2025 NFL Discussion

[SeaBass]

11 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

To be fair, 7 years isn't that long to be the longest tenured coach holding that honor.  I'm wondering how often that title holder has had that short of a tenure if ever. And there are a few guys who did make the Super Bowl and are resting on doing it like 15 years ago, which shouldn't be a thing either. 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/47589337/nfl-green-bay-packers-coach-matt-lafleur-contract-extension-jordan-love

Quote

In seven seasons as head coach, LaFleur has yet to lead the Packers to a Super Bowl. Five active head coaches have been with their team longer than LaFleur's tenure in Green Bay -- only one has not been to at least one Super Bowl (Buffalo Bills' Sean McDermott).

Quote

Only one coach in NFL history reached the Super Bowl for the first time after his seventh season with the same team: John Madden, who took the Raiders there in his eighth season. Tom Landry went to his first Super Bowl in his 11th season with the Dallas Cowboys, but the Super Bowl had existed for only five years at that point. Before that, Landry failed to reach an NFL Championship Game in his first six years.

Well, at least there's one guy that did it. MLF needs to get to the Super Bowl next season to match.

[Jopal78]

4 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

To be fair, 7 years isn't that long to be the longest tenured coach holding that honor.  I'm wondering how often that title holder has had that short of a tenure if ever. And there are a few guys who did make the Super Bowl and are resting on doing it like 15 years ago, which shouldn't be a thing either. 

In any case, I am just not too excited about next year. Parsons not likely to start the year and who knows what kind of player he is. They just have a lot of holes and not much to play with.  And I have zero, zilch faith in Matt LaFleur to execute even if things break their way and they win 13 games. 

It's unconscionable we will be in the same spot next year or worse and grasping with the reality that we gave this guy a raise. A raise. 

If at your job if everyone else with your title and similar experience was getting paid more, I’m betting you’d think you deserve a raise as well, especially if some workers of the same title with even less experience were making more. 
 

I’d further wager that if your employer wasn’t positive they could find someone better when they have an immediate essential need at your role, they’d give you a raise instead of letting you walk.

Pretty simple stuff. 

[adambr2]

24 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

If at your job if everyone else with your title and similar experience was getting paid more, I’m betting you’d think you deserve a raise as well, especially if some workers of the same title with even less experience were making more. 
 

I’d further wager that if your employer wasn’t positive they could find someone better when they have an immediate essential need at your role, they’d give you a raise instead of letting you walk.

Pretty simple stuff. 

The “not positive we can find someone better” is just code for “scared of change”.

There’s never any guarantee of the next guy being better. It’s not like Bill Bellichick looked like a hot coaching hire 25 years ago or whatever it was. And there was certainly no one in January 2019 saying “we’ve got to get that OC Lafleur out of Tennessee, he’s the next great coach.”

If there is no moving on from Lafleur until we can be positive that the next guy will be better than we might as well go ahead and give him a 25 year extension.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

9 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

The “not positive we can find someone better” is just code for “scared of change”.

There’s never any guarantee of the next guy being better. It’s not like Bill Bellichick looked like a hot coaching hire 25 years ago or whatever it was. And there was certainly no one in January 2019 saying “we’ve got to get that OC Lafleur out of Tennessee, he’s the next great coach.”

If there is no moving on from Lafleur until we can be positive that the next guy will be better than we might as well go ahead and give him a 25 year extension.

I'm pretty sure at this point that this poster is MLF. 

We have, pretty clearly IMO, the worst HC in our division. 

[Jopal78]

17 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

The “not positive we can find someone better” is just code for “scared of change”.

There’s never any guarantee of the next guy being better. It’s not like Bill Bellichick looked like a hot coaching hire 25 years ago or whatever it was. And there was certainly no one in January 2019 saying “we’ve got to get that OC Lafleur out of Tennessee, he’s the next great coach.”

