Will Matt LaFleur be GB's head coach for the 2023 season?

[Patler]

Simple poll, yes or no; will LaFleur be the Packers' head coach for the 2023 season?

[Patler]

I voted "no" for no particular reason other than that an awful lot of coaches don't last 5 years, and I think the odds might be stacked against him.

I want to be more positive about this change, but for some unknown reason(s) I just am not.

[call_me_ishmael]

I voted "no" for no particular reason other than that an awful lot of coaches don't last 5 years, and I think the odds might be stacked against him.

I want to be more positive about this change, but for some unknown reason(s) I just am not.

I feel the same on both accounts.

[gbgary]

voted no also. so much depends Rodgers' health and buying-in, this off-season's free-agency and draft, and future drafts as there won't be much cap space. if he can get lucky and out-live Rodgers contract then maybe.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Packers aren't like a lot of teams. Their default seems to be keeping head coaches a lot longer than others. LaFleur being only 39, I fully expect him to still be around 15 - 20 years, maybe more.

I'm surprised that the poll is 3 - 3 at this point - or at least I was surprised until I saw who some of the negative voters were. Same ol' same ol'.

[red]

i voted no. a 39 year old with almost no experience coaching at any level and no experience running a team, who has only called plays for one shitty year. what could go wrong?

lets face it, he only got a head coaching gig because he once worked for or with the biggest hottest young coach out there this year

but it depends on if murphy is still around. he doesn't strike me as someone who actually has balls and can make a tough decision. he only fire ted after it became obvious to the public that he should be in a nursing home, NOT running a team. and he only fired fat ass after the entire team, fan base, and national media turned on him

so we could see a hue jackson like situation where the guy completely sucks, but he's still around

[gbgary]

The Packers aren't like a lot of teams. Their default seems to be keeping head coaches a lot longer than others. LaFleur being only 39, I fully expect him to still be around 15 - 20 years, maybe more.

I'm surprised that the poll is 3 - 3 at this point - or at least I was surprised until I saw who some of the negative voters were. Same ol' same ol'.

i've always been a glass-is-half-full type of guy until i recently realized i've been given a dribble glass.

[Patler]

i've always been a glass-is-half-full type of guy until i recently realized i've been given a dribble glass.

...and I have normally been a three-quarters-full type of guy at least. I've been supportive of Murphy, TT and MM to a point, but did think MM's effectiveness had been eroding since the playoff debacle in Seattle.

[Freak Out]

I think he'll be around awhile.

[Bretsky]

a very hard one; I think he gave an OUTSTANDING INTERVIEW
I think his coming in more prepared with a list of preferred coaches to bring in was a good sign; I actually wonder if he landed any of them
I think he'll work well with AROD

O n the downside
Not remotely marved at the staff he brought in at all. Several seem to be inexperienced at best or rejects at worst
Why was Green Bay the only team requesting an interview with Matty ? That part I don't really get. But I thought it was important he brought in a strong surrounding staff
So my guess would be either he's replacing several of the guys he first hired.....and it would not surprise me if he's gone as well.


Hope I"m wrong

.

[FirstSgt]

I am of the thought that you don't know until you are given a chance. He may succeed, he may not, but I am willing to give him a chance to make it work.

[Joemailman]

Yes, and by then he'll have a street in Green Bay named after him. :glug::pack::wave::cow::five:

[FirstSgt]

If he has a street named after him then he will have been a great hire.

[texaspackerbacker]

You never know what you've got until the games start, but the kind of coach I prefer is a cerebral guy without a big ego - somebody with the good sense to emphasize what the team does best, personnel-wise and not force things. LaFleur seems like he will be that, but who knows at this point.

[Fosco33]

I hit yes... but was trying to say no. Odds are 3 years

[Patler]

I hit yes... but was trying to say no.

