Fire Matt LaFleur

[Heyjoe4]

Players are not going to speak ill of the current couch, BUT the level of which players are speaking in support of Matt is for sure something Ed has to consider. I mean Parsons being so new to the organization has made it clear and evident in a big way MLF was a major reason they have him in the building.

Yeah I think the respect the players have for MLF is important, for a lot of reasons. The number one reason for keeping MLF, IMO, is continuity - especially with such a talented team (sans injuries......). It would take time to learn the ways of a new HC, and that's just not necessary.

At the same time, I don't think Policy will give him an extension. MLF's playoff record is not good, and his style of coaching makes him seem like an OC rather than a DC.

Regardless, I don't see him going anywhere next season. Extension? Probably not yet.

 

[AGreen2AJones]

Players tend to love coaches that don't hold players accountable

 

[Sanguine camper]

He's only been at Indiana two years, right Sanguine? Before I declare him the next great coach, I'd like to see if he can maintain a winning team in the cutthroat colllege football business.

That doesn't take away from what he has done at Indiana, which is close to miraculous in these days of the portal and NIL.

Cignetti has now turned around two doormat programs in a row. That shows a great ability to improve performance. If that holds up at Indiana is a question that may have more to do with the topsy turvy NIL situation. Managing the transfer portal is about as far away from traditional coaching as it gets. Does he have thst skill set? We'll see but the dude can coach football lights out.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Yeah for most of his career, I didn't see Rodgers as arrogant, just extremely confident in his abilities. He had his faults (we all do), and especially with the weird stuff, hallucinogenics, darkness retreats, a tendency to blame others first, and on.

But that's recent-memory bias. I'm sure as hell glad he was on our side, and I look forward to seeing his name in the Lambeau Ring.

Agree with you that was real good we had Rodgers even if he was a little weird. He could sling it with the best of them. My comments above referred to Curt Cignetti. Some people see him as arrogant mainly I think because he can be condescending towards media people who I think sometimes ask softball questions.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here are some things that points to problems in Green Bay concerning their injury situation.

Soft tissue injuries got so bad that players like Christian Watson sought help outside of the organization.

David Bahktiari's recovery was completely botched leading to his retirement. That's highly unusual.

For most weeks, the injury report lists more injured Packers than the opposing team. In the past 2 years over 34 games, the Packers have listed more injuries than the opposing team 23 times with 3 ties and the opposing team had more injuries 8 times. That's nearly a 3-1 margin! That's according to the stats put out by the NFL.

In 2025, the Packers averaged 15.2 players each week on the injury report. That must interfere with getting enough practice as well as conditioning.

It's not just rhe number of injuries but the star players that go down. Nearly all the Packers best young players are injury prone or get a season ending injury. The list is long but you get my idea.

Again, mostly just rhetoric on your part, seemingly to try and fit your narrative that:

There are multiple lines of evidence that show the Packers are failing at preventing injuries that should be placed at the feet of MLF and Gute. I don't give MLF a free pass because of the injuries. I think the injury epidemic is partially his fault.

I will address what you said.

The most important thing that you need to keep in mind is this. Players in all major sports work with doctors and medical people outside of the team. This is the case with surgeries, reoccurring injuries, rehab and training. That isn't just something that a small town football team like the Packers do.

"Christian Watson sought outside help for recurrent hamstring issues"

After the 2023 season Watson, Stokes and some of the Packer training staff visited the University of Wisconsin's Badger Athletic Performance Center. A facility that the NFL gave a $4M grant to, for further research on identifying modifiable risk factors for hamstring strains, the most common NFL injury. It was determined that Watson has asymmetry in his 2 legs. Meaning, he had a little less strength in his right leg compared to his left, which can put more strain on the left side. Given that information, he worked with both the Packers and Badgers trainers to address it.

"David Bahktiari's recovery was completely botched leading to his retirement. That's highly unusual."

Bahktiari's 5 surgeries on his knee were more the problem, surgeries performed by 3 different doctors. I don't really what happened to Bahk as a reflection of the Packer training staff not knowing how to prevent injuries.

As far as your conversation about the Packers weekly injury report and how it compares to other teams injury reports, I would ask you to break down all the injuries, designations (LP, DNP, FP). As you probably know, each team has their own strategy with who practices and how it is reported. Some of that is medical and some of that is strategic.

