Fire Matt LaFleur

[Firethorn1001]

Just got out of church. Is LaFleur fired yet?

If it happens, I wouldn't expect anything to happen until tomorrow.

Although, if he addresses the media today at 4, I dont expect he will be let go. Bad look to do press conferences with a coach that gets fired shortly afterwards. (Bears last year)

 

[milani]

Even Micah Parsons can't help overcome MLF's ineptitude. Leadership/team failures cost numerous games, e.g. Cleveland, Carolina, Philly, & 2 Bear's. Should've been 13-4-1 heading into a bye week, but MLF just wouldn't have it.

No one expects a 17-0 team but we certainly should have won more than 9 games.

 

[MNCheesehead]

Really don't post on the forum but am a frequent reader. Matt LaFleur has some major flaws that will never change regardless of the situation. His loyalty to his assistant coaches may be number one. i get that there will always be bumps along the way and things will always be under the microscope...but he is unwilling to make the changes necessary when a major problem area on the team is not getting fixed...ala hanging on to too our former DC TOO long, or the current mess at special teams. when is he going to break the ties with Bisachia...every loss this year and all our previous playoff blunders..its always with that unit. Watching a podcast earlier this season with Andy Hermon with Justice as guest, Justice pointed that the Packers just don't really prioritize special teams ..ever under this command ,and hence we will always be at the bottom of the standings. and I think that Matt is just TOO nice of a coach. Show some cahoneys once in a while..... not a slap on the wrist and your all good. It seems to me hi teams lack of killer instinct is a direct reflection of his personality. Just my two cents.

 

[adambr2]

The thing is, if you keep Lafleur, everyone knows his seat is scorching hot next year.

You can’t go into a long-term contract like that.

Maybe they go with the lame duck approach. I really don’t know. I have to think that’s his only way to stay.

 

[Firethorn1001]

If he is back, I hope he is forced to give up play calling. The one thing I literally hated him doing was turning his back to the play, going off into a corner to look at his play sheet/tablet and make notes. Maybe I'm just not hyper focused on other head coaches, but I just don't recall seeing this happened. And it happened again yesterday.

 

[Firethorn1001]

The thing is, if you keep Lafleur, everyone knows his seat is scorching hot next year.

Too much stress on a coach IMHO. They either need to extend or release. I've seen suggestions of a 1 year extension, but that is no different than 1 year remaining really.

 

[Zartan]

Too much stress on a coach IMHO. They either need to extend or release. I've seen suggestions of a 1 year extension, but that is no different than 1 year remaining really.

Maybe offer him a long term extension on the promise he fires OC and ST Cord and gives up playcalling duties or something.

 

[Pkrjones]

Maybe offer him a long term extension on the promise he fires OC and ST Cord and gives up playcalling duties or something.

Why? Same 2nd half melt downs, poor time out/challenge decisions and lack of killer instincts. MLF offers nothing more than we've already seen, and that's wasting onfield talent and lack of post season success.

 

[shockerx]

Why? Same 2nd half melt downs, poor time out/challenge decisions and lack of killer instincts. MLF offers nothing more than we've already seen, and that's wasting onfield talent and lack of post season success.

And they lack the ability to run the ball when they need to... 2H

 

[Magooch]

I just don't really know what path back there could be for him at this point.

Having him on a lame-duck contract would be a huge distraction right now. But I don't see how you could possibly look at this season - in particular how it ended - and not only commit to handing him a long-term extension AND a huge pay-raise (his rumored demands of 12-15m would represent a 50-87.5% pay raise)

I also have to wonder how Policy will choose to approach the situation with Gute. Not even necessarily with regards to firing/extending him, but the actual hierarchy/structure. Some of you may recall that Murphy shifted from a more "traditional" structure and made it so the HC and GM both report directly to the president. I wonder if Policy won't look to shift back to that more traditional structure where the HC first reports to the GM and then the GM to the president. In this way the decision to continue with LaFleur (or not) may be shifted to Gute (or whoever it is).

In this way I could MAYBE see a situation where you extend and "promote" Gute and leave Matt lame-duck and basically put the onus on Gute to either work out an extension or find a new HC in the coming year but that seems kind of pointless to me.

