Very valid point. After a run of games where his defense couldn't make one stop on one series and prevent a game-changing score, he's still being viewed as a shoo-in to land a NFL head coaching gig.

Yeah, the offense didn't do them any favors, but when has a dominant defense needed the offense to bail them out five games in a row?

Hype goeth before the fall.

I agree, Hafley doesn’t deserve a complete pass. That said, if MLF is retained, he needs to bring in an OC so he can manage the game more effectively, as he clearly can’t handle both roles at a high level. If Hafley is gone, I’ll be lobbying for Jimmy Leonhard, as I love his aggressive defensive style. He’s been a winner in everything he’s done, whereas Hafley feels a bit too passive for my taste.

Yes, but it's difficult when you have CBs like ours. That 4th and 8 play were Caleb is scrambling to his left has been burned into my mind, there where at least 4 Packers around that receiver and no one could make a play. UGH!!

Hafley had a very poor game. He too failed to adjust. He again left acres of space between his ILBs and backfield and that was exploited time and time again till it killed us. Found compare takes the safeties out of plays and is one reason for their lack of turnovers this year.

Then, when Cooper went down, he threw out McDuffie, who is a liability in coverage, compounding the problem. It has to be said though that an ever increasing fear of a big play has been a salient characteristic of every DC under LaFleur, starting with Pettine. In each case the D’s declined too. Perhaps Hafley will be lucky and get out early enough.

Overall though, the fact that the culpability is not all LaFleur’s had seemingly bizarrely become an argument to keep him for some when, in fact, he is a major culprit. No. If the HC is failing in the ways described, replacing him is essential to solving the problems. That it’s no a panacea for all problems is immaterial. Fixing things is typically a multi stage process. Start with the most obvious first, then don’t rest on your laurels, but finish the job, certainly,

In answer to your pondering about whether players can change a culture, Al. From experience my answer is no, or at least not sufficiently. A manager influences culture in so many ways, including everything that his team do and how they do it and how supervisors (coaches) make that a reality. He or she shapes how things are even perceived, rewards, opportunities. Players can remove edges, but can’t shake the overall paradigm.

I have come to the view that there is a lot more wrong with the Packers: how they are run, a seeming self-perpetuating and reinforcing bubble environment detached from the league outside and overall complacency generally and with the level of talent within the leadership generally, of the football side .. throughout.

Keeping LaFleur will only perpetuate that as he clearly hasn’t evolved, but Aldo by sweeping things under the carpet. A new (worthy) appointment is going to make significant waves because he will want to succeed. Replacing LaFleur with a pliable ingenue like he was on arrival might blow up in their faces in a period of “urgency”.

If LaFleur could just do a little bit better I suspect they hope it will calm things down and allow them to enjoy life as usual. That I think is what is happening, and it’s reflected in Policy’s pat on the back Packers piece and subsequent willingness to discuss not act. The unfortunate reality is that LaFleur hasn’t improved and the results won’t likely be better.

Internally we are cap constrained, externally Chicago is rising, Detroit can improve just by investing in a new OL. If Flores stays and they can find a QB, even Willis (please no) , we may already be playing for 3rd even with Parsons, Tom, Kraft and this coach. No divisional coach fears him, none has a losing record against him.

If they double down on keeping LaFleur, it will buy them respite briefly, but the heat will be high, the cap is tight and the player development has been nonexistent with little in the way of reinforcements coming. The likelihood is that this is going to be much uglier next year even if we just see an equivalent outcome, much more destructive unless we change course now, and sincerely. That starts with LaFleur, but it needs to go much deeper.

Nevertheless, the first and obvious step is still a necessary if we are to turn this around. It would have been better to bring in an outside president with different perspectives and less personal attachment and infusion into the mindset. That Murphy didn’t want or do that does not surprise me. Had he that vision, we would not have this structure and we wouldn’t be in the deepening hole we are now and slipping in further each year.

Hafley will be held accountable be landing somewhere as a head coach.

You are doing yeoman's work, my friend. I appreciate the tribute and share your grief.

May the four winds blow you safely home.

"MLF had the exact same response when other teams throughout the year got into desperate situations and turned up the pressure. To me his response is always the same. The players didn't do their jobs, and he was right. Just watch the film of our flailing offensive line. The problem is he did not have them prepared and he did not effectively counter. Predictably when the offense goes into a shell the defense tires out and the increased possessions for the opponent starts telling."

AWESOME Boneman...The Packers under Matt LaFleur summed up in a single paragraph... Well said young man!

This ^ right here.

"They crashed DBs into the line" mostly to the outside. A QB can stop that very quickly by taking off after a few seconds, and if CBs are blitzing are not some receivers open.

Dead on. Nailed it. Copy that.

Well said. Pretty telling MLF blames the defense, but forgets that his 3 and out Offense approach repeatedly exhausts them first! Yikes. I just can't get past the countless number of times that has happened, and especially in the big games.

And 3 of those games were lost by the missed makable FGs , not including the Ninner playoff loss. The best way to hold a lead is to run the ball especially when you have a tough RB who can can grind out a few extra yds, but Jacobs was consistently stunted in the backfield.

