Fire Matt LaFleur

[Snoops]

Is that you in drag?

LMAOOO

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

lol good stuff man!!! My buddy have been talking years about this topic lmao

As have I.

I know a lot of Packer fans think making a change, by firing Matt, is the only way to improve the team. I would ask those fans for the name of the HC that would improve the Packers and also ask them "Are you sure they will improve the team?" I could see a situation where bringing in Harbaugh as HC, McDaniels as OC and and new DC (if Hafley leaves) could improve the team. However, I can see where it could fail as well.

I am on the fence. I think Matt could be an excellent HC, but if he stays, he needs to let someone outside of the organization evaluate his job and allow that person to implement necessary changes that could improve his performance. I am available for veteran minimum, NFL veteran that is.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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

Mind you she is on the Board of Directors. Katherine Burgess Run wild with the comments lmaoooo

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

 

[Snoops]

As have I.

I know a lot of Packer fans think making a change, by firing Matt, is the only way to improve the team. I would ask those fans for the name of the HC that would improve the Packers and also ask them "Are you sure they will improve the team?" I could see a situation where bringing in Harbaugh as HC, McDaniels as OC and and new DC (if Hafley leaves) could improve the team. However, I can see where it could fail as well.

I am on the fence. I think Matt could be an excellent HC, but if he stays, he needs to let someone outside of the organization evaluate his job and allow that person to implement necessary changes that could improve his performance. I am available for veteran minimum, NFL veteran that is.

In all honesty their isn’t a better coach available I don’t want Harbaugh I think lafleur has to make changes to the staff get better and then if he sucks then they bite the bullet and fire him. They have plenty of money just don’t drag it out

 

[PackersFan12345]

I know it probably means absolutely nothing, but I noticed in MLFs presser today he didn’t wear any team gear. Hopefully that’s indicative of things to come.

He could wear a dress and it would not mean ****

 

[adambr2]

He could wear a dress and it would not mean ****

He may as well do exactly that every time he trots out to midfield to shake Ben Johnson’s hand.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

*******************BREAKING NEWS*************************

Despite all the unhappy fans in Green Bay, the Packer organization is making record profits off of their supposed mediocrity. Fans will be happy to know that
profits are predicted to continue to soar, no matter who is coaching the Packers.

Packer shareholders can rest assured, their investments are safe!

***********************************************************

 

[Magooch]

The way I see it there are only a few possible outcomes from here:

1. No extension; allow Matt to continue with his existing contract. We know this is not what Policy wants, and at this point it's effectively a vote of no-confidence.

2. No long-term extension; agree to a short-term "prove it" type contract. Again, this is basically a vote of no-confidence. You also have to question if Matt would want to take such a deal. Even if we won't offer a long-term contract, someone else probably will.
I myself had spitballed around the idea of trying to find some sort of "incentive-based" deal (for example, a 1-2 year deal that automatically triggers an additional 2-3 years if certain performance markers are met), but again I don't know if Matt would have much incentive to sign that. If we say "we'll give you a 2 year deal that can add an extra 2 years if you make a deeper postseason run" and Atlanta (or whoever) says "We'll give you a 5 year deal today," would he take ours?

3. Trade. If LaFleur is as well-regarded around the league as claimed, or "he would have 5 job offers the day he got fired" then there should certainly be some degree of trade interest. Given the opportunity to try and exercise some control over his destination and get some compensation in return, this would be a no-brainer vs an outright firing. Of course, Matt also would need to consent to the deal and agree to a long-term contract with the destination team.

4. Strike a long-term extension. I've voiced my concerns with this, but unfortunately/ironically short of clearing house it is probably the best way to get a new and effective crop of assistant coaches brought in. Our assistant staff has very little "outside experience" and of those who do, the majority will likely be gone. If we are wanting to bring in any decent assistant coaches, they are not going to want to sign on when the head coach has just a year or two left on his contract (understanding that the new head coach may very well want to bring in his own staff).

 

[rmontro]

*******************BREAKING NEWS*************************

Despite all the unhappy fans in Green Bay, the Packer organization is making record profits off of their supposed mediocrity. Fans will be happy to know that
profits are predicted to continue to soar, no matter who is coaching the Packers.

