I would imagine that disaster in Chicago completely changes the negotiations between LaFleur and Policy. Could Ed Policy demand that LaFleur bring in an offensive coordinator and special teams coordinator as part of the negotiations to keep his job?
The head coach picks his assistants, but I think a lot of people have interpreted LaFleur's public statements of support for his coaches as something more than just taking bullets for his staff. We've covered this at The Leap before, but there are financial limits to what the head coach can do in Green Bay. LaFleur has hired guys who weren't first or even second choices before as a result.
Back-of-the-roster players make up special teams everywhere. There are only 48 spots on the game-day roster. Nobody can have more than a few special-teams only players. It's just how the math works.
That doesn't mean the Packers couldn't improve on special teams. But if you think John Harbaugh will, say, prevent missed kicks, just look how his tenure in Baltimore ended.
I still think MLF should be the coach of this team. Being young doesn't say, you shouldn't win. But this team CLEARLY needs to learn how to win and close out games. Every year in sports, it's teams learning how to win and what works and what doesn't. I'd rather have a big lead, than having to try and comeback all the time. The leaders and locker room came out in support. Moving on to get who? I don't know could be another disaster and another year or 2 waiting for them to take those steps.
For the first time I'm in the camp of letting LaFleur go. No way a winning coach loses that game. I think he's limited, good to very good but not great. BUT I don't know if it's the right move for the reasons you gave-- who out there is better? I don't know if Hafley is an option, but it solves the problem of not wanting to lose him, and possibly getting an upgrade for LaFleur.
I won't tell anyone who feels as you do about Matt LaFleur that they're wrong, but I don't agree. The Packers closed games this season, including ones against opponents that were, on balance, as good or better than the team they lost to on Saturday.
And I keep coming back to this: The Packers were the NFC's No. 2 seed and leading the Broncos — who went on to claim the AFC's top seed — when Micah Parsons went down. There was just no overcoming that, especially after the laundry list of injuries they already racked up. I said as much at the time.
The Source has spoken, it appears LaFleur will be extended. I've had time to think about it some more, and in spite of the good arguments against it, the right call is to extend. Let's run it back. You were right. That's why you write and I read.
I don't discount the injury bug-- good lord we were snakebit this year-- but those two Chicago games, and others, really highlighted our inability to adjust or think on the fly-- which I put on the coaches (there's and our's). Silverstein said it better than me, a column I came across after I posted my comment. I'm a lot more pro-Gutey than I am anti-LaFleur, so I won't cry in my beer if he stays.
I would imagine that disaster in Chicago completely changes the negotiations between LaFleur and Policy. Could Ed Policy demand that LaFleur bring in an offensive coordinator and special teams coordinator as part of the negotiations to keep his job?
The head coach picks his assistants, but I think a lot of people have interpreted LaFleur's public statements of support for his coaches as something more than just taking bullets for his staff. We've covered this at The Leap before, but there are financial limits to what the head coach can do in Green Bay. LaFleur has hired guys who weren't first or even second choices before as a result.
All of which to say: LaFleur will want changes, and the article outlined what those will probably look like.
Thanks again for a great season of coverage. Looking forward to what’s ahead. Keep up the great work!
You don't have to thank us. We thank you for supporting us and our work.
Thank YOU, Mike
If the Packers let Matt go and hire Harbaugh, do special teams improve? Or would Gutey just keep feeding bottom of the roster guys for teams?
Back-of-the-roster players make up special teams everywhere. There are only 48 spots on the game-day roster. Nobody can have more than a few special-teams only players. It's just how the math works.
That doesn't mean the Packers couldn't improve on special teams. But if you think John Harbaugh will, say, prevent missed kicks, just look how his tenure in Baltimore ended.
Good point!
I still think MLF should be the coach of this team. Being young doesn't say, you shouldn't win. But this team CLEARLY needs to learn how to win and close out games. Every year in sports, it's teams learning how to win and what works and what doesn't. I'd rather have a big lead, than having to try and comeback all the time. The leaders and locker room came out in support. Moving on to get who? I don't know could be another disaster and another year or 2 waiting for them to take those steps.
For the first time I'm in the camp of letting LaFleur go. No way a winning coach loses that game. I think he's limited, good to very good but not great. BUT I don't know if it's the right move for the reasons you gave-- who out there is better? I don't know if Hafley is an option, but it solves the problem of not wanting to lose him, and possibly getting an upgrade for LaFleur.
I won't tell anyone who feels as you do about Matt LaFleur that they're wrong, but I don't agree. The Packers closed games this season, including ones against opponents that were, on balance, as good or better than the team they lost to on Saturday.
And I keep coming back to this: The Packers were the NFC's No. 2 seed and leading the Broncos — who went on to claim the AFC's top seed — when Micah Parsons went down. There was just no overcoming that, especially after the laundry list of injuries they already racked up. I said as much at the time.
That's just my view on the matter.
The Source has spoken, it appears LaFleur will be extended. I've had time to think about it some more, and in spite of the good arguments against it, the right call is to extend. Let's run it back. You were right. That's why you write and I read.
I don't discount the injury bug-- good lord we were snakebit this year-- but those two Chicago games, and others, really highlighted our inability to adjust or think on the fly-- which I put on the coaches (there's and our's). Silverstein said it better than me, a column I came across after I posted my comment. I'm a lot more pro-Gutey than I am anti-LaFleur, so I won't cry in my beer if he stays.