Matt LaFleur

[NCF]

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2022/8/29 ... on-rodgers

[BSA]

Thx - That was a great read on MLF.
Really enjoyed the comments from his players and peers and how they view him. MLF is the only one of 6 coaches hired that offseason...who is still with his same team. Packers absolutely nailed that hire.

[wallyuwl]

Thx - That was a great read on MLF.
Really enjoyed the comments from his players and peers and how they view him. MLF is the only one of 6 coaches hired that offseason...who is still with his same team. Packers absolutely nailed that hire.

They sure did.

I didn't like now Murphy did the new power structure. But the hire turned out great.

[texas]

Thx - That was a great read on MLF.
Really enjoyed the comments from his players and peers and how they view him. MLF is the only one of 6 coaches hired that offseason...who is still with his same team. Packers absolutely nailed that hire.

Zac Taylor?

[BF004]

I thought there were 8 hires that offseason.

** edit, 5 coaches are gone, LaFleur, Kingsbury and Taylor remain.

Arians, Fangio, Kitchens, Flores, Gase all gone.

[Drj820]

From another thread about Lafleur

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑09 Oct 2022 18:52
LombardiTime wrote: ↑09 Oct 2022 12:22
For the rest of the game, the Giants were the aggressor on O and the Pack played its usual conservative D waiting for Jones to make a mistake that never came.


This!

I’ve been saying for over two years now that MLF needs to learn how to TAKE games from the opponents. He has relied on Rodgers all this time.

I don’t like Pete Carroll’s personality at all. But I tell you that he knows how to take wins from other teams like no coach that I’ve seen in some time. Do a trick play or a unique call to create a turnover or an unexpected onside kick or do SOMETHING unusual to show the other team that you will overcome them. MLF can win all the games in regular season on talent. But in January, you do not get by just on talent. Intangibles can become everything.

Response:

This is where my thinking on Lafleur is heading. And I remember not having many in agreement with me that said that although the regular season record has been incredible for Lafleur...he doesnt get much credit in terms of COTY voting, because he has an MVP at QB. Like Rodgers, Lafleur has to build his legacy in the postseason...when other team have great QBs, defenses, and coaches. Lafleur has failed to do this, so Lafleur has not garnered universal respect.

Now, the push back for this was that it was Lafleur who "fixed" Rodgers...i pretty much agree. Lafleur was great for Rodgers to a point. And Rodgers is prickly, so maybe Lafleur was the best for Rodgers that could be asked for...but essentially that makes Lafleur a great QB coach. I also give Lafleur credit for keeping the team together last year through all the Rodgers bs about wanting to leave and etc etc. That was not easy and Lafleur handled that beautifully....

So as you can see...Ive given Lafleur a lot of credit. But there is also a lot missing. He showed he has no idea whatsoever for what hes doing on ST last year when the dbag he hired ruined the season for the team. The HC should have knowledge of all three phases of the game. Now, at least he made a great hire at ST coordnator. He should have made a hire like that as soon as Mennenga was canned.

Also, is he Rodgers whipping boy? Why does Rodgers call him "Matt"? You ever heard Brady or Peyton call their coaches their first name? Is that some weird "We are on same level" thing from 12? How bout respect the man and call him "Coach"?

What about sticking to the run and halftime adjustments? Have we seen any evidence that he has that in his bag of tricks? What about beating teams with better rosters? Have we seen that?

Again, Lafleur doesnt get national respect because everyone feels that any team with Rodgers could walk out on game day and with 3/4 of their regular season games. Lafleur will make his name in the postseason...a stage that has seemed entirely too large for the young coach up to this point.

[Scott4Pack]

Thanks for your additions. But I think my point is that MLF is a “play to not lose” kind of HC. Our DC is exactly like that too. That makes them vanilla, predictable, and mundane. There’s probably not anything specific that they do wrong. But they don’t inspire either. Players know this too and it results in them playing below their potential.

It’s better, I think, to take occasional risks, even big risks. Do some hi risk/hi payoff stuff and keep things unpredictable. I thought that Barry did that when he first arrived. Not any more.

[go pak go]

Thanks for your additions. But I think my point is that MLF is a “play to not lose” kind of HC. Our DC is exactly like that too. That makes them vanilla, predictable, and mundane. There’s probably not anything specific that they do wrong. But they don’t inspire either. Players know this too and it results in them playing below their potential.