Packer shareholders can rest assured, their investments are safe!

***********************************************************

Woo hoo! Don't have to worry about that 401k now!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In all honesty their isn’t a better coach available I don’t want Harbaugh I think lafleur has to make changes to the staff get better and then if he sucks then they bite the bullet and fire him. They have plenty of money just don’t drag it out

For me it isn't just making changes to the staff, it is making changes to how Matt manages his own duties. He may have a great offensive mind, but he isn't a good in game OC and HC. I think he recognized that a few years ago and he thought by giving Bisaccia another hat "assistant HC", it would help. In reality, it hurt their special teams and has made Matt look more confused in pressure situations.

Bisaccia needs to go and Matt needs to hand the playsheet off to someone else.

 

[Zartan]

If he gets an extension I dont think hes surviving the next 2 seasons or so. This thing has the chance to crumble fast and Policy would be looking like an idiot for giving MLF an extension.

 

[Magooch]

The way I see it there are only a few possible outcomes from here:

1. No extension; allow Matt to continue with his existing contract. We know this is not what Policy wants, and at this point it's effectively a vote of no-confidence.

2. No long-term extension; agree to a short-term "prove it" type contract. Again, this is basically a vote of no-confidence. You also have to question if Matt would want to take such a deal. Even if we won't offer a long-term contract, someone else probably will.
I myself had spitballed around the idea of trying to find some sort of "incentive-based" deal (for example, a 1-2 year deal that automatically triggers an additional 2-3 years if certain performance markers are met), but again I don't know if Matt would have much incentive to sign that. If we say "we'll give you a 2 year deal that can add an extra 2 years if you make a deeper postseason run" and Atlanta (or whoever) says "We'll give you a 5 year deal today," would he take ours?

3. Trade. If LaFleur is as well-regarded around the league as claimed, or "he would have 5 job offers the day he got fired" then there should certainly be some degree of trade interest. Given the opportunity to try and exercise some control over his destination and get some compensation in return, this would be a no-brainer vs an outright firing. Of course, Matt also would need to consent to the deal and agree to a long-term contract with the destination team.

4. Strike a long-term extension. I've voiced my concerns with this, but unfortunately/ironically short of clearing house it is probably the best way to get a new and effective crop of assistant coaches brought in. Our assistant staff has very little "outside experience" and of those who do, the majority will likely be gone. If we are wanting to bring in any decent assistant coaches, they are not going to want to sign on when the head coach has just a year or two left on his contract (understanding that the new head coach may very well want to bring in his own staff).

And for better or worse, it seems like the team is most likely leaning towards #4.

My preferences/stipulations for that to be the case:

1. Organizational hierarchy is restructured so that head coach reports direct to GM
2. Bisaccia is fired immediately
3. Provides clarity on the role of Stenavich as OC. If Matt is installing the offensive structure and calling the plays, what is the OC doing?
4. Hiring of additional analytics, support, and "game management" staff. Make one of your main focuses to "pre-script" late game situations and lean MUCH heavier on analytics and predefined scenario-scripts rather than emotional or "gut" calls

As it stands, it seems like we effectively have two core responsibilities that LaFleur is expected to fill.
First and foremost arguably is that of the offensive "architect". He is the guy who designs our offensive system, crafts our game planning week to week, sets the script, identifies the matchups to exploit, etc.
Second is that of "game manager" - where he is responsible for clock management, risk decisions (aggressive vs conservative), situational football, 4th down decisions, etc.
We tend to assume that both of these should be handled by one person but the reality is that IMO LaFleur excels at "offensive architect" but struggles mightily with "game manager". So IMO the way forward has to involve separating these two roles.

This was probably in large part the idea with Bisaccia, but either a.) He is inept; b.) his input is not being listened to; or c.) some combination of both - and it obviously has not worked. Our "game management" did not improve and our special teams got worse in making this transition. That has to be a huge topic to be addressed if we are to see any improvement going forward.