Sure, I give you a simple, two-options poll; and you screw it up! :-)

[Fritz]

Somehow, I think not. But that's not to say I think that this would necessarily be all his fault. I am starting to doubt the competency of Murphy. He had a good thing going with Thompson/McCarthy, but he ignored what seem in retrospect like warning signs about both. I do wonder if Ted Thompson was beginning to display some concerning signs regarding his mental health - and I'm not trying to be a smart-ass or clowning. I like him a great deal, and I think he is a stand-up person. Having caught on - late, in my opinion - to those signs, Murphy seems to be swinging the pendulum too far the other way, wanting to control more and more. I appreciate that he realized he had to adjust, but over-adjusting isn't the answer.

[pbmax]

I think he gets the fifth year even if struggles a bit. I find it interesting the Packers took that route because questions about the option will start to emerge in Year 3 because Year 4 will be lame duck without exercising the option. So I don't think its quite the coup the team might.

Its basically a cost saving measure if they dump him before Year 3 is out. I doubt they wait until Year 4 is midway to decide.

Still think his odds of being better than McCarthy are 30% or less. We'll see.

[pbmax]

Somehow, I think not. But that's not to say I think that this would necessarily be all his fault. I am starting to doubt the competency of Murphy. He had a good thing going with Thompson/McCarthy, but he ignored what seem in retrospect like warning signs about both. I do wonder if Ted Thompson was beginning to display some concerning signs regarding his mental health - and I'm not trying to be a smart-ass or clowning. I like him a great deal, and I think he is a stand-up person. Having caught on - late, in my opinion - to those signs, Murphy seems to be swinging the pendulum too far the other way, wanting to control more and more. I appreciate that he realized he had to adjust, but over-adjusting isn't the answer.

I think its funny he always says that 12 other teams have this structure but never names them (Cowboys). If he did, fans would be outraged even more.

[Patler]

I think its funny he always says that 12 other teams have this structure but never names them (Cowboys). If he did, fans would be outraged even more.

I thought he mentioned a couple others, including the Steelers, who he said was the organization he has always thought is most similar to GB.

[pbmax]

I thought he mentioned a couple others, including the Steelers, who he said was the organization he has always thought is most similar to GB.

Damn. Well, that is the better case scenario. But even there they keep digging themselves holes with good players.

[red]

I just had to look up the average life span of an nfl head coach and was shocked to find that it was 4.3 seasons

I would have thought it was much less then that, more like 3

[Joemailman]

I just had to look up the average life span of an nfl head coach and was shocked to find that it was 4.3 seasons

I would have thought it was much less then that, more like 3

In a way you're right in that many coaches get fired in 3 years or less. Successful teams (and Cincinnati) drive the average up. I looked up the coaches who were fired this year and how long they lasted:

Miami - Gase - 3 years
NYJ - Bowles - 4 years
Cle - Jackson - 2+ years
Cin - Lewis - 16 years :bang:
Den - Joseph - 2 years
GB - McCarthy - 12+ years
TB - Koetter - 3 years
Ari - Wilks - 1 year

[red]

In a way you're right in that many coaches get fired in 3 years or less. Successful teams (and Cincinnati) drive the average up. I looked up the coaches who were fired this year and how long they lasted:

Miami - Gase - 3 years
NYJ - Bowles - 4 years
Cle - Jackson - 2+ years
Cin - Lewis - 16 years :bang:
Den - Joseph - 2 years
GB - McCarthy - 12+ years
TB - Koetter - 3 years
Ari - Wilks - 1 year

maybe its best to look at the percentage of coaches that last longer then 4 or 5 years? cause if they are good and they stick, then they seem to really stick around for awhile and really skew the average

[Anti-Polar Bear]

the kind of coach I prefer is a cerebral guy without a big ego - somebody with the good sense to emphasize what the team does best, personnel-wise and not force things.

Sucks that the MAWA (make America white again) idiot presiding over some fucked up country ain’t that type of leader. If he were, America would be great again already. ;)

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Sucks that the MAWA (make America white again) idiot presiding over some fucked up country ain’t that type of leader. If he were, America woulda been great again already. ;)

I think this makes more sense grammatically. I regret not majoring in English.

