it seems like we need a much stronger hand as assistant head coach. Someone who can help manage in-game pressure situations and push LaFleur to not revert to playing scared. We also seem to have a serious discipline issue that tends to crop up at the worst moments. Not really sure the best way to mitigate that either.

 

[Magooch]

I also meant to add, while I am not dead-set on firing LaFleur by any means, it's very, very hard for me to get on board with committing long term to both him AND Gute.

I've gone back and forth with who deserves more "blame" but at the end of the day I'm simply not willing to say that Gute is a championship-caliber executive and LaFleur is a championship-caliber coach and we simply haven't been lucky enough or have had too many injuries or the stars and planets just didn't line up just right yet.

At the end of the day that's not me saying Fire LaFleur or Fire Gute but it's saying that at some point you have to be willing to hold someone to account for a grand total of three playoff victories in the last 8 seasons (Gute 2018/Lafleur 2019). Honestly, there's a part of me that says I'm willing to fall on either side of that.

I could see an argument that LaFleur has done the most with what's been made available to him and he's just been limited by the roster he's been provided. Maybe you point to certain bad contracts, a lack of "first round production" from your first round picks, a lack of depth to sustain the season, etc.
And I could see an argument that Gute has provided the coach with a "championship caliber" roster but that LaFleur has simply mismanaged it. The car is fine but the driver isn't.

There is a case to be made for both angles. But I just don't think that I can stomach taking an approach that effectively says, "if we keep going with the Gute+LaFleur combination, things are going to be radically different in their 8th year of working together than it was in the first 7 years together!"

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This is kind of what I was getting at. It's just hard for me to see a good "Goldilocks solution" where we can both A.) Keep Matt and B.) minimize his weaknesses AND C.) Maximize his strengths

For instance, I would say Matt has shown himself to be able to "craft" and install/implement an extremely efficient offense. Even in what appears to be down periods our per-play efficiency is amongst the league's elite (but has also been amongst the league leaders in "explosive plays," too). In my estimation he is amongst the very best in the league when it comes to "game script".
In the right circumstances I think we have seen that he can be versatile in approach too. Sometimes that is with an extremely patient run game and protection schemes that open things up for deep shots. Other times it's playing more tempo and more RPO to neutralize the opposing defense's front.

But when I look at weaknesses... I think a lot of times LaFleur regresses in key situations to being conservative to a fault. He wants to play it safe, low-risk, and close out games with his "system" and solid defense. I think sometimes he wants to push the offense in a way that he might not necessarily have the personnel for. It's like in principle he wants to be able to play aggressive QB-driven football, but when push comes to shove, under pressure in practice he reverts to playing conservative, "system-driven" football that takes the game out of his QB's hands. And so there is this weird identity confusion that comes out at times.

And so I'm just not sure the best way to minimize that. At bare minimum it seems like we need a much stronger hand as assistant head coach. Someone who can help manage in-game pressure situations and push LaFleur to not revert to playing scared. We also seem to have a serious discipline issue that tends to crop up at the worst moments. Not really sure the best way to mitigate that either.

Well said and the post after.

I am not a fan of a HC being a coordinator. Now I know that some do it and are successful, but in todays fast past, extremely technologically paced game, I would prefer my coordinators exactly in the position that Hafley is in, in a box, with his defensive coaches. I used to like having coordinators on the sidelines, getting together and being with his players. However, with instant video access, electronic playbooks, data bases, etc.....basically, analytics available right there, I think its more efficient for both the OC and DC to up in a box with their coaches.

The HC, he should be there on the sidelines, really connected to the game and his players. Matt trying to do both is a negative for me. I don't think he manages the play clock well, nor his timeouts. I also think that he gets overwhelmed by what is happening on the field, that it prevents him from making better in game adjustments. Yes, he no doubt has coaches up in the booth doing a lot of those things, but ultimately that information has to be relayed to Matt, while he is doing other things.

When Matt's time is up in Green Bay, I hope the Packers decide to only give coaches 1 hat, 1 job, and that doesn't include being a HC and a coordinator.

 

[Scotland Yard]

Well said and the post after.