 

[OldSchool101]

If he gets an extension I dont think hes surviving the next 2 seasons or so. This thing has the chance to crumble fast and Policy would be looking like an idiot for giving MLF an extension.

I think I know the answer but I’ll ask anyways.
Would it be feasible to give Matt a shorter 1-2 extension that’s has a good proportion of the $$ tied to postseason success?

Similar to a players contract using heavy incentives etc. That was if he continues to underachieve or crumbles again we’d have reasonable sunk $

 

[rmontro]

For me it isn't just making changes to the staff, it is making changes to how Matt manages his own duties. He may have a great offensive mind, but he isn't a good in game OC and HC. I think he recognized that a few years ago and he thought by giving Bisaccia another hat "assistant HC", it would help. In reality, it hurt their special teams and has made Matt look more confused in pressure situations.

Bisaccia needs to go and Matt needs to hand the playsheet off to someone else.

I am against keeping MLF, but if they insist on retaining him, I would definitely want there to be some conditions attached. You would think the idea of getting a raise while reducing your duties would be appealing, but I doubt MLF would see it that way. It reminds me of when McCarthy tried to let someone else call the plays, it lasted like what? Two weeks? He couldn't keep his hands off it, and to be honest, it didn't seem to help anyway.

 

[OldSchool101]

I am against keeping MLF, but if they insist on retaining him, I would definitely want there to be some conditions attached. You would think the idea of getting a raise while reducing your duties would be appealing, but I doubt MLF would see it that way. It reminds me of when McCarthy tried to let someone else call the plays, it lasted like what? Two weeks? He couldn't keep his hands off it, and to be honest, it didn't seem to help anyway.

Or is there a way Matt could just be a figurehead HC. He just a face of the team but has zero responsibility or input? lol

 

[Sanguine camper]

0

Then they bamboozle us with a piece of paper saying we are owners and the only right we have is to vote for the board of directors and they are all rich business owners that know nothing about football lmaooooo
If we are “owners” they should have a fan in the board of directors. We should start a movement until they open up a seat. Show they really care instead of taking advantage of us fans. Which is the truth in the matter it’s all a scam and they play off it lol
I will volunteer for the position.
I’ll Probly get booted out after a few days because they won’t like what i say so I’ll need a running mate to take my spot right after

As have I.

I know a lot of Packer fans think making a change, by firing Matt, is the only way to improve the team. I would ask those fans for the name of the HC that would improve the Packers and also ask them "Are you sure they will improve the team?" I could see a situation where bringing in Harbaugh as HC, McDaniels as OC and and new DC (if Hafley leaves) could improve the team. However, I can see where it could fail as well.

I am on the fence. I think Matt could be an excellent HC, but if he stays, he needs to let someone outside of the organization evaluate his job and allow that person to implement necessary changes that could improve his performance. I am available for veteran minimum, NFL veteran that is.

Really hard to know the extent of better replacements until you do a search and interview people. There could be some excellent candidates that are current coordinators that the typical fan has no way of knowing if they're good.

Is it a risk to bring in somebody new? Sure is but we know what we have with MLF and that's collapsing in the 4th quarter and playing the worst in big games.

 

[Magooch]

Moreover... (cuz now you've got me thinking)

- Offensive structuring and playcalling (at least in principle) is arguably Matt's most elite skill, his biggest asset he brings to the table
- "Structurally" and in early game situations the offense performs fine. By this I mean that there is not some sort of inherent flaw with LaFleur's overall system or gameplan that makes it untenable for a full game. The issues are decision based rather than systemic
- Offense struggles situationally and in particular late-game rather than just a wholesale offensive issue start to finish

And so with that in mind I am not entirely sure that taking playcalling away is the best way forward.
In doing so you would:
- remove what is arguably Matt's greatest asset/strength
- possibly create an "identity" issue (where it is Matt's "system" but someone else executing it)
- does not really solve the late game, aggressive vs conservative, clock management issues alone

For me, the better solution is to try and figure out a way to reduce the "non-offense" demands/pressures on LaFleur, particularly in crucial moments. I would only ask to give up playcalling if: a.) the late-game offensive *structure* itself becomes an issue (rather than just decision-making, the system and offensive sequence itself becomes problematic) or b.) LaFleur refuses to listen to advisors, cannot stick with pre-scripted/rehearsed decisions (i.e. if we practice/script in such a way that says "if it's this score, this down and distance, and this time, we're going for it and LaFleur's "gut" says to punt/take FG, or vice versa - this is why we lean more on analytics and game scripting).