[Patler]

Thought it might be an appropriate time to bring this thread back, now that we know a bit more about LaFleur, but before his first season starts.

My "no" vote is more firm now than when I voted. I don't have a good "feeling" about LaFleur. He seems concerned about some of the wrong things, in my opinion:

- He thought the fog horn was a good idea, or something like it to get the fans to give the team a third down advantage. He has the sequence wrong. Make the team good, make it exciting and the fan advantage will come from that. He shouldn't be wasting his time on artificial team advantages. I don't know how much he was involved in that decision, but to me he made it seem like too much of a concern for him.

- He has made a lot of comments about wanting to "build" a winning tradition, a championship mindset, etc for the organization. Ah, Matt... this is the GREEN BAY PACKERS. There is a winning tradition and a championship mindset that YOU and your team have to live up to. One thing I liked about McCarthy was his respect for the tradition he was stepping into, the standard he was expected to live up to; and he emphasized that to the players. They weren't just NFL players, they had the privilege of being Green Bay Packers. I'm not sure that LaFleur completely understands the situation he has stepped in to. McCarthy made it a point to learn and understand the traditions, LaFleur has already stubbed his toe a couple times, such as not allowing for the tradition of players greeting and engaging the fans after the last public practice. A small thing, but one that "owners" in attendance were aware of.

- I have a bad feeling about the whole coach/offense/QB relationship for this year. Rodgers doesn't want to play much in preseason, he hasn't wanted to for several years. But this is not only a new offense, there are the mechanics of working with a whole new staff. LaFleur should have simply told Rodgers he would have a couple series each game unless and until he could show everything was working smoothly, and season-ready. Practice reps are good, but game action is different.

I'm not optimistic. I hope I am wrong.

-

[pbmax]

I downgrade my estimate to 4 years not five, so I am now a no to the OP question.

I don't like the offensive assistants. TE and O line look beyond shaky. Its very early, but I am not impressed by the offense, mostly the outside zone.

I don't think the Packer Org has actually considered the fact that they need to build a premier head coach if they are going to hire hot assistants.

Still don't like the Three Silos with Murph acting as a tarp.

On the plus side, he was waging a losing PR campaign with Rodgers about audibles, but he did adjust, got better and Rodgers has let it slide publicly.

Pluses on the D coaches side (Pettine, Montgomery, Smith and Olvadotti) but holy cow they have to be better against the run.


Disagree with Patler on Rodgers in preseason, I think its Gute not Rodgers. But that is based on what has gone on before, not anything specific or new.

[Patler]

Disagree with Patler on Rodgers in preseason, I think its Gute not Rodgers. But that is based on what has gone on before, not anything specific or new.

I agree with your other comments, and recognize the possibility of what I quoted above, but doubt it for no specific reasons other than gut feeling. What makes you think the GM makes that call? A few years ago, do you think it was TT deciding how much Rodgers played? I just recall Rodgers talking about not needing to play years back, just a series or two to get into it. Now his comments about joint practices.

Regardless of who made the call, and what the league does generally, this is a new situation for everyone in GB. Rodgers has a lot of ingrained responses to overcome both mentally a physically. He has a new play caller, a new voice in his ear, a new offense to master. I think game reps are important. I'm not suggesting he should play a lot, but a couple series every game, or just one if it goes well, to work out kinks and instill confidence.

I expect there will be a lot growing pains on offense early in the season.

[mraynrand]

I expect there will be a lot growing pains on offense early in the season.

There were with Stubby and Favre too, and Favre played in the preseason. Remember that goose egg opener to the Bears?

I know this blog is here for speculation, but there's not a lot to go on here. Behind the scenes, who knows? I mean, I would bet 50% think Rodgers is 'faking' his back issue as a cover for not playing. Who knows?

It's all a crap shoot anyway - Rodgers lasted one series before getting hurt last year. Maybe this year he lasts two. Maybe one series in the preseason and his career is over. Obviously crap like that's on everyone's minds, but you can't live that way, trying to prevent an injury you can't actually control.