"In 2025, the Packers averaged 15.2 players each week on the injury report. That must interfere with getting enough practice as well as conditioning."

I can' find any source for that, can you point me to it? Are you including players on IR since the beginning of the season?

"Nearly all the Packers best young players are injury prone or get a season ending injury."

Is that statistically speaking or just an observation on your part?

I suppose we could all have an honest discussion about the Packers training staff, medical team and overall conditioning of the team. However, I am still wondering why you want to blame MLF for a problem, if one exists. Hiring and firing for the Packers' medical staff generally falls under the purview of the Team Physician leadership, currently led by Head Physician Dr. Michael K. Ryan and Senior Medical Advisor Dr. Patrick McKenzie, working in coordination with the team's overall football operations and executive leadership.

 

[Magooch]

Just for fun (since there is just not a lot going on right now), not really presenting much of any "new" info but thought it would be interesting to look at the pros/cons of keeping LaFleur or not in a "point-counterpoint" type of format.

Matt has an excellent regular-season win percentage, among the best in the league.... BUT his postseason win percentage is poor (amongst the worst for coaches with as many appearances), with no Super Bowl appearances and many early exits

Matt has coached his team to make the playoffs in six out of seven years as head coach...BUT several of those appearances have been as the expanded #7 seed, and as a wild card entry rather than divisional champion over the last 3 seasons.

Matt's offensive scheme - motion, spacing, play action, etc - has been proven to be effective across multiple QBs and personnel groupings...BUT in "clutch" or "high pressure" moments the offense tends to get predictable and/or conservative and dramatically loses its effectiveness.

Matt has a good record for developing and/or maximizing his QB. He coached Rodgers through two MVP seasons, helped bring up Love, and has even had success when Malik Willis gets in games...BUT critics will argue that he was aided by elite individual performances from Rodgers at times, and has not always coached Love "to his strengths". At times it seems like he wants to call an offense that would be a better fit for Willis. He has faced criticism for not trusting Love enough and/or handling him a bit too carefully/conservatively.

Matt is well-liked in the locker room, he is drama-free, seems like a high-character type of guy, and in general presents a "stable" environment to work in...BUT can also be seen as passive or timid, lacking accountability and/or urgency.

Matt's teams are almost always "solid" and "competitive" and often carry that into the postseason...BUT are rarely "feared" or seen as big favorites. They often lack a clear identity or clear-cut "elite" defining trait. They are often the team "reacting" rather than setting the tone.

Matt generally makes good "big-picture" adjustments. In seasons when we have entered a lull or slump he usually does well at getting the team to "rally" and improve...BUT his in-game and/or halftime adjustments have often failed to match his opponents' maneuvers.

Matt is typically a "modern" or future-oriented coach who is open to analytics work and tries to implement a forward-thinking offensive structure...BUT tends to get regressive and overly cautious when in pressure situations. He does not always seem to rely on the the analytics when all the chips are down.

Matt promotes contuinity within his staff and works to maintain coaching continuity...BUT can be loyal to a fault, often keeping guys around for far too long to the detriment of the team's overall performance(s)

Matt is a very "high floor" coach. Even his "bad" games are usually competitive, and rarely does his team completely collapse...BUT he has also not shown a consistent ability to raise the team's "ceiling". In particular when he faces top opponents he is often unable to get his team to an "extra gear" to rise to the occasion.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just for fun (since there is just not a lot going on right now), not really presenting much of any "new" info but thought it would be interesting to look at the pros/cons of keeping LaFleur or not in a "point-counterpoint" type of format.

Matt has an excellent regular-season win percentage, among the best in the league.... BUT his postseason win percentage is poor (amongst the worst for coaches with as many appearances), with no Super Bowl appearances and many early exits

Matt has coached his team to make the playoffs in six out of seven years as head coach...BUT several of those appearances have been as the expanded #7 seed, and as a wild card entry rather than divisional champion over the last 3 seasons.

Matt's offensive scheme - motion, spacing, play action, etc - has been proven to be effective across multiple QBs and personnel groupings...BUT in "clutch" or "high pressure" moments the offense tends to get predictable and/or conservative and dramatically loses its effectiveness.