I would then look to install an assistant head coach of some sort (you can apply whatever title you want) who has primary responsibility over clock management, timeout strategy, "risk calculation" scenarios (4th down punt/fg/go/etc, PAT vs 2pt), end of half situations, and the like. This is your "point man" for these decisions and while the coach can retain final "veto" on it, it should be an expectation that you trust your support staff and "script" first and foremost.

As mentioned a big focus of this involves setting forth a much more stringent pre-defined framework for situational decision making. Throughout the week leading into games you should be "scripting" out situations like 4th down scenarios based on field position/score/time, various two minute drill scenarios (i.e. if we start at this distance and have # time outs left and ## on the clock, we are aggressive but if it's this distance/time/TOL then we play conservative and take it to HT, etc), and a variety of basic "IF 'x' happens THEN we will do 'y' here" and so on. Again the coach has your "veto" power but the idea is that you take away as much of this decision-making as possible - it's already been made. Less situations where we find Matt having to rely on his gut feeling, snap decisions or whatever and more where he can say "We already rehearsed this and for this down/distance/score/game state, here is what we decided we'd do earlier this week".

Two great examples of this that come to mind are Andy Reid earlier in his career and Sean McVay somewhat recently. Most of us recall that for YEARS, Andy Reid's clock management was a huge joke. Shortly before departing Philly, he had Doug Pederson coming on as his "offensive quality control coach" and QB coach, and he had a big emphasis on assisting in game management situations. Reid's clock management and in game situational adjustments showed a big improvement in this time. Similarly he has had Dave Toub as special teams coordinator and later assistant HC/ST coordinator in KC who has more or less overseen the Chiefs' game/time management, situational decision making, basically serving as Reid's "internal clock" in that time...and obviously that has been wildly successful for the Chiefs. Many folks had basically made a meme out of Reids clock management/situational football earlier in his career but we hear very little of that talk now.

McVay also had a big analytics push and also relied a lot on guys like Brandon Staley or Wade Phillips for a lot of these decisions. In fact after losing the Super Bowl to the patriots in 2018 he basically insinuated that he had taken on too many responsibilities and needed to be able to delegate things to his support staff so he could make less decisions but make them more clearly. Again, that obviously worked out well for them lol

 

[Magooch]

Anyhow, if that's not the case, it's best to just rip off the bandaid and get it done. Maybe you get worse, maybe you get better. But I don't see any legitimate path forward on a lame-duck contract, a short-term deal, a "prove it" situation or any of that.

Jeremy Foley was the AD at Florida back when they were winning EVERYTHING a decade or two ago (national championships in baseball, 3x in basketball, 3x in football, golf, 6x in track, 6x in tennis, 3x in gymnastics, 2x in softball, swimming, and so on... everything) was asked about his philosophy for when it is time to fire a coach. Ron Zook (I'm sure you remember him fondly ) was Florida's football coach at the time...he had three winning seasons in a row, he had a winning record vs Georgia, he had beaten Florida State in Tallahassee.... but he had a knack for giving up 4th quarter comebacks to the opponent. Florida lost 6 home games in his 3 seasons, whereas Spurrier lost just 5 in 12 years. BUT, overall he was not a terrible coach and he recruited really well. So it was a surprise when Foley fired him towards the tail end of the 2004 season. They then hired Urban Meyer who - with 22 starters recruited by Zook - then won the 2007 BCS championship over Ohio State just a couple of years later.

ANYWAYS, Foley became somewhat well-known for a quote he gave on the topic:

"I'm a big believer in the saying that if something needs to be done eventually, it needs to be done immediately."