I've also noted how Harbaugh's demands are reportedly pretty steep - for instance, he reportedly wants a huge salary and to be able to pick his own GM and coordinators - but if we are not sold on Gute, Hafley gets a HC gig, and are moving on from Matt, then we are losing our OC, DC, and ST coordinator anyways, so in that sense if you're convinced Harbaugh is the guy it might not be the worst thing in the world to allow him to make those appointments, given that you're needing to fill those spots anyways

 

[Magooch]

Maybe offer him a long term extension on the promise he fires OC and ST Cord and gives up playcalling duties or something.

I've thought this before but in some ways I think this basically neuters a number of Matt's biggest strengths. In principle I think he is a good play caller, but situationally he stinks. He can't manage offensive play calling AND head coach decision-making in the moment.

And regarding our OC, maybe I'm off base but I've consistently had a sense that Stenavich is basically OC in name only - he's an OL coach that we really value and didn't want to lose, so we promoted him to OC. But the offensive "system" is still LaFleur's, and LaFleur does the offensive play calling, so I'm not really sure what part of the OC role Stenavich is even doing in the first place.

But anyhow, I said it a few days ago - the idea of stripping Matt of the offense and putting in a new OC and play caller is fine and all, but at that point...what does Matt offer above others at that point? His biggest strength is his approach to offense. All of his other "head coach qualities" are wholly unremarkable.

 

[DoURant]

Well everyone, I've let this loss ruin too much of the remainder of my weekend, which I try not to do. On to Free Agency and the NFL Draft, not to mention hopefully a new HC. Thanks for all the season discussion, I probably won't post much for awhile, unless something big happens. Until next time, enjoy the off season, and as always..... Go Pack Go!!

 

[JoePack]

Having trouble understanding why some say mlf is an excellent "OC" play-caller. Plenty of 2nd 1/2's where play-calling was mediocre to down-right poor.
If he stays, nothing will change other than it's quite possible several top players may decide to go elsewhere and I wouldn't blame them.

 

[Magooch]

I'm trying to think of a real-world comparison.
The Packers are valued at something like 7 billion dollars.
If we try and draw a comparison to a large non-football corporation, roughly speaking you'd have where the head coach is the equivalent of the COO. He's responsible for executing the "strategy" and objectives set by the CEO and ownership/board, he's accountable for organizational outcomes, he's the person who is chiefly in control of the "product," he's responsible for "Talent deployment," and so on.

So with that in mind - can you imagine a $7 billion corporation offering a new long-term contract with pay raise given the circumstances?

In the event of an extension there are only two possible ultimate outcomes here:

1. The team recognizes that Matt has not lived up to expectations but is choosing to continue with him anyways. Either they believe that he will eventually get there, or they are afraid the next guy will be worse, or some combination of both.

2. The team is satisfied with our performance under LaFleur and are happy to continue. He has met his "performance standards" and rightly earned an extension (in short: we admit that we are satisfied with being a "Fringe" or "one and done" playoff team and nothing more)

But I think the reality is that in the real world this type of "COO" would've been LONG GONE by now.

 

[scooter_1954]

I'm trying to think of a real-world comparison.
The Packers are valued at something like 7 billion dollars.
If we try and draw a comparison to a large non-football corporation, roughly speaking you'd have where the head coach is the equivalent of the COO. He's responsible for executing the "strategy" and objectives set by the CEO and ownership/board, he's accountable for organizational outcomes, he's the person who is chiefly in control of the "product," he's responsible for "Talent deployment," and so on.

So with that in mind - can you imagine a $7 billion corporation offering a new long-term contract with pay raise given the circumstances?

In the event of an extension there are only two possible ultimate outcomes here:

1. The team recognizes that Matt has not lived up to expectations but is choosing to continue with him anyways. Either they believe that he will eventually get there, or they are afraid the next guy will be worse, or some combination of both.

2. The team is satisfied with our performance under LaFleur and are happy to continue. He has met his "performance standards" and rightly earned an extension (in short: we admit that we are satisfied with being a "Fringe" or "one and done" playoff team and nothing more)

But I think the reality is that in the real world this type of "COO" would've been LONG GONE by now.

Hard to argue against that assessment!