"were the who's who of who the hell are you"

Thanks, Nick. Didn't know I could laugh at such a serious situation.

If he can't get tough assistants, he's going to have to rely on players like Parsons and Kraft to do it for him/us and that just seems wrong to me. Not that they shouldn't be leaders but that that's all we can hope for.

"When he was first hired I hadn't heard of many of the assistants."

To fans, most assistants are nobody until they're somebody. Pull up the coaching lists for other teams and unless guys are former players in the league, once you get past the coordinators chances are you haven't heard of them.

"If LaFleur stays he's GOT to bring in seasoned assistants. "

I'd say he needs assistants who bring something different from what he does. I keep coming back to Anthony Campanile and how much difference he seemed to make a year ago (I think he was more influential than Hafley) and how he's played out in his new DC role. He brought an edge. This team needs more edge...and it CAN come from the assistants with a cool, calm HC. The players work primarily with position coaches, not the HC.

In fairness sometimes critical injuries really do matter. It is not just coincidental that the Packers lost every game they played after Micah Parsons went down. Just sayin.

...If we try to run it back without ANY staff changes, Im afraid we’re doomed...

This is my exact fear as well. I don't think Matt has enough HC in him to know where they are failing as a staff. I would love to see him get a real OC and get some former player assistants.

I think that is a total fallacy and, further, is predicated on the ability to hire better or that Gute will hire better than LaFleur. Once in they will work within LaFleur’s framework and culture. They are his reports and train within his framework.

No, that may result in some improvements (there plenty of scope) but it won’t change that much even if we hire better. In contrast, changing the top can dramatically change the environment and get more from those below that remain (some true over is inevitable in a rational HC transition).

Look no further than Chicago. Sure, that was not all on the HC, but the real transformation on that team was belief. That was all on the HC and that was the catalyst for over achieving their roster. Campbell, for all his faults did the same in Detroit. Yes, a CB lot of credit goes to the GM, but he made it happen. If the GM rebuilds that OL, we may be looking up at both next season.

There’s a clear tendency among fans to try to avoid facing this issue head on and instead to either deny it exists completely through excuses or to tinker on the edges. In the end both will end up with remarkably similar outcomes since both leave the core issues untouched.

Do you have a faith in MLF to make a necessary adjustment to the staff?

It’s not just this year. These are not issues that have not surfaced before and repeatedly. They are congenital. Whatever else is wrong, those failings make it harder to judge individual players and roster quality.

If coaching is bad, players will be less than they should be and used sub optimally as well. Even if Gute is a problem on a par with LaFleur, the best way to demonstrate that is to correct the obvious failings in preparation, usage and calling.

Look no further than the handling of the OL players for an example. Whatever Morgan and Belton can be, it’s impossible to argue they weren’t worse than they would have been as a result of coaching decisions.

Too funny and a little too real. With all the talk being on Lafleur, Gutekunst has been able to duck the scrutiny. He didn't do the effort any favors with his shelf stocking. If it wasn't for his all eggs in one basket deal for Micah Parsons we would have been lucky to eke out a 7 win season. Need to do better in the trenches and in the secondary.

I bet that long snapper will have a RAS of 9.76 though.

What I've learned is that you can't draft on "potential" in the first round, perhaps not for the first three rounds.
By the time the potential is realized -- if it is realized -- the rookie contract for the player is up, and he either has to be paid an enormous amount of money or allowed to move on in free agency.
In the early rounds, at least, we need guys who can step in during their first season, at least somewhat. We want them to be starters by the second year.
Especially in a league with so many injuries, we can't have too many guys not ready to be inserted into the starting lineup.

I don't get the sense Hafley wants to stay in GB. His wife and kids live in Jersey. I think he wanted the the Giants job as they have the most potential and he's a native but Harbaugh is the current favorite.
There is so much flux right now in the head coaching carousel, it's dizzying.

Hafley after 2 years hasn't even brought his family here. Does that sound like he has found a new home?

"This isn’t the right time to fire the coach unless it must be done and there is someone you really want waiting out there."

If the Packers' brass knew there was someone out there OR IN HOUSE that they wanted, they would be moving quickly to make a change. Regardless of what people around here are saying, the Packers would have arguably the most attractive job opening in this hiring cycle. Clearly the brain trust doesn't think they can do better, but LaF is that milk that's a little past date and smelling a little off. Maybe you can put it on your cereal and still be OK...maybe. But you have to really want that cereal.

I'm never a fan of a young HC wanting to call his own plays...yes, many built their resume for a HC job on their prowess calling games, but it's often too much. That said, LaF isn't a young HC anymore, and he's got to see where the deficiencies in his own work are. I expect you're on point in that we're going to see significant turnover in assistants, but if Hafley gets a HC gig he might take care of a lot of that for LaF.

I was really hoping that someone would bite on Stenavich a year ago in the HC sweepstakes if it meant a new voice in LaF's ear. I was really glad when Buddy Hackett moved on, but did things get better? Maybe Stenavich is really good, who knows? We certainly don't.

agreed

But… you know they will be… cheap!!

