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

[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