This is all madness, madness, I tells ya!

[call_me_ishmael]

I think it'd be very unusual unless the team dramatically falls off from expectations and historical Aaron Rodgers performance - which means Aaron Rodgers have a horrible twilight to his career.

With a star receiver and left tackle, I just cannot imagine a scenario where Rodgers doesn't bounce back and reign in his game. If he doesn't, then LaFleur is for sure gone and Rodgers will be viewed as a problem child. If he does, which I think he will for many reasons, I think they'll be very successful and it would be an unusual thing to fire a coach who has presided over a successful team.

There's too much money on the line for Rodgers to burn his image of being a good guy. Endorsements, etc. I think he goes out of his way to "not be the problem" as Murphy allegedly said. And yes, I know Muphy denied that quote but what was the alternative? I do believe he said that to Rodgers and I do believe people within the org viewed the situation as that toxic.

[pbmax]

I agree with your other comments, and recognize the possibility of what I quoted above, but doubt it for no specific reasons other than gut feeling. What makes you think the GM makes that call? A few years ago, do you think it was TT deciding how much Rodgers played? I just recall Rodgers talking about not needing to play years back, just a series or two to get into it. Now his comments about joint practices.

Regardless of who made the call, and what the league does generally, this is a new situation for everyone in GB. Rodgers has a lot of ingrained responses to overcome both mentally a physically. He has a new play caller, a new voice in his ear, a new offense to master. I think game reps are important. I'm not suggesting he should play a lot, but a couple series every game, or just one if it goes well, to work out kinks and instill confidence.

I expect there will be a lot growing pains on offense early in the season.

I expect growing pains too. I just think its the natural extension of trying to keep players healthy and I think that kind of high level view goes to the GM. You know the coach wants him out there.

Remember when McCarthy said they weren't just going to shut down for the season after they clinched a playoff berth and then suddenly a LOT of starters were unavailable the following week? I don't remember what year, but M3 changed his tune inside of a day. I did not believe McGinn when he had earlier suggested Thompson might get involved, but I think he did and Ted was pretty hands off the coaching staff.

If we got some sort of report on Rodgers back, it'd give us more information, but given he missed almost no practice outside of the game, I doubt we will hear about it again unless they trot it out for the remaining two exhibitions.

I expect Rodgers would rather play less, yes. But not convinced it entirely his call.

[pbmax]

I just recall Rodgers talking about not needing to play years back, just a series or two to get into it. Now his comments about joint practices.

Joint practices happened with the approval of the GM and Rodger participated even if he thought they were a waste of time. His complain was specific, if not conclusive, that the generic, vanilla offense they showed to the Texans wasn't helping install the offense.

For preseason, I expect the GM breaks the tie and suggests Rodgers sits for the same reason (generic offense) and the risk (there are no red jerseys in the preseason game).

[RashanGary]

I like Lafleurs consistency message. Especially running the ball a decent amount, a 12 play drive ends with one bad play. You NEED consistency if you’re gonna play that style of ball.

[George Cumby]

I would vote "no".

I have no sound reasoning or evidence or facts, but to quote Han Solo:

I have a bad feeling about this.

[run pMc]

I would vote "no".

I have no sound reasoning or evidence or facts, but to quote Han Solo:

I have a bad feeling about this.

This. Also, I hope I'm wrong.

As we've seen, teams can win in spite of their coaches.

[Joemailman]

Thought it might be an appropriate time to bring this thread back, now that we know a bit more about LaFleur, but before his first season starts.

My "no" vote is more firm now than when I voted. I don't have a good "feeling" about LaFleur. He seems concerned about some of the wrong things, in my opinion:

- He thought the fog horn was a good idea, or something like it to get the fans to give the team a third down advantage. He has the sequence wrong. Make the team good, make it exciting and the fan advantage will come from that. He shouldn't be wasting his time on artificial team advantages. I don't know how much he was involved in that decision, but to me he made it seem like too much of a concern for him.