If there is no moving on from Lafleur until we can be positive that the next guy will be better than we might as well go ahead and give him a 25 year extension.

No it’s not scared of change. They dropped a HoF QB for a guy they got in the back half of the first round. Clearly the organization isn’t afraid of change.
 

Rather the difference is the Packers have B- talent, they went 9-6-1 with LaFleur. There isn’t a screaming reason to change based on that (unless the thought is they have A/A- talent and LaFleur is holding them back).

If there is someone readily available who you believe can get more out of the talent they have, then you make a change. Otherwise it’s change for change’s sake.

 

[adambr2]

11 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I'm pretty sure at this point that this poster is MLF. 

We have, pretty clearly IMO, the worst HC in our division. 

Despite their aggressive tendencies, I'm easily taking Campbell or Ben Johnson easily. 

Kevin O’Connell might have done the best job of anyone in the North to go 9-8 with that QB play. 

So yeah, easily 4th. 

[adambr2]

5 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

The difference is the Packers have B- talent, they went 9-6-1 with LaFleur. There isn’t a screaming reason to change based on that (unless the thought is they have A/A- talent and LaFleur is holding them back).

If there is someone readily available who you believe can get more out of the talent they have, the  you make a change. Otherwise it’s change for change’s sake.

 

I’m not concerned about the regular season record relative to talent level.

I think he’s proven that he can win enough regular season games.

It’s in the playoffs when the stakes are higher where his lack of delegation skills really get exposed and he gets outcoached by better delegated coaching staffs where one guy isn’t trying to manage 75% of the aspects of the game by himself. 

It’s hard for me to watch the Packers/Bears playoff game without coming to the conclusion that Matt Lafleur is indeed, holding them back.

[MrTPlush]

I am pretty sure MLF is only around because they are scared of ruffling the feathers of the players

When your franchise QB and star defensive player you backed up the dump truck to get both very publically support him, seems the locker room would not be very supportive of any change.

They surely aren’t keeping him for his gameday performance.

[Jopal78]

7 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I’m not concerned about the regular season record relative to talent level.

I think he’s proven that he can win enough regular season games.

It’s in the playoffs when the stakes are higher where his lack of delegation skills really get exposed and he gets outcoached by better delegated coaching staffs where one guy isn’t trying to manage 75% of the aspects of the game by himself. 

It’s hard for me to watch the Packers/Bears playoff game without coming to the conclusion that Matt Lafleur is indeed, holding them back.

Again, you’re complaining about talent: ie. Another team’s players out performing/out executing the Packers’ players.

It’s not as if LaFleur is less sophisticated than the other coaches in terms of concept and play calling. 
 

What’s LaFleur and Bisaccia supposed to do when, for example I know jt was the regular season but, they have Doubs (perhaps the most reliable pair of hands on the roster) positioned perfectly on their onside kick team and he blows the recovery?

Same thing with McManus. Positioned on the hash correctly, snap comes to holder correctly, and he misses the kick?

Trying to go for the knockout punch by trying to throw deep against the blitz? LaFleur knows if he hits it he’s a genius and if it doesn’t work he’s a goat, and he had the Fire in his belly to do it. 

 

[Fear The Chorizo]

15 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

I am pretty sure MLF is only around because they are scared of ruffling the feathers of the players

When your franchise QB and star defensive player you backed up the dump truck to get both very publically support him, seems the locker room would not be very supportive of any change.

They surely aren’t keeping him for his gameday performance.

Love hasn't had anyone else coaching him since joining the NFL...and Parsons came from the telenovela that is Jerry's team.  Couple that with the "youngest team in the NFL" moniker, and I take what the players publicly say defending him with a grain of salt.  I'm sure his demeanor makes them comfortable...but that hasn't led to anything but early playoff exits based on team expectations developed during regular seasons.  Frankly I think this roster could use a good kick in the posterior, and MLF isn't the guy for that after developing the culture that warrants that type of shift.