 

[Sanguine camper]

Having trouble understanding why some say mlf is an excellent "OC" play-caller. Plenty of 2nd 1/2's where play-calling was mediocre to down-right poor.
If he stays, nothing will change other than it's quite possible several top players may decide to go elsewhere and I wouldn't blame them.

I would agree MLF has his periods where his play calling is timid and it kills the team's momentum. He also has periods where his play calling is crafty. Where he excels is in designing plays, especially the passing game. There seem to be a notable number of times where Packer receivers are wide open.

MLF is poor at the other aspects of being a HC so at this point, its a moot point if he's really good at some things. He just fails too often.

 

[JoePack]

Let's have a poll of all the owners to decide the hc position.

 

[AGreen2AJones]

Let's have a poll of all the owners to decide the hc position.

It's why it's important who is elected to the board. Some of them are just blowhards

 

[OldSchool101]

No one expects a 17-0 team but we certainly should have won more than 9 games.

We did! 9 1/2

Pretty pathetic stretch Hobble into a stumble and faceplant

 

[OldSchool101]

I do know that the MLF led Packers are just 1 of 4 teams to enter postseason on a 0-4 slide. What I don’t know is have the Packers ever finished 0-5 in their 100+ year history. It seems improbable

 

[Scotland Yard]

MLF displayed a total lack of composure when McAnus missed that FG near the end. He was prancing around like Barney Fife or Dagwood Bumstead. It killed any chance of the team rallying.

McCarthy at least mostly kept his composure, he'd have just stood there like a statue ala Tom Landry.

Holmgren would have probably stared down McAnus so hard superman lasers would have shot out his eyes and disintegrated McAnus before he got back to the sideline.

IMO, it sums up all of the meltdowns in the regular & post seasons of MLF. Total panic if things aren't going as planned.

Time to swing for the fences. Get Cignetti or Harbaugh and a seasoned GM that doesn't rush to the altar with $5mil/yr. contracts for bums like McAnus.

 

[Half Empty]

It's why it's important who is elected to the board. Some of them are just blowhards

Owners/board members = different animal

 

[Firethorn1001]

He was prancing around like Barney Fife or Dagwood Bumstead.

Sorry, I'm chuckling at this given what I perceive as the age group of this forum

If you posted that on Reddit :

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

This forum :

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Wraith09]

I know this is going to be a controversial statement to some, but — if MLF had the same playoff system as his predecessors (6 playoff teams instead of 7), he would currently be in line to miss the playoffs for the 4th straight season.

It’s going to be very interesting if this team goes one and done again as a 7 seed to see if he’s going into 2026 as a lame duck.

Gute had a brutal 2025. Prior to that I would have said he seemed to be reasonably above average but those swings and misses on Hobbs and Banks were major blows — as was letting Stokes walk for cheap.

I don’t see how he looks like an extension candidate, currently.

I think they should stop rationalizing their failures and accept that Gute and MLF are not good enough. Start over. They thought they were clever drafting Love. He’s finished his sixth year. Are you happy with the teams performance? Caleb Williams is in his second year and Ben Johnson his first year. Who’s advancing in the playoffs. I’ve seen players let go for making one mistake. These GMs and coaches keep failing year after year and they still have jobs. Well paying jobs. Good money after bad results. Year after year.

 

[Wraith09]

MLF has had 7 seasons to compete for a championship. His teams have been largely embarrassing in the playoffs.

Most successful coaches have won or at least gone to the Super Bowl by year 7. If the goal is to win a championship, then MLF isn't getting the job done. If the goal is to be a little bit better than average, then yeah, he's your man.

This topic comes up periodically. What is success in the NFL? I take my guidance from Vince Limbardi. He said the goal of every season Is to win a championship.

I think MLF is a really good offensive coordinator but a rather poor head coach.

Who’s coaching these collapses after the Packers get a lead. This has happened too many times. Conservative and passive strategies as if the game is already won. A team has to be aggressive to the end and the coaches and players both seem to relax when the team has a lead. Ed Policy has progressed through the organization so I don’t know if he’ll have the will to make the fundamental changes I think need to be made. The Packers seem to be about building an organization that people want to work for, but not an organization that wants to compete and win championships. They don’t have the talent in the building. If they had, they would have been in the Super Bowl after the 2010 season.