Matt has a good record for developing and/or maximizing his QB. He coached Rodgers through two MVP seasons, helped bring up Love, and has even had success when Malik Willis gets in games...BUT critics will argue that he was aided by elite individual performances from Rodgers at times, and has not always coached Love "to his strengths". At times it seems like he wants to call an offense that would be a better fit for Willis. He has faced criticism for not trusting Love enough and/or handling him a bit too carefully/conservatively.

Matt is well-liked in the locker room, he is drama-free, seems like a high-character type of guy, and in general presents a "stable" environment to work in...BUT can also be seen as passive or timid, lacking accountability and/or urgency.

Matt's teams are almost always "solid" and "competitive" and often carry that into the postseason...BUT are rarely "feared" or seen as big favorites. They often lack a clear identity or clear-cut "elite" defining trait. They are often the team "reacting" rather than setting the tone.

Matt generally makes good "big-picture" adjustments. In seasons when we have entered a lull or slump he usually does well at getting the team to "rally" and improve...BUT his in-game and/or halftime adjustments have often failed to match his opponents' maneuvers.

Matt is typically a "modern" or future-oriented coach who is open to analytics work and tries to implement a forward-thinking offensive structure...BUT tends to get regressive and overly cautious when in pressure situations. He does not always seem to rely on the the analytics when all the chips are down.

Matt promotes contuinity within his staff and works to maintain coaching continuity...BUT can be loyal to a fault, often keeping guys around for far too long to the detriment of the team's overall performance(s)

Matt is a very "high floor" coach. Even his "bad" games are usually competitive, and rarely does his team completely collapse...BUT he has also not shown a consistent ability to raise the team's "ceiling". In particular when he faces top opponents he is often unable to get his team to an "extra gear" to rise to the occasion.

Good summary and consistent with what I have read, heard and how I feel.

I think the most important observation is:

Matt is a very "high floor" coach.

From a Packer front office standpoint, Matt is "The Safe Coach". Which is why he probably stays. Let's face it, the Packers and the NFL are around to make money. A coach that produces an above average product guarantees that money to be maximized. Under Murphy, Gute and Matt, this organization has been very profitable. Burning it all down and bringing in a new coaching staff, and possibly a new GM, doesn't guarantee anything but change and could possibly send the organization and more importantly, that money stream in another direction.

The Packers will either need to have a really bad season or a few more where they are 1 and done in the playoffs, before the noise from fans will get loud enough, to make a change.

So Packer fans screaming for Matt and Gute to be fired, should prepare themselves, because it might not happen, this year. They should also be prepared to eat a large plate of crow, just in case everything does align for Gute and Matt and they win a Super Bowl.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Great summary Sanguine, thanks.

After the game on Saturday night, I was ready for MLF to be gone. Now that I've cooled down and realized that my first thought is usually wrong, I've reconsidered.

The one thing I've read about MLF, pro and con firing, is that he has the respect and loyalty of the team. That can't be overstated.

The second thing that came to mind - in spite of some glaring defects at CB, this team is built to win. A lot of guys will be healthy next season, Gluten will at least repair the CB group, and is it necessary or even good to mess with that coach/team chemistry?

Anyway, on second though, dumping MLF now would be a mistake IMO. Let his last contract year play out, don't extend him.

I'm sure there are a lot of other opinions on this matter (now that the season is over) and I'd like to hear them!

MLF may have the full support of his players but unfortunately I don't see that translating into them playing the full 60 minutes.

I agree the team is built to win now but in 2026 it looks like some rough waters are approaching. 5 of the best players on the team went down with injuries thst required major surgery and long recoveries. It's a tall order to expect those players to both come back in time and pick up where they left off.

In general, the bigger the player, the longer it takes to regain form. That would point towards Wyatt, Tom and Jenkins taking part or all of the 2026 season to work their way back.

The Packers are going to lose some talent in free agency. Doubs, Rasheed Walker, and perhaps even Quay Walker could be cap casualties. It's highly likely that Jenkins and Rashon Gary will be cut and have to be replaced. Jeff Hafley may also be gone and MLF has a poor track record in hiring coordinators.

With no cap space to sign free agents and no first round pick, the resources to fix the holes in the roster are meager.