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Who do you blame when a team looks like 2 different teams each half, like the Packers did on Saturday? Blame the coach, right? Everything going wrong must be his fault, right? Now I am quick to judge Matt sometimes, but I think fans really need to be more honest with themselves and dig a little deeper.

This article is a good place to start. I had to go back and look at the plays that he was talking about, but Zach Kruse nailed the narrative.

So I get it, blame MLF, but no matter who the coach is, Walker is probably making those same protection mistakes. The blame for Saturday and other loses, can be spread around pretty easily IMO. If Walker does his job, Packer fans might be talking what a great job Matt did coaching on Saturday, that he never took his foot off the gas and the Packers coasted to an easy win.

One play shows why Packers offense struggled in second half vs. Bears

One play helps demonstrate why the Packers struggled on offense during the second half against the Bears.

packerswire.usatoday.com

 

[PackersFan12345]

The way I see it there are only a few possible outcomes from here:

1. No extension; allow Matt to continue with his existing contract. We know this is not what Policy wants, and at this point it's effectively a vote of no-confidence.

2. No long-term extension; agree to a short-term "prove it" type contract. Again, this is basically a vote of no-confidence. You also have to question if Matt would want to take such a deal. Even if we won't offer a long-term contract, someone else probably will.
I myself had spitballed around the idea of trying to find some sort of "incentive-based" deal (for example, a 1-2 year deal that automatically triggers an additional 2-3 years if certain performance markers are met), but again I don't know if Matt would have much incentive to sign that. If we say "we'll give you a 2 year deal that can add an extra 2 years if you make a deeper postseason run" and Atlanta (or whoever) says "We'll give you a 5 year deal today," would he take ours?

3. Trade. If LaFleur is as well-regarded around the league as claimed, or "he would have 5 job offers the day he got fired" then there should certainly be some degree of trade interest. Given the opportunity to try and exercise some control over his destination and get some compensation in return, this would be a no-brainer vs an outright firing. Of course, Matt also would need to consent to the deal and agree to a long-term contract with the destination team.

4. Strike a long-term extension. I've voiced my concerns with this, but unfortunately/ironically short of clearing house it is probably the best way to get a new and effective crop of assistant coaches brought in. Our assistant staff has very little "outside experience" and of those who do, the majority will likely be gone. If we are wanting to bring in any decent assistant coaches, they are not going to want to sign on when the head coach has just a year or two left on his contract (understanding that the new head coach may very well want to bring in his own staff).

Trading LaFleur is a pipe dream, who would want to trade for LaFleur that keeps choking in the playoffs?

 

[Magooch]

Who do you blame when a team looks like 2 different teams each half, like the Packers did on Saturday? Blame the coach, right? Everything going wrong must be his fault, right? Now I am quick to judge Matt sometimes, but I think fans really need to be more honest with themselves and dig a little deeper.

This article is a good place to start. I had to go back and look at the plays that he was talking about, but Zach Kruse nailed the narrative.

So I get it, blame MLF, but no matter who the coach is, Walker is probably making those same protection mistakes. The blame for Saturday and other loses, can be spread around pretty easily IMO. If Walker does his job, Packer fans might be talking what a great job Matt did coaching on Saturday, that he never took his foot off the gas and the Packers coasted to an easy win.

One play shows why Packers offense struggled in second half vs. Bears

One play helps demonstrate why the Packers struggled on offense during the second half against the Bears.

packerswire.usatoday.com

I have been kind of thinking about this and I would describe the situation as sort of the "Fatal Triangle" - the three things that will doom you in a game are problems with injury (or "talent availability"), execution, and coaching

And I think that out of those three, a team can usually overcome having one of them.
- if you've got bad coaching but you have a talented and healthy roster who is still executing well, you can probably win
- if you have players who aren't executing at a super high level, but again you are generally talented and healthy and have a solid plan in place and sound coaching decisions, you can probably manage a win
- if you have injuries, but your coach is planning and accommodating well and the guys who are healthy are executing at a high level, then you can win

But if you have two of those problems, it's a LOT harder to win. If your coaching is bad and your players aren't executing, that's hard to overcome regardless of health or available talent
If your roster is plagued with injury and your coaching is poor, even if your guys are executing well, it's hard to be in a position to win
If your healthy guys aren't executing and you've suffered a lot of injuries, you're gonna struggle regardless of who the coach is

And if you have an issue with all three, well, you're doomed lol

I look at SF last night. They have also been decimated by injuries. Warner out, Bosa out. Aiyuk injured and basically "broke up" with the team. Kittle leaves the game with a torn achilles. But they had their coach operating at a high level and remaining players still executing at a high level. Never appeared daunted or intimidated and got a win against the defending champs.