- He has made a lot of comments about wanting to "build" a winning tradition, a championship mindset, etc for the organization. Ah, Matt... this is the GREEN BAY PACKERS. There is a winning tradition and a championship mindset that YOU and your team have to live up to. One thing I liked about McCarthy was his respect for the tradition he was stepping into, the standard he was expected to live up to; and he emphasized that to the players. They weren't just NFL players, they had the privilege of being Green Bay Packers. I'm not sure that LaFleur completely understands the situation he has stepped in to. McCarthy made it a point to learn and understand the traditions, LaFleur has already stubbed his toe a couple times, such as not allowing for the tradition of players greeting and engaging the fans after the last public practice. A small thing, but one that "owners" in attendance were aware of.

- I have a bad feeling about the whole coach/offense/QB relationship for this year. Rodgers doesn't want to play much in preseason, he hasn't wanted to for several years. But this is not only a new offense, there are the mechanics of working with a whole new staff. LaFleur should have simply told Rodgers he would have a couple series each game unless and until he could show everything was working smoothly, and season-ready. Practice reps are good, but game action is different.

I'm not optimistic. I hope I am wrong.

-

Agree with the comments in bold. Not sure he understands or appreciates the unique relationship between the team and the community.

I have seen some positives though. I think he's handled the whole audible thing with Rodgers quite deftly. He didn't let it become a major rift which some in the media wanted to make of it. He's also exerted control over players, throwing Josh Jones out of practice for tackling to the ground, and the same to Dexter Williams for a blown assignment.

There will likely be some growing pains. If his offense struggles early, that will be no different than the last 2 head coaches to win a Super Bowl here.

[gbgary]

six months later and i'm giving it a more definitive no. he doesn't seem to have any power over rodgers.

[Bretsky]

I can't remember how I voted but I'd say no now

[mraynrand]

he doesn't seem to have any power over rodgers.

lol

[Teamcheez1]

six months later and i'm giving it a more definitive no. he doesn't seem to have any power over rodgers.

I'm not sure Rodgers will be here through 2023.

[George Cumby]

I'm not sure Rodgers will be here through 2023.

This.

[gbgary]

I'm not sure Rodgers will be here through 2023.

i don't think so either. i think 2021 will be his last season.

[Fritz]

Thought it might be an appropriate time to bring this thread back, now that we know a bit more about LaFleur, but before his first season starts.

My "no" vote is more firm now than when I voted. I don't have a good "feeling" about LaFleur. He seems concerned about some of the wrong things, in my opinion:

- He thought the fog horn was a good idea, or something like it to get the fans to give the team a third down advantage. He has the sequence wrong. Make the team good, make it exciting and the fan advantage will come from that. He shouldn't be wasting his time on artificial team advantages. I don't know how much he was involved in that decision, but to me he made it seem like too much of a concern for him.

I think I read that Pete Daugherty (sp?) said leFleur was not involved in the decision; only that he approved of it.

- He has made a lot of comments about wanting to "build" a winning tradition, a championship mindset, etc for the organization. Ah, Matt... this is the GREEN BAY PACKERS. There is a winning tradition and a championship mindset that YOU and your team have to live up to. One thing I liked about McCarthy was his respect for the tradition he was stepping into, the standard he was expected to live up to; and he emphasized that to the players. They weren't just NFL players, they had the privilege of being Green Bay Packers. I'm not sure that LaFleur completely understands the situation he has stepped in to. McCarthy made it a point to learn and understand the traditions, LaFleur has already stubbed his toe a couple times, such as not allowing for the tradition of players greeting and engaging the fans after the last public practice. A small thing, but one that "owners" in attendance were aware of.

I was puzzled that nobody bothered to inform LeFleur of this before practice so the players could carry on this tradition. Surely people in the organization - the groundskeepers, the assistant to the assistant head trainer, somebody - knew of this tradition and knew it was unlikely the new HC did not know. Why didn't anyone tell him? Or why didn't LeFleur choose someone in the organization to sit down and talk to about institutional history?

