Matt LaFleur

[go pak go]

The whole alpha vs beta or whatever thing ultimately comes down to if the coach is winning.

Arguments can be made about any personality trait being good or bad to justify the end the result. We see players coaches win and be sucessful. We see players coaches lose and be unsuccessful. We say alpha coaches win and be successful. We see alpha coaches loses and be unsuccessful.

Both types are praised when it works. Both types are boo'ed when it doesn't work.

[Captain_Ben]

What does this have to do with it?

My point was that inflated egos can make people dumb. It shouldn't matter, but it might matter to a guy like AR.

look at the circumstances Ben, first Rodgers is older then Lafluer and probably has more years involved with football, 2nd. when Lafluer was brought in Guty and Murphy smoothed out there relationship, with Rodgers having a voice in how the offense would evolve and also a part of game planning, Lafluer new what he was getting into.

When we see Rodgers upset I think most of it stems from being frustrated the play didn't work, hell plenty of his audibles don't work either, and I think Lafluer realizes he's mostly just venting and it's best to just let it go in one ear and out the other, personally I'd rather this Rodgers then the guy who goes to the end of the bench and pouts, I'am sure Lafluer does too.

I havn't seen any players quitting on Lafluer.

I agree with the points you made in the first paragraph. It was mainly for these reasons that I wasn't crazy about the LaFleur hire when it happened. My main objection was that he supposedly came from the Sean McVay "coaching tree." I couldn't understand how a 3rd year head coach in his mid 30's who made it to a Super Bowl and lost could possibly already have his own coaching tree being coveted by NFL teams. When it comes to the AR relationship, it was going to be an uphill battle for LaFleur from the outset.

[texas]

The whole alpha vs beta or whatever thing ultimately comes down to if the coach is winning.

Arguments can be made about any personality trait being good or bad to justify the end the result. We see players coaches win and be sucessful. We see players coaches lose and be unsuccessful. We say alpha coaches win and be successful. We see alpha coaches loses and be unsuccessful.

Both types are praised when it works. Both types are boo'ed when it doesn't work.

True. MLF has been beta from the start but he has been winning. Tough guys like Urban Meyer come in all alpha and then get blown out. Winning is the most important thing. That being said, when an alpha coach loses, people don't list his alpha/beta status as a reason why he sucks, but they definitely do list it for a beta coach. If an alpha male coach sucks, it's explained away as something like "that style of coaching just doesn't work in the NFL anymore because these are men that are on these teams, not boys".

[texas]

My point was that inflated egos can make people dumb. It shouldn't matter, but it might matter to a guy like AR.

look at the circumstances Ben, first Rodgers is older then Lafluer and probably has more years involved with football, 2nd. when Lafluer was brought in Guty and Murphy smoothed out there relationship, with Rodgers having a voice in how the offense would evolve and also a part of game planning, Lafluer new what he was getting into.

When we see Rodgers upset I think most of it stems from being frustrated the play didn't work, hell plenty of his audibles don't work either, and I think Lafluer realizes he's mostly just venting and it's best to just let it go in one ear and out the other, personally I'd rather this Rodgers then the guy who goes to the end of the bench and pouts, I'am sure Lafluer does too.

I havn't seen any players quitting on Lafluer.

I agree with the points you made in the first paragraph. It was mainly for these reasons that I wasn't crazy about the LaFleur hire when it happened. My main objection was that he supposedly came from the Sean McVay "coaching tree." I couldn't understand how a 3rd year head coach in his mid 30's who made it to a Super Bowl and lost could possibly already have his own coaching tree being coveted by NFL teams. When it comes to the AR relationship, it was going to be an uphill battle for LaFleur from the outset.

I am comfortable saying that Matt LaFleur and McVay and Shanahan and all of them were deserving of HC jobs after such a short amount of time because you can tell that they all actually think for themselves. They all deserve a HC job more than the old model of coach who grinds away for decades and does things "because that's how they're supposed to be done" and preaches discipline and toughness. Discipline and toughness are obviously necessary, but the young whiz kid model is a far superior choice than the respected coordinator who works under another guy for years and has successful offenses or defenses before finally getting his shot, while spouting platitudes.