It’s better, I think, to take occasional risks, even big risks. Do some hi risk/hi payoff stuff and keep things unpredictable. I thought that Barry did that when he first arrived. Not any more.

I said back in 2020 when everyone adored MLF to "give it time. Soon enough every coach will be viewed as a not to lose guy"

That's just the nature of the game and perception.

And here we are.

[Yoop]

Thanks for your additions. But I think my point is that MLF is a “play to not lose” kind of HC. Our DC is exactly like that too. That makes them vanilla, predictable, and mundane. There’s probably not anything specific that they do wrong. But they don’t inspire either. Players know this too and it results in them playing below their potential.

It’s better, I think, to take occasional risks, even big risks. Do some hi risk/hi payoff stuff and keep things unpredictable. I thought that Barry did that when he first arrived. Not any more.

I said back in 2020 when everyone adored MLF to "give it time. Soon enough every coach will be viewed as a not to lose guy"

That's just the nature of the game and perception.

And here we are.

small things create big change, we've played zone since day one with Barry, I think you made a point Douglas is far better on the boundary then in the slot, and zone coverage strips Alexander of his best skills, and basically he didn't play last year, he become a lock down corner under Pettine who used most man cover schemes, these two things has our defensive secondary in turmoil.

Last week Barry had the DL mostly in Nickel 20 fronts against NE's third string QB, so he didn't trust the base coverage ability even then, this week ( after giving up 160 yrds rushing against NE ) against Barkley he went base more and the coverage ability was putrid against backup type receivers again, Stokes and Douglas did best at boundary zone last year, seems like a logical fix is to move Alexander into the slot, and use more base front.

and use our 2 RB's more as short yardage receivers along with 25 run touches, the passing will be easier when teams have to load the box, instead of force feeding passes deep which don't connect, be more satisfied with just moving the chains, basically do more of what helped the team become 39-9 over the last 3 years.

[TheSkeptic]

Thanks for your additions. But I think my point is that MLF is a “play to not lose” kind of HC. Our DC is exactly like that too. That makes them vanilla, predictable, and mundane. There’s probably not anything specific that they do wrong. But they don’t inspire either. Players know this too and it results in them playing below their potential.

It’s better, I think, to take occasional risks, even big risks. Do some hi risk/hi payoff stuff and keep things unpredictable. I thought that Barry did that when he first arrived. Not any more.

I said back in 2020 when everyone adored MLF to "give it time. Soon enough every coach will be viewed as a not to lose guy"

That's just the nature of the game and perception.

And here we are.

small things create big change, we've played zone since day one with Barry, I think you made a point Douglas is far better on the boundary then in the slot, and zone coverage strips Alexander of his best skills, and basically he didn't play last year, he become a lock down corner under Pettine who used most man cover schemes, these two things has our defensive secondary in turmoil.

Last week Barry had the DL mostly in Nickel 20 fronts against NE's third string QB, so he didn't trust the base coverage ability even then, this week ( after giving up 160 yrds rushing against NE ) against Barkley he went base more and the coverage ability was putrid against backup type receivers again, Stokes and Douglas did best at boundary zone last year, seems like a logical fix is to move Alexander into the slot, and use more base front.

and use our 2 RB's more as short yardage receivers along with 25 run touches, the passing will be easier when teams have to load the box, instead of force feeding passes deep which don't connect, be more satisfied with just moving the chains, basically do more of what helped the team become 39-9 over the last 3 years.

MLF calling more running plays is not going to many difference if AR just checks out of it and throws an incompletion. The next time AR does that 2 plays in a row, Love needs a series and AR needs to sit. Until he does that, the team belongs to Rodgers, not MLF. If MLF does not do it, the Packers are 1 and done in the playoffs again.

[packman114]

Aaron has been bad on his deep throws this year. If he leads Cobb on that deep pass in the 3rd quarter we're not even having these conversations.

This offense is setup to run, short passes and then hit the big play. Probably 2 or 3 good chances every game. He needs to hit one of them each game and he hasn't been close.