- I have a bad feeling about the whole coach/offense/QB relationship for this year. Rodgers doesn't want to play much in preseason, he hasn't wanted to for several years. But this is not only a new offense, there are the mechanics of working with a whole new staff. LaFleur should have simply told Rodgers he would have a couple series each game unless and until he could show everything was working smoothly, and season-ready. Practice reps are good, but game action is different.

I'm not optimistic. I hope I am wrong.

-


While I don't trust LeFleur's lack of experience, I have been thinking that it will be enjoyable to watch a different coach operate, making different strategic and tactical decisions. We could be pretty sure that on 4th and 3 from the opponent's 40 yard line, MM was going to trot Crosby out there for a 57 yard try, or maybe punt (and have the ball roll into the endzone, probably) and cross his fingers that the defense could hold. We could be pretty sure that near the end of the first half, with two or three timeouts remaining and the other team having the ball, MM would call timeouts to stop the clock, thinking/hoping his defense would get a stop and get the ball back once more (funny that MM counted on his defense to do this when he knew his defenses were often not that good, and those spent timeouts often resulted in the other team scoring before the half).

So what will LeFleur do in those situations? How will he handle time management? Challenges? It'll be interesting to see someone different. I'm not confident he'll be super successful, but I am hoping he learns from his mistakes. If he can do that, he has a chance, at least, to develop into a good head coach.

[call_me_ishmael]

This was well worth the time reading.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/08/23/washington-redskins-2013-coaching-staff-sean-mcvay-kyle-shanahan-matt-lafleur-mike-shanahan-rg3?xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=sinow

[Joemailman]

This was well worth the time reading.
hy MLF
https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/08/23/washington-redskins-2013-coaching-staff-sean-mcvay-kyle-shanahan-matt-lafleur-mike-shanahan-rg3?xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=sinow

That article might shed some light on why MLF was willing to hire offensive assistants who don't have a ton of NFL expeeience. He comes from a background where ability to innovate is valued as much as experience.

[pbmax]

That article might shed some light on why MLF was willing to hire offensive assistants who don't have a ton of NFL expeeience. He comes from a background where ability to innovate is valued as much as experience.

I would be fine with this except for O line and D line coach. I want guys who looked grizzled on their wedding day, 35 years ago.

I'll also note that there is a PR campaign here for the QB Collective or whatever its called. There was a TV program on 2 weeks ago with LaFleur, McVay and someone else talking about their camp.

[pbmax]

I remember this article about Kyle Shanahan. Made me doubt him until he had that year in Atlanta. McVay and LaFleur were the young yes-men as the old assistant coach (presumably) was burning some bridges and knocking the offensive staff.

Washington basically ended Shanny Sr. career.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/kyle-shanahan-staff-inexperience-at-core-of-redskins-dysfunction/

[RashanGary]

This was well worth the time reading.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/08/23/washington-redskins-2013-coaching-staff-sean-mcvay-kyle-shanahan-matt-lafleur-mike-shanahan-rg3?xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=sinow

Rodgers/Lafleur gonna make this a fun year

[Fritz]

I am really not liking what seems like underlying rot in the structure of the organization. I think Murphy is the one whose work needs to be under the microscope. LeFleur and Gutekunst are just the results of Murphy's control.

[RashanGary]

I am really not liking what seems like underlying rot in the structure of the organization. I think Murphy is the one whose work needs to be under the microscope. LeFleur and Gutekunst are just the results of Murphy's control.

Take Zoloft. It helps.

[pbmax]

Take Zoloft. It helps.

I thought the Packers WERE my Zoloft?

[Fritz]

Take Zoloft. It helps.

How about if the Packers are just very successful over the next few years instead? We've got to get this pill epidemic in the country under control.

[George Cumby]

I am really not liking what seems like underlying rot in the structure of the organization. I think Murphy is the one whose work needs to be under the microscope. LeFleur and Gutekunst are just the results of Murphy's control.

+1.

This year will say a lot about this weird structure they have in place.