I am not a fan of a HC being a coordinator. Now I know that some do it and are successful, but in todays fast past, extremely technologically paced game, I would prefer my coordinators exactly in the position that Hafley is in, in a box, with his defensive coaches. I used to like having coordinators on the sidelines, getting together and being with his players. However, with instant video access, electronic playbooks, data bases, etc.....basically, analytics available right there, I think its more efficient for both the OC and DC to up in a box with their coaches.

The HC, he should be there on the sidelines, really connected to the game and his players. Matt trying to do both is a negative for me. I don't think he manages the play clock well, nor his timeouts. I also think that he gets overwhelmed by what is happening on the field, that it prevents him from making better in game adjustments. Yes, he no doubt has coaches up in the booth doing a lot of those things, but ultimately that information has to be relayed to Matt, while he is doing other things.

When Matt's time is up in Green Bay, I hope the Packers decide to only give coaches 1 hat, 1 job, and that doesn't include being a HC and a coordinator.

They should eliminate all technology for players and coaches in game. No coordinators in the booth. No computers for coaches or players on the sideline. No access to analytics consultants during the game. No comms at all for coaches/players on the field of play to anyone not on the field. No headset/earpieces for coaches or players.

Make it a sports competition, as it once was, and like UFC is now. It has become too much a technology/analytics competition, which is boring.

 

[Firethorn1001]

Adam Schefter: Packers’ priority is to extend Matt LaFleur, Brian Gutekunst

Money, not confidence in Matt LaFleur, is the issues with the Packers’ extension conversations with LaFleur, per ESPN’s Adam Schefter.

www.acmepackingcompany.com

Man that was a depressing read. Not because of the keep/don't keep MLF angle, but just the overall viewpoint reminder of the Packers with coaching staff and how they operate.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

They should eliminate all technology for players and coaches in game. No coordinators in the booth. No computers for coaches or players on the sideline. No access to analytics consultants during the game. No comms at all for coaches/players on the field of play to anyone not on the field. No headset/earpieces for coaches or players.

Make it a sports competition, as it once was, and like UFC is now. It has become too much a technology/analytics competition, which is boring.

While I am just one fan, I wouldn't be in favor of doing that. I think technology has improved the quality of the game and the viewing experience. That is a bell that you won't ever be able to unring. You would probably have an easier time removing internet access for all non-adults.


UFC? What is that?

 

[rdawsoniii]

Adam Schefter: Packers’ priority is to extend Matt LaFleur, Brian Gutekunst

Money, not confidence in Matt LaFleur, is the issues with the Packers’ extension conversations with LaFleur, per ESPN’s Adam Schefter.

www.acmepackingcompany.com

Man that was a depressing read. Not because of the keep/don't keep MLF angle, but just the overall viewpoint reminder of the Packers with coaching staff and how they operate.

It doesn’t appear that winning championships is a priority.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It doesn’t appear that winning championships is a priority.

The NFL is ALL about the money. Full stop, period.

 

[tynimiller]

It doesn’t appear that winning championships is a priority.

Yup, Green Bay and the front office, coaches and players actually desire to not win - it is a full on intentional thing they have. Matter of fact, Ed Policy just yesterday called MLF and Gute in and chewed their butts out over even making the playoffs. The current regime is likely in very hot water for yet again making the playoffs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Ed Policy just yesterday called MLF and Gute in and chewed their butts out over even making the playoffs.

I heard that Jerry Jones called MLF and Gute after that. He congratulated them on making the playoffs. He then wished them the best of luck in the Super Bowl, because the Cowboys don't want to improve their team with a better than #32 pick in the draft.

 

[pacmaniac]

Adam Schefter: Packers’ priority is to extend Matt LaFleur, Brian Gutekunst

Money, not confidence in Matt LaFleur, is the issues with the Packers’ extension conversations with LaFleur, per ESPN’s Adam Schefter.

www.acmepackingcompany.com

Man that was a depressing read. Not because of the keep/don't keep MLF angle, but just the overall viewpoint reminder of the Packers with coaching staff and how they operate.

And also Derrick Ansley or DeMarcus Covington will probably be the new DC if Hafley leaves.