So much of coaching is just doing what your former boss taught you, and those are the kinds of coaches you don't want. You also don't want so-called "CEO" coaches like Matt Rhule. I was optimistic that would work but that's because he was the Baylor coach.

Also like all of the McVay tree coaches are good or have had good results. Proof is in the pudding. Cincinnati sucks for decades with a well respected leader of men and replaces him with a goober and all of a sudden winds up in the Super Bowl. Miami instantly gets way better by getting rid of an "I demand respect guy" and replacing him with a random nerd from SF. GB pairs up a guy with 1 year of playcalling experience, with a HOF QB, and gets a HC with the all time highest win % through 50 games. Vikings get a nobody and immediately look better than they have since idk, Dennis Green? Saleh's got the Jets looking better than they have in a long time too. The McVay tree is far superior to the old model of "let's have our players practice in 100 degree weather so they can build a mental callus" coaches of yesteryear because whatever Shanahan is doing, he's making people think rather than memorize.

[Scott4Pack]

My point was that inflated egos can make people dumb. It shouldn't matter, but it might matter to a guy like AR.

look at the circumstances Ben, first Rodgers is older then Lafluer and probably has more years involved with football, 2nd. when Lafluer was brought in Guty and Murphy smoothed out there relationship, with Rodgers having a voice in how the offense would evolve and also a part of game planning, Lafluer new what he was getting into.

When we see Rodgers upset I think most of it stems from being frustrated the play didn't work, hell plenty of his audibles don't work either, and I think Lafluer realizes he's mostly just venting and it's best to just let it go in one ear and out the other, personally I'd rather this Rodgers then the guy who goes to the end of the bench and pouts, I'am sure Lafluer does too.

I havn't seen any players quitting on Lafluer.

I agree with the points you made in the first paragraph. It was mainly for these reasons that I wasn't crazy about the LaFleur hire when it happened. My main objection was that he supposedly came from the Sean McVay "coaching tree." I couldn't understand how a 3rd year head coach in his mid 30's who made it to a Super Bowl and lost could possibly already have his own coaching tree being coveted by NFL teams. When it comes to the AR relationship, it was going to be an uphill battle for LaFleur from the outset.

The “magic” of the coaching trees is all about perceived success. There are all sorts of players or coaches that made it to the Super Bowl and instantly became stars. McVay is one of those guys. His staff is/was young and successful and they assured that the team scored many points. That speaks to teams who want new coaches.

[APB]

Saleh's got the Jets looking better than they have in a long time too.

Just a small point in the overall conversation.

Do you consider Saleh to be part of the Shanahan coaching tree? Yeah, he was his DC but it seems to me their styles are completely different. Saleh is more like the old school type you seem to be discrediting in your post...yet he is seeing some success with the Jets mainly because of his old school style defense. If he gets a decent QB, look out.

If anything, the OC Saleh hired (Mike LeFluer) is a direct descendant of Shanahan and he appears to be struggling the most. The Jets have offensive weapons but haven't really established that Shanahan-esque identity.

[LombardiTime]

We did something fairly unheard of, we brought on a new coach expressly to solidify Rodgers as "the man" in town. MLF was destined to be Rodgers's lickspittle from the start. MLF can Alpha it up and try to boss Rodgers around all he wants but Rodgers will know it's no threat to him, Rodgers would just pull clout to make him cut it out or run him off the team.

We did something even more unheard of after MLF was brought in, in 2019, to supposedly solidify Rodgers as "the man" in town.

The very next year, coming off a 13-3 season and with Rodgers under contract for several more seasons and publicly stating his desire to play into his 40s and retire a Packer, we spent 1st and 4th round picks on Rodgers' replacement to be "the man" in town.

Gutey & MLF looked to be ecstatic on camera after the Packers traded up to select Love. The decision to expend 1st and 4th round picks on a QB with question marks was the talk of the 2020 draft both locally and nationally.

For some reason, I don't think a guy with a personality like Rodgers has forgotten that moment and I doubt he ever will.