After acquiring Micah Parsons, the Packers sure appeared to be Super Bowl contenders. Now I think they'll be contending for last place in the Division next year. I hope I'm wrong, but the hapless team we saw lose 5 straight to end the season will be hard pressed to field a more talented or spirited team in 2026.

 

[Magooch]

SO with that all considered, why might GB elect to keep Matt?

• He ensures we are pretty much always "competitively relevant". I don't think anyone has any serious concerns about us totally bottoming out or collapsing.
• He navigated the Rodgers-Love transition with minimal pain. Managing through that sort of huge player-transition without a huge slump is a rare quality.
• He keeps us as a pretty high-floor type of team. You can probably bank on 9+ wins most years (even this year, decimated by injury) and almost always a chance at making the playoffs
• While he has been in the league a while now, Love is still arguably in his "developmental window" and they might feel continuity would be beneficial for Love at QB. A possible disruption, system change, "down year," etc may harm Love's development.
• He is a good "culture fit". Drama free, well-liked, not a "rock the boat" type of guy.
• He is still under contract, and they simply might not be that enamored with any other candidates (or not wishing to jump in the mix when you already have 9 other teams angling for a new coach)

And why might they want to move on?

• He has consistently "regressed" in high-pressure situations. He trends towards cautious rather than aggressive, tentative rather than decisive. And in the postseason it's (generally speaking) the decisive teams that get rewarded and the hesitant ones that get punished. I've said it before but "usually the hammer comes out in better shape than the nail"
• At this point we have a pretty large sample size for his "ceiling" and the body of evidence continues to grow in a way that suggests he's not going to put us over-the-top
• His teams (and by extension him as a coach) are rarely feared by opponents. I think LaFleur's packers have a reputation for being competitive but "soft" when push comes to shove. Teams are not having to make dramatic changes to their game-planning or philosophy to play us; usually they feel like they can just impose their will on us. Again, in the postseason, you generally will be rewarded for having a clearly defined identity and/or dominant trait(s).
• It is, after all, called Titletown. Championships are the measure of success in Green Bay. The goal is the title, not just to be "solid" or "competitive". At some point good enough can't remain good enough.
• He continues to show an unwillingness to move on from ineffective coaching/support staff and his hires have been a mixed bag. Winning a championship often requires ruthlessness. Matt's often seemed to default to being "patient" when performances/results call for more urgency.
• They may simply be unable to come to an agreement on terms, for instance "We want you back in theory...but on these terms and at this price"

 

[Heyjoe4]

Here's my take on him for several years now. MLF is good at making halftime adjustments if we are playing from behind. What he's not good at is coming back with a lead in the second half and responding in real time to the adjustments the other team makes. That, and I don't think he has anything in his playbook for picking up 1 yard. When we had a first down on the 1 yard line the other day, I knew it was going to take 3 or 4 plays to pick that up, if at all.

Thanks BA. This pretty much sums up what happened Saturday night. MLF, like most good HCs, can make adjustments at half time. But he didn't anticipate that Chicago would do something on D to stop GB from scoring at will, as GB had done in the 1H. 3 drives, three TDs and a three-possession lead, 21-3. No punts.

MLF is not good at making adjustments during a game. Anyone could see Chicago was going to stick with blitzing in the 2H and getting pressure on Love because it was working. Certainly adjustments can be made for that - screen plays, draws, sweeps and others.

Jacobs should have found more success against a D so set on blitzing. But he was constantly running into the backs of his O linemen. That shouldn't happen if most of the front 5 are set on blitzing, along with occasional help from a CB, S or both. There was no creativity, no execution in opening a running lane. It should not have been that hard.

Problem is, we've seen this for as long as MLF has been HC. IMO a HC is more effective at his job if there is an OC calling the offensive plays, and a DC doing the same for defense. Until/if that changes, we can expect to see more of the same.

 

[Magooch]

I do also think, if nothing else, we can probably safely rule out Matt being straight-up fired at this point. If that was their intention, that would've happened by now IMO. I can't see any advantage to drawing it out. Either they are still trying to hash out terms (and think they are close enough that an agreement will ultimately be reached) or they really are shopping a possible trade.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Again, mostly just rhetoric on your part, seemingly to try and fit your narrative that:



I will address what you said.