MLF has been around coaching this team long enough for its culture to reflect him - I don't think continuity is the recipe for the Packers taking the next step in January football

[HarryDoyle]

I can’t wait for the so called experts that chastised everyone calling for MLFs head because of his exceptional regular season record approve of McDermotts firing.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

35 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Despite their aggressive tendencies, I'm easily taking Campbell or Ben Johnson easily. 

Kevin O’Connell might have done the best job of anyone in the North to go 9-8 with that QB play. 

So yeah, easily 4th. 

All 3 have engineered bringing their teams from the league cellar to at least somewhat contending. LaFleur inherited a Cadillac and got its oil changed but that is about it. It depends how much credit you give him for Jordan Love, which is really the only way to argue he's achieved more than any of them. 

Johnson and Campbell aren't even a question. O'Connell is the only one I'd even consider largely because their '24 season seemed a bit fake but he's had at a mess to handle at the most important position. 

The nicest thing I can say about Matt LaFleur is that the Packers have remained competitive. That's about it. If I get into the details it's less flattering. 

[homer]

7 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

All 3 have engineered bringing their teams from the league cellar to at least somewhat contending. LaFleur inherited a Cadillac and got its oil changed but that is about it. 

A Cadillac that went 11 - 16 - 1 the previous two seasons?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 minute ago, homer said:

A Cadillac that went 11 - 16 - 1 the previous two seasons?

Yes. One of those years quarterbacked by Brett Hundley and the second where Rodgers played all 17 games with a tibial fracture and MCL sprain. 

It's fine if people want to defend Matt LaFleur. But if the argument is that he rescued Aaron Rodgers or something I am just gonna laugh. 

Matt LaFleur was the beneficiary of Angry Aaron going absolutely bonkers and putting together two MVP seasons in his late 30s. 

I hope he at least sends him a Christmas card every year because he owes everything he has to Rodgers. 

[homer]

8 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Yes. One of those years quarterbacked by Brett Hundley and the second where Rodgers played all 17 games with a tibial fracture and MCL sprain. 

It's fine if people want to defend Matt LaFleur. But if the argument is that he rescued Aaron Rodgers or something I am just gonna laugh. 

Matt LaFleur was the beneficiary of Angry Aaron going absolutely bonkers and putting together two MVP seasons in his late 30s. 

I hope he at least sends him a Christmas card every year because he owes everything he has to Rodgers. 

I honestly think Packer fans are the only ones with opinions like this. LaFleur, while not perfect by any means, is probably a better coach than 2/3 of the head coaches in the league. It is not easy to win consistently in the NFL unless you have a Hall of Fame QB. I think a lot of things have to go right for GB to win a SB with Love at QB. Would I have been upset had they fired MLF? Not really. But I am not convinced another coach gets them any closer to winning a title, and, in fact, there's probably a better than 50/50 chance a new coach takes them backwards.

fin

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 minute ago, homer said:

I honestly think Packer fans are the only ones with opinions like this. LaFleur, while not perfect by any means, is probably a better coach than 2/3 of the head coaches in the league. It is not easy to win consistently in the NFL unless you have a Hall of Fame QB. I think a lot of things have to go right for GB to win a SB with Love at QB. Would I have been upset had they fired MLF? Not really. But I am not convinced another coach gets them any closer to winning a title, and, in fact, there's probably a better than 50/50 chance a new coach takes them backwards.

fin

I mean, that's pretty much my opinion of him. Without looking at a list and picking names I'd say he's probably my 13th favorite coach or something. I still think it's true he's riding waves that Aaron made and that's why he's got a job in GB still. 

I think they probably make the playoffs again, but I have no faith in him to not botch games, not even big ones - he can botch week 4 in Cleveland just as well as the NFCCG. I simply don't think he's a championship head coach, and I think his decisions have consistently directly caused bad outcomes. 