That's not unheard of at all. That's actually the norm when a new coach or GM comes to a team: they get a QB to replace the incumbent.

New regimes mean new QBs, 9 times out of 10.

If Love showed well sooner and/or Rodgers didn't have MVP years after the Love pick, good chance Gute and MLF would have continued the trend; Rodgers was kinda sucking before he won the first of those two MVPs. There's still a 50-50 chance they will.

Wait what?

On the one hand, the contention is that "New regimes mean new QBs 9 times out of 10" and that is the reason given for drafting Love in 2020, but up above the contention is that MLF was brought in expressly in 2019 to solidify Rodgers as the man in Green Bay

Committing to a veteran QB while using a 1st round pick on his successor are directly contradictory acts.

Are there other examples of teams that have done what GB did by hiring a coach to revive the veteran QB on roster while simultaneously drafting his successor?

[Drj820]

We did something even more unheard of after MLF was brought in, in 2019, to supposedly solidify Rodgers as "the man" in town.

The very next year, coming off a 13-3 season and with Rodgers under contract for several more seasons and publicly stating his desire to play into his 40s and retire a Packer, we spent 1st and 4th round picks on Rodgers' replacement to be "the man" in town.

Gutey & MLF looked to be ecstatic on camera after the Packers traded up to select Love. The decision to expend 1st and 4th round picks on a QB with question marks was the talk of the 2020 draft both locally and nationally.

For some reason, I don't think a guy with a personality like Rodgers has forgotten that moment and I doubt he ever will.

That's not unheard of at all. That's actually the norm when a new coach or GM comes to a team: they get a QB to replace the incumbent.

New regimes mean new QBs, 9 times out of 10.

If Love showed well sooner and/or Rodgers didn't have MVP years after the Love pick, good chance Gute and MLF would have continued the trend; Rodgers was kinda sucking before he won the first of those two MVPs. There's still a 50-50 chance they will.

Wait what?

On the one hand, the contention is that "New regimes mean new QBs 9 times out of 10" and that is the reason given for drafting Love in 2020, but up above the contention is that MLF was brought in expressly in 2019 to solidify Rodgers as the man in Green Bay

Committing to a veteran QB while using a 1st round pick on his successor are directly contradictory acts.

Are there other examples of teams that have done what GB did by hiring a coach to revive the veteran QB on roster while simultaneously drafting his successor?

It’s kind of rare because most coaches don’t get fired while they have an MVP at QB. That QB usually keeps them employed. But I like how you noticed the oxymoron that was being discussed.

[texas]

Saleh's got the Jets looking better than they have in a long time too.

Just a small point in the overall conversation.

Do you consider Saleh to be part of the Shanahan coaching tree? Yeah, he was his DC but it seems to me their styles are completely different. Saleh is more like the old school type you seem to be discrediting in your post...yet he is seeing some success with the Jets mainly because of his old school style defense. If he gets a decent QB, look out.

If anything, the OC Saleh hired (Mike LeFluer) is a direct descendant of Shanahan and he appears to be struggling the most. The Jets have offensive weapons but haven't really established that Shanahan-esque identity.

Yeah he is definitely part of the coaching tree. He followed all those guys around like they all did. Defense is obviously very different than offense, but ultimately I consider him part of that tree, just like Brandon Staley.

I think he looks like an old school coach, because he looks like a meathead or power lifter O-line coach or whatever. But he rose through the ranks with MLF and raised his profile under Shanahan, so he's definitely part of that coaching tree, and if I had to bet, I would say he probably knows how to think for himself rather than just memorize what he was taught. Could be wrong of course.

[Labrev]

Are there other examples of teams that have done what GB did by hiring a coach to revive the veteran QB on roster while simultaneously drafting his successor?

Not really, which is why I said 9 times out of 10. Green Bay is the 1 unusual outlier/exceptional circumstance. Teams that have a guy like Rodgers, one of the most talented QBs to *ever* play the game and winner of multiple MVP awards at QB, usually don't struggle enough to need a new HC in the first place.

And yet, even we kinda followed the rule, in a way, by drafting Love.