The most important thing that you need to keep in mind is this. Players in all major sports work with doctors and medical people outside of the team. This is the case with surgeries, reoccurring injuries, rehab and training. That isn't just something that a small town football team like the Packers do.

"Christian Watson sought outside help for recurrent hamstring issues"

After the 2023 season Watson, Stokes and some of the Packer training staff visited the University of Wisconsin's Badger Athletic Performance Center. A facility that the NFL gave a $4M grant to, for further research on identifying modifiable risk factors for hamstring strains, the most common NFL injury. It was determined that Watson has asymmetry in his 2 legs. Meaning, he had a little less strength in his right leg compared to his left, which can put more strain on the left side. Given that information, he worked with both the Packers and Badgers trainers to address it.

"David Bahktiari's recovery was completely botched leading to his retirement. That's highly unusual."

Bahktiari's 5 surgeries on his knee were more the problem, surgeries performed by 3 different doctors. I don't really what happened to Bahk as a reflection of the Packer training staff not knowing how to prevent injuries.

As far as your conversation about the Packers weekly injury report and how it compares to other teams injury reports, I would ask you to break down all the injuries, designations (LP, DNP, FP). As you probably know, each team has their own strategy with who practices and how it is reported. Some of that is medical and some of that is strategic.

"In 2025, the Packers averaged 15.2 players each week on the injury report. That must interfere with getting enough practice as well as conditioning."

I can' find any source for that, can you point me to it? Are you including players on IR since the beginning of the season?

"Nearly all the Packers best young players are injury prone or get a season ending injury."

Is that statistically speaking or just an observation on your part?

I suppose we could all have an honest discussion about the Packers training staff, medical team and overall conditioning of the team. However, I am still wondering why you want to blame MLF for a problem, if one exists. Hiring and firing for the Packers' medical staff generally falls under the purview of the Team Physician leadership, currently led by Head Physician Dr. Michael K. Ryan and Senior Medical Advisor Dr. Patrick McKenzie, working in coordination with the team's overall football operations and executive leadership.

The weekly injury lists all the designations. The data could be parsed but the Packers list more injured players over the opponent by a nearly 3 to 1 margin. I would think that means they have more injuries and would not assume they're playing games.

Watson left the organization to find medical help. I don't see how that paints a flattering picture of the situation in Green Bay. It appears that the people in Madison knew more than the staff in Green Bay because his hamstring issue hasn't been a problem since then.

I'm not saying the sports medicine people in Green Bay are incompetent but it does appear from the Watson situation that the team hasn't lined up the best help in a timely manner.

Until the Packers take their injury situation more seriously, they just won't be able to compete as often as they should given their talent level.

 

[adambr2]

Players tend to love coaches that don't hold players accountable

I have serious doubts that a single person on the Packer coaching staff took Carrington Valentine aside on Saturday night and said, “nice pick, but we need to remember the down and situation. We’re looking to knock that ball down on 4th down, not intercept it.”

I have serious doubts that 4 days later, he is even aware that he did anything wrong.

 

[DABIGZ]

Good summary and consistent with what I have read, heard and how I feel.

I think the most important observation is:

Matt is a very "high floor" coach.

From a Packer front office standpoint, Matt is "The Safe Coach". Which is why he probably stays. Let's face it, the Packers and the NFL are around to make money. A coach that produces an above average product guarantees that money to be maximized. Under Murphy, Gute and Matt, this organization has been very profitable. Burning it all down and bringing in a new coaching staff, and possibly a new GM, doesn't guarantee anything but change and could possibly send the organization and more importantly, that money stream in another direction.

The Packers will either need to have a really bad season or a few more where they are 1 and done in the playoffs, before the noise from fans will get loud enough, to make a change.

So Packer fans screaming for Matt and Gute to be fired, should prepare themselves, because it might not happen, this year. They should also be prepared to eat a large plate of crow, just in case everything does align for Gute and Matt and they win a Super Bowl.

I will ask for a triple serving of crow if they win a Superbowl. But I agree with you and @Magooch for outlining why he probably stays.

I also read somewhere else that Lafluer probably stays because we traded for Parsons, creating a 2–3-year window. If these next couple of seasons don't bear fruit, I could see a wholesale change, with Lafluer AND Gute.

