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

[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
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
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!