 

[adambr2]

Adam Schefter: Packers’ priority is to extend Matt LaFleur, Brian Gutekunst

Money, not confidence in Matt LaFleur, is the issues with the Packers’ extension conversations with LaFleur, per ESPN’s Adam Schefter.

www.acmepackingcompany.com

Man that was a depressing read. Not because of the keep/don't keep MLF angle, but just the overall viewpoint reminder of the Packers with coaching staff and how they operate.

It’s not that I feel either are terrible at their job but I think they are average and are always just going to be average.

Which makes me feel like as long as we can get to the playoffs most years we will pat ourselves on the back and that’s depressing to me.

It’s not the mindset I thought we had going on when we traded for Parsons.

 

[Magooch]

I had this in a draft from about a week or two ago and forgot to post it....might as well now just for fun

Someone was asking (somewhat facetiously I think, but you know how it goes) how much of a chance we should give the "new guy" before firing him in the event that we move on from LaFleur.

So I thought it would be prudent to look back at all the other teams in the league over the last few years and see how long of a "chance" they are typically giving their coaches to reach a Super Bowl (not necessarily WIN it, just make it there...)

So, dating back to 2019 when we made Matt LaFleur our coach, here's how it looks for other teams. It's listed by how long a coach went without a Super Bowl appearance before being fired/released/resigned/etc. I tried to filter out interim coaches, and did note that some of these guys started their time with a given team prior to 2019, so that's noted as well. Coaches with an asterisk* are currently the coach of that team so that number could potentially stay the same or increase for some.

Arizona Cardinals
Kliff Kingsbury - 4 years without Super Bowl
Jonathan Gannon - 3 years

Atlanta Falcons
Dan Quinn - 6 years (2015-2020)
Raheem Morris - 1 year (interim)
Arthur Smith - 3 years
Raheem Morris - 1 year

Baltimore Ravens
John Harbaugh (2008) - won Super Bowl in 5th year

Buffalo Bills
Sean McDermott - 8 years without Super Bowl*

Carolina Panthers
Ron Rivera (2011-2019) - Super Bowl appearance in 5th year
Perry Fewell - 1 year
Matt Rhule - 3 years
Steve Wilks - 1 year
Frank ***** - 1 year
Chris Tabor - 1 year
Dave Canales - 2 years*

Chicago Bears
Matt Nagy - 4 years
Matt Eberflus - 3 years
Ben Johnson - 1 year*

Cincinnati Bengals
Zac Taylor - Super Bowl appearance in 3rd year

Cleveland Browns
Freddie Kitchens - 1 year
Kevin Stefanski - 6 years

Dallas Cowboys
Jason Garrett (2010-2019) - 10 years
Mike McCarthy - 5 years
Brian Schottenheimer - 1 year

Denver Broncos
Vic Fangio - 3 years
Nathaniel Hackett - 1 year
Sean Payton - 3 years*

Detroit Lions
Matt Patricia (2018) - 3 years
Dan Campbell - 5 years*

Green Bay Packers
Matt LaFleur - 7 years*

Houston Texans
Bill O'Brien (2014-2020) - 7 years
David Culley - 1 year
Lovie Smith - 1 year
DeMeco Ryans - 3 years*

Indianapolis Colts
Frank ***** (2018) - 5 years (fired midway through year 5)
Shane Steichen - 3 years*

Jacksonville Jaguars
Doug Marrone (2016) - 5 years
Urban Meyer - 1 year
Doug Pederson - 3 years
Liam Coen - 1 year*

Kansas City Chiefs
Andy Reid (2013) - won Super Bowl in 7th season with KC

Las Vegas Raiders
Jon Gruden (2018/Oakland) - 3/4 years (resigned 5 games into year 4)
Josh McDaniels - 2 years (fired 8 games into year 2)
Antonio Pierce - 1 year (plus 9 games as interim)
Pete Carroll - 1 year

Los Angeles Chargers
Anthony Lynn (2017) - 4 years
Brandon Staley - 3 years (fired after 14 games in year 3)
Jim Harbaugh - 2 years*

Los Angeles Rams
Sean McVay (2017) - Super Bowl appearance in year 2 (win in year 5)