As for Love, I guess a lot has to go right, but that's always the case. I don't really have any doubts that the Packers can win a title with Jordan Love. I think he's a really good player. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

1 minute ago, homer said:

I honestly think Packer fans are the only ones with opinions like this. LaFleur, while not perfect by any means, is probably a better coach than 2/3 of the head coaches in the league. It is not easy to win consistently in the NFL unless you have a Hall of Fame QB. I think a lot of things have to go right for GB to win a SB with Love at QB. Would I have been upset had they fired MLF? Not really. But I am not convinced another coach gets them any closer to winning a title, and, in fact, there's probably a better than 50/50 chance a new coach takes them backwards.

fin

I think it depends on what you want the team you root for to accomplish - The Packers have been great at being pretty good for a very long time, going on a magical Super Bowl run as a 6 seed once....then they largely underperformed preseason expectations under McCarthy in the postseason until that nucleus got old along with a mix of bad defenses and atrocious special teams, and he got fired.

MLF's hiring came with an infusion of free agency and a few good drafts to bolster a defense and saw a Rodgers resurgence, then they couldn't win home playoff games to get to the Super Bowl when they were expected to do so.  Since then, they've been in perpetual 7 seed mode - injuries did derail them from having a higher seed and more realistic chance at a Super Bowl run this season, but they still should have at least made the divisional round.  With the current roster, I just don't feel like the Packers are on the upswing with the same head coach.  They still have consistently awful special teams that cost them games, and their defense has been inconsistent at best with alot less quality depth than what all the draft/free agency capital used to build it should.  Some of that is Gute, but player development by the coaching staff is also important.

Fact is that McDermott got fired because the NFL still can't figure out what a catch is, and MLF got an extension despite his teams repeatedly showing they can't close at crunch time in the playoffs - that has spanned multiple starting quarterbacks more than good enough to win in the postseason and typical NFL roster and coaching staff churn.  The only common denominator is MLF.  I don't like the fact he's still the Packers' head coach.

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

MLF wasn't canned because (I think anyway) that the Packers really thought they were on the cusp prior to Parsons (and Tom and Watson) going down in Denver. They were looking primed to take over the division, highly probable to sweep all 6 division games and secure a 1 or 2 seed. 

They looked at the season before the comical rash of injuries, figured most of the important stuff is coming back, and thought their best chance was with LaFleur. It's not a crazy position. 

My problem is the raise/extension whatever. If there was ever a case for a prove-it year for a coach, it was 100% next season and MLF. Are they gonna fire him if they go 9-8? Because they should. 

[CheezWizHed]

Just watching the Bills/Broncos INT play today and I have to say that I don't understand the confusion.  It is clearly an interception (as the rules define it).

Two key things are important to note:

1. He didn't have time to make a football move
2. He ended up going to the ground. 

Without the football move, he hasn't established possession so he isn't "downed" when going to the ground.  Then he has to maintain possession through the ground, which he clearly didn't. 

Thus, it is an interception. 

People might not like the rule about maintaining it through the ground, but you can't complain about officiating per the rules... 

[JosephC]

1 hour ago, HarryDoyle said:

I can’t wait for the so called experts that chastised everyone calling for MLFs head because of his exceptional regular season record approve of McDermotts firing.

Media focused on the distant past.

LaFleur is 37-30-1 in the regular season over the last four years.  1-3 playoff record.

McDermott is 49-18, with a 5-4 playoff record over that same span.

Not even close.

IMO, Packers would have been justified in firing LaFleur due to these numbers.  McDermott should have been safe.

Also, the Bills GM, who has been there as long as McDermott, gets promoted.  How does he get promoted and McDermott gets fired when they have both been in the same boat?  Kind of odd that these moves would happen at the same time?  Seems like a owner jumped in, forced the GM to fire the head coach, and then promoted him for doing the dirty work.

