Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Fire Matt LaFleur
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Magooch" data-source="post: 1089876" data-attributes="member: 17987"><p>The way I see it there are only a few possible outcomes from here:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magooch, post: 1089876, member: 17987"] 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). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Heyjoe4
The General
Latest posts
H
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Heyjoe4
A moment ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: Heyjoe4
10 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
Today at 1:11 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:10 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
S
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: Schultz
Yesterday at 1:59 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Fire Matt LaFleur
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