[APB]

I think the offensive coaching turnover is a much bigger thing than what everybody thought it’d be. The Packers lost Hackett and Getsy, the two coaches that had the most influence over the offense (and Rodgers) outside of the HC and moved their highly successful o-line coach to a coordinator position he is clearly struggling with. To add salt to the wound, the once successful o-line unit is now a struggling bunch unable to pick up simple stunts nor hold their own one-on-one match-ups.

Add in the loss of two key receivers (Adams/MVS) in the off-season and you get the &%$@-sandwich offense we’ve been witness to the last 6 weeks. And I’m not sure there’s a simple solution to fix it.

[Labrev]

Matt LaFleur is a glorified offensive coordinator at HC. It's time to face the reality: he can't beat top competition.

It was one thing when he was new and inexperienced. Four years in, still can't do it; now he's actually struggling against lesser teams.

[BF004]

I get overreactions are gunna come, he’s one of the winningest coaches in NFL history, I believe recently extended. He is as safe as safe can be.

We aren’t going to fire him on back to back losses in the first time in his 4 years of coaching.

I don’t have a magic fix idea, if I had one, I’d share it. Probably just comes down to effort, execution, and star players stepping up.

I do think it starts first and foremost with Aaron over others. When the OL can’t block, you simply can’t go to 4th read. When it’s 4th down and a WR is quite open, you gotta hit him. He’s probably down the list of concerns, but it does start with him. Simply from the fact that if he doesn’t turn it around ASAP, we simply can’t justify paying him next year, he has the hottest seat on the team for anyone not named Amari or Royce.

No way around it, the highest paid player in the league can’t be above average let alone average.

Royce Newman is one of those guys we will cut and and acted shocked that no one else even bothers signing him.

[Drj820]

Packers beat the patriots when they had a third string qb and beat the bucs without any of their weapons.

Lafleur was severely outcoached in both of those games.

That’s 5 of 6 games now the coaching staff has been SEVERELY outclassed, irregardless of the game result.

[Realist]

Packers beat the patriots when they had a third string qb and beat the bucs without any of their weapons.

Lafleur was severely outcoached in both of those games.

That’s 5 of 6 games now the coaching staff has been SEVERELY outclassed, irregardless of the game result.

Have you seen Mlf's winning percentage? Guy is a genius.

[Drj820]

Packers beat the patriots when they had a third string qb and beat the bucs without any of their weapons.

Lafleur was severely outcoached in both of those games.

That’s 5 of 6 games now the coaching staff has been SEVERELY outclassed, irregardless of the game result.

Have you seen Mlf's winning percentage? Guy is a genius.

Helps playing in a division with lions and bears

[Realist]

Packers beat the patriots when they had a third string qb and beat the bucs without any of their weapons.

Lafleur was severely outcoached in both of those games.

That’s 5 of 6 games now the coaching staff has been SEVERELY outclassed, irregardless of the game result.

Have you seen Mlf's winning percentage? Guy is a genius.

Helps playing in a division with lions and bears

We made a deal with the psychodelic diva. Not sure of a way out. Rodgers won't retire so we are screwed for a few.

[Labrev]

I called for us to yeet McCarthy well before folks realized he was the problem.

The situation now is the same as then, we just have not (yet) let the issue long enough to lead to losing seasons.

That issue being, LaFleur (like late stage McCarthy) has no scheme. There is no larger plan for strategically moving the ball downfield, just some vague hope that Rodgers will turn it on and play MVP ball, without changing our approach to adjust for the very new personnel group.

LaFleur was LOST last year when he had to play Love, no different than how McCarthy was when he had to play Hundley.

We stuck by McCarthy that long because "well he's a SuperBowl-winning coach, dont'cha know!" Now, it's "MLF's winning record is historic!" Those refrains are just suppositions that somehow they will stop being mediocre rather than seeing the situation for what it is.

Hope is not a winning strategy.

[Labrev]

We aren't going to fire him because the Conventional Wisdom is you only fire coaches after you actually suffer losing seasons. The fact that that's how it's done doesn't make it smart, though. Some people went so far as to say we should have waited even longer to fire McCarthy to be "classy" -! They would have made players continue to be part of a clear Lost Cause for another four weeks just to keep up appearances.

It seems straightforwardly justifiable to me that if you believe you will end the year under .500, you need not wait for that to happen.

Do what you need to do to turn things around, let conventionalists go on about "precedent"-nonsense.