 

[AKCheese]

I have serious doubts that a single person on the Packer coaching staff took Carrington Valentine aside on Saturday night and said, “nice pick, but we need to remember the down and situation. We’re looking to knock that ball down on 4th down, not intercept it.”

I have serious doubts that 4 days later, he is even aware that he did anything wrong.

Thats not something an experienced varsity HS football player should have to be “coached” on.

 

[AKCheese]

I will ask for a triple serving of crow if they win a Superbowl. But I agree with you and @Magooch for outlining why he probably stays.

I also read somewhere else that Lafluer probably stays because we traded for Parsons, creating a 2–3-year window. If these next couple of seasons don't bear fruit, I could see a wholesale change, with Lafluer AND Gute.

The straight up odds of winning a Super bowl are slightly above 3%. If you’re TWICE as competitive, call it 7%. 4X as competitive? 15%…. Or an 85% chance you don’t win it all… if your coach/organization QUADRUPLES your chances for success. Is winning the Super Bowl my goal? If course, but failing to win a Super Bowl is hardly a mark of failure or something to be ashamed of. It’s way way way harder today than When Lombardi was winning titles. I think we underachieved this year. Improvement has to be made. I’m not sure it means we have to tear it all down. If they go with MLF I’m ok with it. If they honestly think they have a better option with a staff ready to come in? I’ll go with that too. The people who want to Jettison Love for Malik Willis? I just have to laugh at those guys LOL

 

[rmontro]

Matt has an excellent regular-season win percentage, among the best in the league..

That record looks considerably less impressive without an MVP-level Rodgers though.

 

[mradtke66]

It's highly likely that Jenkins and Rashon Gary will be cut and have to be replaced.

I'd say both have been replaced and done so effectively. Yes, we have to re-sign Jenkins' replacement (Rhyan) but he should be very affordable.

 

[mradtke66]

Watson left the organization to find medical help. I don't see how that paints a flattering picture of the situation in Green Bay. It appears that the people in Madison knew more than the staff in Green Bay because his hamstring issue hasn't been a problem since then.

Having a world-class research institution know more about a subject than you do is NOT the condemnation you think it it...

 

[OldSchool101]

MLF was supposed to be some sort of scheming offensive genius, but it seems like he gets outcoached a lot, especially in the playoffs. So in that aspect, he's been a bit of a disappointment. The Bears made a halftime adjustment to put more pressure on our offensive line, but he couldn't come up with an adjustment to counter?

For myself personally, I’ve noticed this also.

I’ll just say this is a rarity if ever with Matt. I think his initial game plan approach is good or at least better than average. Yet we suffer later in game and opponents kinda have their way with us almost to an abusive level.

I remember during Favre’s tenure we actually had two regular traits. We had good halftime adjustments. Plus we fought opponents at home games like our family was going to be pillaged. It was almost a given if it was a home game in December or January to chalk up a Win.

Matt generally makes good "big-picture" adjustments. In seasons when we have entered a lull or slump he usually does well at getting the team to "rally" and improve...BUT his in-game and/or halftime adjustments have often failed to match his opponents' maneuvers.

Exactly. I’ve noticed this. The only adjustments I’m seeing are our opponents who seemingly figure is out. Maybe he needs 2 game plans upfront? That way our opponent is caught off guard when we change directions and they are not expecting it

Matt is typically a "modern" or future-oriented coach who is open to analytics work and tries to implement a forward-thinking offensive structure...BUT tends to get regressive and overly cautious when in pressure situations. He does not always seem to rely on the the analytics when all the chips are down.

Yes. There’s a time and place for analytics. However analytics are more a template for more inexperienced Coaches. Analytics don’t factor things like momentum shifts. How many times have we been Winning by 1 or even 2 scores and we just “knew” our opponent was clawing back into the game. I’ll take raw coaching instinct in those games over analytics in slim margin games.
We both know how that Analytics ARE valuable, yet they don’t always pair perfectly with individual player or individual teams’ strengths or weaknesses.