Generally speaking for us it's rare to have all three going at once and many times this season it's felt like we've had to overcome 2/3 at minimum. I guess the question is which 2/3 is that... and was it all three Saturday night?

 

[Magooch]

Trading LaFleur is a pipe dream, who would want to trade for LaFleur that keeps choking in the playoffs?

I don't think it particularly likely at all but
A.) choking in the playoffs is still a dramatic upgrade for some of these teams who don't even appear close to smelling the postseason right now
B.) many here claim that LaFleur would be hired in a heartbeat if we let him go. If he has such a strong "free agent" market you would expect then that he would also have at least SOME trade market

I don't necessarily agree entirely either but if his "market" is as strong as some users would like to claim it would only follow then that there must be at least a team or two who would be willing to give up some capital to get "their guy" rather than have to fight/outbid others

 

[PackersFan12345]

I don't think it particularly likely at all but
A.) choking in the playoffs is still a dramatic upgrade for some of these teams who don't even appear close to smelling the postseason right now
B.) many here claim that LaFleur would be hired in a heartbeat if we let him go. If he has such a strong "free agent" market you would expect then that he would also have at least SOME trade market

I don't necessarily agree entirely either but if his "market" is as strong as some users would like to claim it would only follow then that there must be at least a team or two who would be willing to give up some capital to get "their guy" rather than have to fight/outbid others

I am just not convinced that LaFleur would be hired in a heartbeat if Packers let him go, maybe if LaFleur wins a Superbowl....

 

[Sanguine camper]

Anyhow, if that's not the case, it's best to just rip off the bandaid and get it done. Maybe you get worse, maybe you get better. But I don't see any legitimate path forward on a lame-duck contract, a short-term deal, a "prove it" situation or any of that.

Jeremy Foley was the AD at Florida back when they were winning EVERYTHING a decade or two ago (national championships in baseball, 3x in basketball, 3x in football, golf, 6x in track, 6x in tennis, 3x in gymnastics, 2x in softball, swimming, and so on... everything) was asked about his philosophy for when it is time to fire a coach. Ron Zook (I'm sure you remember him fondly ) was Florida's football coach at the time...he had three winning seasons in a row, he had a winning record vs Georgia, he had beaten Florida State in Tallahassee.... but he had a knack for giving up 4th quarter comebacks to the opponent. Florida lost 6 home games in his 3 seasons, whereas Spurrier lost just 5 in 12 years. BUT, overall he was not a terrible coach and he recruited really well. So it was a surprise when Foley fired him towards the tail end of the 2004 season. They then hired Urban Meyer who - with 22 starters recruited by Zook - then won the 2007 BCS championship over Ohio State just a couple of years later.

ANYWAYS, Foley became somewhat well-known for a quote he gave on the topic:

"I'm a big believer in the saying that if something needs to be done eventually, it needs to be done immediately."

Lot of wisdom in that quote!

 

[PackersFan12345]

I don't think it particularly likely at all but
A.) choking in the playoffs is still a dramatic upgrade for some of these teams who don't even appear close to smelling the postseason right now
B.) many here claim that LaFleur would be hired in a heartbeat if we let him go. If he has such a strong "free agent" market you would expect then that he would also have at least SOME trade market

I don't necessarily agree entirely either but if his "market" is as strong as some users would like to claim it would only follow then that there must be at least a team or two who would be willing to give up some capital to get "their guy" rather than have to fight/outbid others

Remember Marvin Lewis who keeps choking in the playoffs? It will get old fast and Bengal fans were sick and tired of it