Miami Dolphins
Brian Flores - 3 years
Mike McDaniel - 4 years*

Minnesota Vikings
Mike Zimmer (2014) - 8 years
Kevin O'Connell - 4 years*

New England Patriots
Bill Belichick (2000)- won Super Bowl in year 2
Jerod Mayo - 1 year
Mike Vrabel - 1 year*

New Orleans Saints
Sean Payton (2006) - won Super Bowl in year 4
Dennis Allen - 3 years (fired 9 games into year 3)
Kellen Moore - 1 year*

New York Giants
Pat Shurmur (2018) - 2 years
Joe Judge - 2 years
Brian Daboll - 4 years (fired 10 games into year 4)

New York Jets
Adam Gase - 2 years
Robert Saleh - 4 years (fired 5 games into year 4)
Aaron Glenn - 1 year*

Philadelphia Eagles
Doug Pederson (2016) - won Super Bowl in year 2
Nick Sirianni - won Super Bowl in year 4*

Pittsburgh Steelers
Mike Tomlin (2007) - won Super Bowl in year 2*

San Francisco 49ers
Kyle Shanahan - Super Bowl appearance in year 3

Seattle Seahawks
Pete Carroll (2010) - won Super Bowl in year 4
Mike McDonald - 2 years*

Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Bruce Arians - won Super Bowl in year 2
Todd Bowles - 4 years*

Tennessee Titans
Mike Vrabel (2018) - 6 years
Brian Callahan - 2 years (fired 6 games into year 2)

Washington Commanders
Ron Rivera - 4 years
Dan Quinn - 2 years

Of coaches who were hired (or already in their position) at the time LaFleur was hired, there have been 13 who have appeared in a Super Bowl. On average, these coaches appeared in a Super Bowl within 4 years.

Similarly, in that time, there have been ~64 "non-interim" head coaches who have failed to appear in a Super Bowl. On average, teams are giving them about 3 seasons before moving on.

Now of course I'll be the first to tell you this sort of "average" for "non-appearers" doesn't really tell us a ton. Some of these are just garbage franchises who churn thru coaches like socks. A team who is stringing together 3 or 4 win seasons and changing over coaches every 2 years brings the average down quick but is a very different situation than a team who is constantly pushing double digit wins and/or just about always making the playoffs. But, at the same time one could also say that coaches like Harbaugh, Tomlin, McDermott, Reid, etc are the exception to the rule that serves to drive UP the average, too. In any case, by my count, LaFleur's 7 years without a Super Bowl (of course, unless he makes it this year, as we hope) is tied for the 3rd-longest Super Bowl "appearance drought" of any coach over the last 7+ years who didn't get fired/let go/etc, for whatever that's worth.

 

[adambr2]

Adam Schefter: Packers’ priority is to extend Matt LaFleur, Brian Gutekunst

Money, not confidence in Matt LaFleur, is the issues with the Packers’ extension conversations with LaFleur, per ESPN’s Adam Schefter.

www.acmepackingcompany.com

Man that was a depressing read. Not because of the keep/don't keep MLF angle, but just the overall viewpoint reminder of the Packers with coaching staff and how they operate.

That was a very long way for the Packers brass to say, “it’s more about money than winning to us.”

 

[Sanguine camper]

Yup, Green Bay and the front office, coaches and players actually desire to not win - it is a full on intentional thing they have. Matter of fact, Ed Policy just yesterday called MLF and Gute in and chewed their butts out over even making the playoffs. The current regime is likely in very hot water for yet again making the playoffs.

You just made his point. As long as they eke out a playoff spot, everything in Green Bay is fine.

While that lower bar for success is OK when the roster is mediocre, I would say the Packers have had the roster to win a championship and fallen short 4 - 6 times in the past 15 years. (2011, 2014, 2020, 2021, 2025 come up as years with squandered opportunities) The Packers have had a few holes but benefited from the good offensive lines and QB play that frequently pulls teams over the finish line.

A lot of franchises and fan bases are perfectly happy with making the playoffs. If that's the case in Green Bay as well, then we might as well swap the "Title Town" moto for "playoff town" Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.