I do think MLF was brought in to get Rodgers back on track. At the same time, I also think it was unclear before 2020 if he would, so the Love pick may have also been them trying to "hedge their bets."

Not for nothing, this franchise values the QB position very highly (I would argue overly high). I think a lot of people in the halls of 1265 would tell you that having more than one good QB is a good problem to have. Not saying I agree with it, but ye.

[LombardiTime]

Are there other examples of teams that have done what GB did by hiring a coach to revive the veteran QB on roster while simultaneously drafting his successor?

Not really, which is why I said 9 times out of 10. Green Bay is the 1 unusual outlier/exceptional circumstance. Teams that have a guy like Rodgers, one of the most talented QBs to *ever* play the game and winner of multiple MVP awards at QB, usually don't struggle enough to need a new HC in the first place.

And yet, even we kinda followed the rule, in a way, by drafting Love.

I do think MLF was brought in to get Rodgers back on track. At the same time, I also think it was unclear before 2020 if he would, so the Love pick may have also been them trying to "hedge their bets."

Not for nothing, this franchise values the QB position very highly (I would argue overly high). I think a lot of people in the halls of 1265 would tell you that having more than one good QB is a good problem to have. Not saying I agree with it, but ye.

I happen to agree with you in that I believe that "MLF was brought in. to get Rodgers back on track" in 2019.

I also agree with you that "the Love pick may have also been them trying to 'hedge their bets." in 2020.

Thus, what ended up happening is that by hedging their bets they never actually picked the go with the young QB, start over, let's see what MLF's offense can do if run like he wants it run because MLF got Rodgers back on track.

Instead, they reverted back to going "all in" with an aging, expensive, and talented Rodgers while conversely spending (wasting?) their 2020 1st and 4th round picks on his backup.

Personally, if the Pack loses on Sunday in Philly to drop to 4-8, I'd love to see Love get some starts to finish out this season to show what he's got. And I don't mean just a meaningless season ender like last year in Detroit. How about a Christmas Day game in Miami against a Dolphins team looking to make the playoffs?

If Love does not get any meaningful starts this season the only explanations I can think of would be that the team thinks he has no promise or Rodgers is calling the shots and does not want his backup getting a shot. Either way, it would be a bad look. I say unleash the Love.

[Foosball]

If the Packers lose a couple more games, I would like to see Love get a couple series in a row in each half. Let’s see what the kids got…after 3 seasons he should be able to perform ata pro level.

Do you think Rodgers would let that happen?

Do you think LaFleur has enough guts to tell Aaron to sit down for a couple of series so he see what Love’s got?

No way. Not going to happen unless Rodgers is hurt.

[RingoCStarrQB]

If the Packers lose a couple more games, I would like to see Love get a couple series in a row in each half. Let’s see what the kids got…after 3 seasons he should be able to perform ata pro level.

Do you think Rodgers would let that happen?

Do you think LaFleur has enough guts to tell Aaron to sit down for a couple of series so he see what Love’s got?

No way. Not going to happen unless Rodgers is hurt.

Maybe now because Rodgers admitted that his thumb is broken ............ has been broken since the Giants game in London.

But then again ........ Favre wouldn't sit down.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Watched the Matt LaFleur show again last night with Larry McCarren. LaCoach offers literally no strategy for improvements. All we are hearing lately is "we need to play better complementary football" , and (paraphrased) "I have articulated to the team ..... blah blah blah. Diverting attention a bit by praising Watson's and Quay's play lately.

No one is blaming anyone .... instead they're carefully getting through the season with minimal controversy or internal drama.

C'mon man!

[Pckfn23]

So you want him to publicly blame others and give out his strategy to everyone?

[wallyuwl]

Watched the Matt LaFleur show again last night with Larry McCarren. LaCoach offers literally no strategy for improvements. All we are hearing lately is "we need to play better complementary football" , and (paraphrased) "I have articulated to the team ..... blah blah blah. Diverting attention a bit by praising Watson's and Quay's play lately.

No one is blaming anyone .... instead they're carefully getting through the season with minimal controversy or internal drama.

C'mon man!