Matt promotes contuinity within his staff and works to maintain coaching continuity...BUT can be loyal to a fault, often keeping guys around for far too long to the detriment of the team's overall performance(s)

Yeah this is a big one. I think the toughest thing about Matt is he hires guys who are personal friends. While it’s understandable this is part of the reasoning why they come to Green Bay, the disadvantage being the conflict of interests when it’s time to sever ties. You don’t need to be best friends with your Staff outside the office. Sometimes crossing professional lines with personal in management can be counterproductive. Ask Tom Brady and Bill B. They set differences aside because they had a common goal. I doubt you’d ever see them in Maui together during Spring Break.

I have serious doubts that 4 days later, he is even aware that he did anything wrong.

I 100% agree. Matter of fact he was likely praised for that INT, which will foster his belief there. It would be very probable if it happened again in the same season? We’d see Carrington give up -30 yards instead of slapping the ball down.

If approached gently with constructive criticism, guys will listen. We don’t need to be afraid of addressing errors these are grown men.. They’ll be a little offended at first, but they’ll toughen up and respect you for being honest. As long as you (we) encourage them when we see improvement later.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Always a good listen with Wilde and Tausch, but today they had former Packer OT Bryan Bulaga in as a guest. I really liked his insight into some of the issues with the Packers. About half way into the show Bulaga talked about what went wrong on Saturday night, specifically in the second half and the offense. I perked up when he talked about how he yelled at the TV when Love was consistently breaking the huddle late and not having enough time at the LOS to change things up on pass protection, etc.

A will keep screaming this point. If MLF sticks around, he HAS to get better on getting the calls in faster to Love. If Love is taking to long in the huddle with said calls, then Love needs to work on getting in and out of the huddle faster. As do the rest of his teammates. Basically, that whole process needs to get better and more efficient to allow Love more time at the LOS to assess the defense and act accordingly.

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Until the Packers take their injury situation more seriously, they just won't be able to compete as often as they should given their talent level.

I guess I have to ask you 2 things.

First, if you look at 4 of the most impactful injuries for the Packers this season, Kraft, Parsons, Wyatt and Jenkins , what is your recommendation(s) to the Packers medical staff to do, to prevent these types of injuries?

Which NFL teams do you think have the best medical staffs and what are they doing differently?

 

[Magooch]

That record looks considerably less impressive without an MVP-level Rodgers though.

Yeah, true enough... although playing devil's advocate (and this ties in to the remark regarding QB development/individual performance), that might be a chicken vs egg thing to some degree. Rodgers had some fairly "down" years (by his standards) before seemingly having it click with LaFleur's offense and stringing together those two MVP years. He wasn't playing at an MVP-level when LaFleur "inherited" him. It's hard for me to say exactly how to split the credit there but I do think LaFleur still has to get at least SOME credit for those 13-3 years. (And we did go 13-3 when Rodgers went for "just" 4000 yards and 26TD....Compared to his MVP-seasons with 4300/4100 and 48/37 TD)

 

[milani]

Here's my take on him for several years now. MLF is good at making halftime adjustments if we are playing from behind. What he's not good at is coming back with a lead in the second half and responding in real time to the adjustments the other team makes. That, and I don't think he has anything in his playbook for picking up 1 yard. When we had a first down on the 1 yard line the other day, I knew it was going to take 3 or 4 plays to pick that up, if at all.

One of the real weaknesses is that one yard pickup. And partly because we do not have a line made for bulldozing or tge Tush push. Allen with Buffalo gets just about all the 4th and 1s or 3rd and 1s. To get it the Packers have to throw the ball. And we do not carry a FB like Frisco or Minny. So if you put a TE back there defenses automatically see him as a blocker because he is a fish out of water. With a FB he can carry the ball, block or even hit the flat for a pass.

 

[Magooch]

A little more from Schefter:

“There’s no deal right now, and it’s a negotiation. When there’s a negotiation and there’s no deal, there could be a breakthrough at any moment. I think both sides would like to make that happen, but... they’ve been trying to do this for a little while and still have not gotten it figured out. The longer it lingers, the more you wonder where it’s going to go and how it’s going to result. The way I would interpret it right now is that it’s up in the air."

"I do believe there’s a time limit, absolutely, because there are all these openings. I firmly believe most places would have a high level of interest in Matt LaFleur. Now you’re saying the Packers part ways. I don’t know whether they wouldn’t hold him up and say, ‘OK, Team X, you want him, give us a third-round pick or a second-round pick.’"