How do you script 2nd half of games when you don't know what the other team will do? It is not like scripting the first half as the game is half over and opponent knows what to look for. Seems to be counter intuitive. Make adjustments at half time not before game for 2nd half it seems more plausible.

Excellent point about changing. la lear is essentially incapable of it. That's his nature.

He doesn't know how to identify his own weaknesses. If you can't see them you can't fix them.

If he comes back you'll see many of the same problems no matter how many changes he makes

"We are only blaming 20% of the problem-MLF. He was an inexperienced 39 y/o who had been fired by the Titans."
First he wasn't fired by the Titans. He took the Packers HC job. Would he have been fired. No idea. But he wasn't fired.

Was he a wise choice? He was the last interview of the day and after Murphy, Ball and Gute slept on it', he was hired.
That is not enough vetting."
The Packers interviewed Josh McDaniels, Brian Flores, Adam Gase, Dan Campbell, Chuck Pagano, Jim Caldwell, Pete Carmichael, Todd Monken and Joe Philbin.

Who would you have wanted over LaFleur in that list of guys?

Remember, this was the HC hiring period when if you were going in the porta potty right after McVay came out, you were head coaching material. I believe that had a big influence on Murphy when LAF was hired.

1. Contract
IMO this is a mess. The Packers are going to give a new contract with lots of $$ to a guy we don't know they're committed to? If that's the case, I would rather that Policy had given Gute and LaF each a one-year extension last summer when he came in rather than marrying the team to a contract that might cost them the equivalent of the GDP of Lithuania if they move on after 2026.

2. Reporting
I'm less concerned with this, except for the point that if he's reporting to Gute and fixing issues, but Gute is feeling pressure he might push out the coach. That's GM 101.

"Would LaFleur be okay reporting to Gute? IDK."

I think a pretty significant raise would smooth over some hard feelings.

3. Changes
I think most HCs are loyal to their guys...they're hand-picked for the job and vision of the HC (mostly). I think the teams where ownership puts expectations on retaining assistants for new coaches have a tougher road to team unity. I think in this case there needs to be turnover, and I'd argue (aside from STs) it needs to be heavily on the offensive side of the ball.

"I think the odds are LaFleur signs a new contract, but the longer this goes on, the greater the chance of a new HC."

I'd go the other way here. The longer it drags out, the more likely both sides are quibbling over small details and will eventually reach an agreement. LaF will need time to find new assistants before they're all hired up by other new HCs with their new teams. If the gulf is wide and a dismissal is coming, the more likely it is to be fast...you can't afford to be looking for a HC in February or March.

Nicely written Guam.

I'm curious on the years part. Are the Packers looking for a shorter contract?

Here is my question. If his bosses are telling him he needs to change coaches, how much confidence do they really have in him?

Im ok with the more money part. If he stays and we win a SB there is no price you can put on that.

The rest of the stuff Policy needs to be firm! Dont give an inch. No frickin way we give him more than 3 years with next year being year 1 of the new contract. We dont want to be buying out 3-5 years of contract if we end up needing to fire him after next year.

He needs to deal with whoever we put in charge of him, and he needs to like it whether he actually does or not. Who his boss is is NONE of his business and he is not in a position to tell us who that should be.

This team needs some assistant changes. If anything just to signal to the players that some changes have been made. MLF either gets on board with that or he can go coach the Dolphins (good luck buddy).

46 4th quarter leads? Sounds like a team t hat #1 made the playoffs a lot (good sign) and #2 never gave up and kept getting the lead back after losing it (something MLF fails at).

This Packer team needs discipline and a coach who isnt their best friend. Harbough would bring both of those things. His OC can handle the offense.

Um or you FIX the offensive line issues and go with the guy who threw for over 300yards with no picks and 4 td's.

I think it's cute that people still put so much stock in what's said in pressers.

Ref: " Mister Ed " sitcom in the 60's .

Your welcome

How does correcting misinformation merit a downvote?

Nice recaps, but what is your take?

"Matt Lafleur Is Brian Gute's "Boy"
If Matt Lafleur Is canned that means Gute made a mistake In hiring Lafleur In the first place."

Except it was Murphy that made that decision. Not Gutey

I think Lafleur's hiring was a Murphy decision.

In his presser MLF says they brought in the extra help to counter the 5 man blitzes but the blockers "blew" their assignments. He admits it happened 4 or 5 times. Yet he did nothing to adjust to the blocking issues except hope that they would correct themselves. Which is pathetic.

Its the Mike Mccarthy syndrome all over again. The attitude that your plan (MLF's) is a sound and just plan, the players just need to execute it, and no way in hell im changing that sound and just plan just because they are struggling to execute it. I am ego, hear me roar.

"Unless Lafleur has a solid plan of replacing inadequate coaching"

Just throwing this question out there. (because it has been coming out a bit of late). But what if LaFleur has been trying to get other guys in and his bosses won't allow him to spend the $ to get them? We know about Rizzi. Maybe he is having the same issues with the assistant coaches as well?

Hang onto this post.

If we end up hiring Harbough and end up having the same old problems, this post may look prophetic....