MLF never gives any answers because he truly doesn't know. Of course coaches never give too much info in the media, but he literally says the same thing every week and we see the same problems on the field every week (Dallas excepted). He looks like a lost puppy every time he is interviewed.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Watched the Matt LaFleur show again last night with Larry McCarren. LaCoach offers literally no strategy for improvements. All we are hearing lately is "we need to play better complementary football" , and (paraphrased) "I have articulated to the team ..... blah blah blah. Diverting attention a bit by praising Watson's and Quay's play lately.

No one is blaming anyone .... instead they're carefully getting through the season with minimal controversy or internal drama.

C'mon man!

MLF never gives any answers because he truly doesn't know. Of course coaches never give too much info in the media, but he literally says the same thing every week and we see the same problems on the field every week (Dallas excepted). He looks like a lost puppy every time he is interviewed.

LaCoach is so opposite of Holmgren and Lombardi. Holmgren and Lombardi came in to 1265 and took over leadership responsibility from Day 1. Nothing of the sort at 1265 these days. Can't figure out who is in charge right now. I just hope we don't lose to Chicago on December 4th.

[Yoop]

Watched the Matt LaFleur show again last night with Larry McCarren. LaCoach offers literally no strategy for improvements. All we are hearing lately is "we need to play better complementary football" , and (paraphrased) "I have articulated to the team ..... blah blah blah. Diverting attention a bit by praising Watson's and Quay's play lately.

No one is blaming anyone .... instead they're carefully getting through the season with minimal controversy or internal drama.

C'mon man!

MLF never gives any answers because he truly doesn't know. Of course coaches never give too much info in the media, but he literally says the same thing every week and we see the same problems on the field every week (Dallas excepted). He looks like a lost puppy every time he is interviewed.

LaCoach is so opposite of Holmgren and Lombardi. Holmgren and Lombardi came in to 1265 and took over leadership responsibility from Day 1. Nothing of the sort at 1265 these days. Can't figure out who is in charge right now. I just hope we don't lose to Chicago on December 4th.

these are different times, so comparing Lafluer to two of the best coaches in franchise history who coached when it was financially easier to retain talent is like Apples to mandarin Oranges, or maybe Tangerines or possibly Banana's but it sure as hey aint apples to apples.

I'am at a loss for what people expect Lafluer to do, the guy has used every route tree, even schemes receivers open, but he can't go out on the field and run the routes or catch the passes, he can't go clear a gap for Jones or Dillon to run through, he's not going to fire coaches mid season, neither would have Lombardi or Holmgren, unless there is complete failure, which has not been the case.

I know people want to bench Rodgers, and that may happen, but thats hard to imagine, would Lombardi have benched Starr? Starr played banged up and probably worse then Zeke would have at times, obviously the same with Favre, Holmgren is on record saying I should have sat him, but if I'd have tried that, we'd have had world war 3 on the field trying to drag him off,( something to that affect) Rodgers is no different, if not of his own accord I could see Rodgers really raise hell in the media, and obviously make a strong case for getting Guty and Lafluer fired if Love fails, so I don't see either risking there jobs simply to see if Love is better, Russian Rolette aint there style, once we are mathematically eliminated I expect we'll see Love, and that will make everyone happy

I really like just about everything Lafluer has done offensively, love the run schemes, specially so last year, the motion and deception, freezing up the lbers makes it easier for OL to seal off, and the short drag routes, trailers and crossers, scheming receivers open, last years offense with 1 quality WR and two quality RB's was a potent match for any defense.

was a big mistake imho to fire Pettine and hire Barry, then the loss and replacement of Hackett and Getsy with Stenavich and Clements seem to hinder more then help, the better the assistants, the better the teaching, probably more consistency, basically what looks to be missing this year.

[texas]

I hope we don't bench Rodgers because he is my fantasy QB in multiple leagues. I also don't think we will. They're not just going to do it without his consent, and I doubt he will consent.

[bud fox]

I hope we don't bench Rodgers because he is my fantasy QB in multiple leagues. I also don't think we will. They're not just going to do it without his consent, and I doubt he will consent.

Only possible scenario in my mind is if they are out of playoff contention and Rodgers agrees.