For people who think LaFleur and McDermott should be in the same boat since McDermott has the better QB, I will point out that if you go 5 years back, LeFleur strolled into the playoffs with the MVP winning, future Hall of Fame QB who was at the top of his game and didn't even make it past the first playoff game as the #1 seed.

Media completely in love with LaFleur and I cannot figure out why.  Four year run of mediocre records, and an overall playoff record that is not good.

[JosephC]

3 hours ago, SeaBass said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/47589337/nfl-green-bay-packers-coach-matt-lafleur-contract-extension-jordan-love

Well, at least there's one guy that did it. MLF needs to get to the Super Bowl next season to match.

Best case scenario is that LaFleur is Bill Cowher.  Cowher did get to the Super Bowl in season #4 and lost.  He didn't get back to the Super Bowl until season #14 and then won.  In seasons #7, #8 and #9, he had two losing records, one 9-7 record and missed the playoffs in all three of those seasons.  While his playoff record after his first run of playoff appearances was nothing to write home out (5-6), it still is better than LaFleur (3-6).

[homer]

The last thing I'll say about MLF is that there are 10 head coach openings and the pool of candidates kind of sucks. Not a good year to be looking for a head coach, IMO.

ok enough MLF talk until be burns a timeout 3 min into the game.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

35 minutes ago, homer said:

The last thing I'll say about MLF is that there are 10 head coach openings and the pool of candidates kind of sucks. Not a good year to be looking for a head coach, IMO.

ok enough MLF talk until be burns a timeout 3 min into the game.

I think you're spot on though. These things are highly situational and don't happen in a vacuum. Maybe MLF would have been fired if Andy Reid was out looking. It's entirely possible something like that is the only reason McDermott got fired. It only takes one guy that the ownership wants to hire. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 hour ago, JosephC said:

Best case scenario is that LaFleur is Bill Cowher.  Cowher did get to the Super Bowl in season #4 and lost.  He didn't get back to the Super Bowl until season #14 and then won.  In seasons #7, #8 and #9, he had two losing records, one 9-7 record and missed the playoffs in all three of those seasons.  While his playoff record after his first run of playoff appearances was nothing to write home out (5-6), it still is better than LaFleur (3-6).

I have always had a bit of disdain for "playoff records." Being substantially over .500 requires multiple titles by default. If you overachieve and lose in the Wild Card you are 0-1. Until recently you could go 12-4, get a bye, lose to the 1 seed on the road in the CG and you're 1-1. Do that for a few years and your playoff record is easily something like 4-6. 

Something about it has always irked me. It would look prettier if you didn't make the playoffs at all. All these things need context. If you're a perennially decent team without the proper tools to be in top tier, your playoff record probably isn't going to be that great. 

I look at somebody like Coughlin who had 2 runs that combined for 8-0, cool. 

But he coached in New York for 12 seasons. They went 0-1 three times and missed the playoffs entirely 7 times. It seems more like he got lucky than he's a "great playoff coach." But he's 8-3, he must be amazing. 

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

MLF wasn't canned because (I think anyway) that the Packers really thought they were on the cusp prior to Parsons (and Tom and Watson) going down in Denver. They were looking primed to take over the division, highly probable to sweep all 6 division games and secure a 1 or 2 seed. 

They looked at the season before the comical rash of injuries, figured most of the important stuff is coming back, and thought their best chance was with LaFleur. It's not a crazy position. 

My problem is the raise/extension whatever. If there was ever a case for a prove-it year for a coach, it was 100% next season and MLF. Are they gonna fire him if they go 9-8? Because they should. 

Thats the NFL. There isn’t a “prove it” year for coaches, unless they fail. Because if they win they’ll have sour grapes and  the freedom go anywhere. 

Had the Packers wanted to retool and fired LaFleur and Gutekunst to stat fresh, I would not have cared, but firing just LaFleur because they thought their talent level, especially after Parsons was hurt, warranted more victories would’ve been dumb.