NFL Wild Card Round: Packers @ Bears on January 10th at 7:00 PM

[Underachiever]

Season-long success, post-season failure/underperformance. 

Are we talking about the Packers, Brewers, or Badger basketball? I know all the reasons are different, but man, it's tough to be a fan from where I sit right now. At least Badger FB doesn't get my hopes up.

I'm okay with them moving on from LaFleur. What I don't agree is that you need to wait two seasons for a new coach to be successful. I'm not saying fire the new guy if he is not, but we can point to Ben Johnson (Bears), Curt Cignetti (Indiana fb) and Dusty May (UM BB) as coaches that didn't need two seasons. Not the norm, I understand, but not unreasonable to expect success immediately.

[JosephC]

3 hours ago, Brewin said:

Most of this thread is difficult to get my head around. I understand the frustration with MLF, but anyone who thinks he wouldn't be at the top of the list of coaching candidates if GB fired him is not living in reality. The guys won basically 2/3 of his games as a NFL coach and not all of that was solely due to our previous HOF QB.

When looking at the numbers, one could make the argument that the 2/3's winning percentage is largely due to the previous HOF QB.

These records include the playoffs.  Unless I made a mistake somewhere, I have LaFleur's QB winning percentages as follows-

Rodgers = 0.700 (49-21)

Love = 0.548 (28-23-1)

Willis = 0.667 (2-1)

Tune = 0.000 (0-1)

Under LaFleur, Packers win 70% of their games with Aaron Rodgers starting, Packers win 54% with a different quarterback starting.

[OldHeidelberg]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

This feels like the twilight zone. I can't fathom multiple execs thinking this guy is worth $10 million a year.

In only takes one and I believe there would be at least that. He is still young and highly regarded as a play caller and QB guru. We know his limitations but some else will be fooled or think he can be fixed.

[adambr2]

If you’re a believer in karma, McManus missing 3 kicks is a pretty fitting penalty from the football gods for the complete loser move of calling a timeout with 1 second in a meaningless game to kick a field goal to lose 16-3 instead of 16-0.

“Sure thing Matt, you can have those 3 points. But I’m taking back 7 from him next week.”

[HarryDoyle]

And for the cherry on top...

 

[homer]

6 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

This feels like the twilight zone. I can't fathom multiple execs thinking this guy is worth $10 million a year.

Mike McDaniel is getting 3 interviews this week and he is 0 -2 in the playoffs.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

5 hours ago, Underachiever said:

Season-long success, post-season failure/underperformance. 

Are we talking about the Packers, Brewers, or Badger basketball? I know all the reasons are different, but man, it's tough to be a fan from where I sit right now. At least Badger FB doesn't get my hopes up.

I'm okay with them moving on from LaFleur. What I don't agree is that you need to wait two seasons for a new coach to be successful. I'm not saying fire the new guy if he is not, but we can point to Ben Johnson (Bears), Curt Cignetti (Indiana fb) and Dusty May (UM BB) as coaches that didn't need two seasons. Not the norm, I understand, but not unreasonable to expect success immediately.

Not be successful. Win the Super Bowl. It is asking a lot of a first-year coach to implement his stuff and culture and that the team immediately wins the Super Bowl, because that would be the point of firing LaFleur. Losing the WC or DV is not going to be seen as successful. Point was that the Packers likely believe internally that it is more likely they reach SB sticking with what has at least gotten them to the playoffs, than they are starting from scratch. That is the Catch 22 of firing a coach who has "won a bunch of games."

It is easy to fire someone who went 7-10. It takes cajones to do it when you are coming off what realistically would have been back-to-back at least 11-win seasons we were headed for before all those injuries. (We punted the last game of the year in consecutive seasons, our QB was concussed, etc.).

Comping other sports especially CFB just isn't the same at all. It can be done in the NFL, yes, I believe Gruden did it in TB. But it's asking a lot and is risky from their perspective.

[Underachiever]

4 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Not be successful. Win the Super Bowl. It is asking a lot of a first-year coach to implement his stuff and culture and that the team immediately wins the Super Bowl, because that would be the point of firing LaFleur. Losing the WC or DV is not going to be seen as successful. Point was that the Packers likely believe internally that it is more likely they reach SB sticking with what has at least gotten them to the playoffs, than they are starting from scratch. That is the Catch 22 of firing a coach who has "won a bunch of games."

It is easy to fire someone who went 7-10. It takes cajones to do it when you are coming off what realistically would have been back-to-back at least 11-win seasons we were headed for before all those injuries. (We punted the last game of the year in consecutive seasons, our QB was concussed, etc.).

Comping other sports especially CFB just isn't the same at all. It can be done in the NFL, yes, I believe Gruden did it in TB. But it's asking a lot and is risky from their perspective.

Do you apply the same standard to LaFleur? Does he have to win the Super Bowl next year?

And as far as "starting from scratch", that's not really the case. Same GM, a lot of the same roster, it's a nice job for a candidate. And as you said, it can be done in the NFL. I don't believe that it can be done with LaFleur. If GB keeps him, obviously they disagree with me. 

Gutekunst builds a roster with the philosophy of getting rid of someone a year too soon rather than a year too late. Do the same here.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

12 minutes ago, Underachiever said:

Do you apply the same standard to LaFleur? Does he have to win the Super Bowl next year?

 

That precisely why this extension talk is such a puzzle. I think it's bonkers to extend this guy right now even if he isn't fired. If I were him I'd be happy just not being fired and coaching for my job next year. I'd fire him, but not doing so is understandable. Extending him is insane, IMO.

I do think at least playing in an NFCCG - without Aaron Rodgers - has to be the bar for MLF for clear. Setting the bar at "win the SB" is too luck dependent.

[yourout]

4 hours ago, HarryDoyle said:

And for the cherry on top...

 

That's pretty much right on point for our special teams.

[HarryDoyle]

5 minutes ago, yourout said:

That's pretty much right on point for our special teams.

I wonder if a condition of MLF's extension is that Bisaccia must be shown the door. He has to go, but I can't even get excited about that because he hasn't been the special teams coordinator for the past 20 years. We can't just assume the special teams will get better simply because we fired Bisaccia. I'll believe it when I see it.

[yourout]

15 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

I wonder if a condition of MLF's extension is that Bisaccia must be shown the door. He has to go, but I can't even get excited about that because he hasn't been the special teams coordinator for the past 20 years. We can't just assume the special teams will get better simply because we fired Bisaccia. I'll believe it when I see it.

But certainly is quite the conundrum on how awful our special teams have been for the last 15 plus years. How many different coordinators have we tried?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I enjoy making jokes about Bisaccia but my technical brain can't help but believe this guy is in the league because he has a great reputation for a reason. 

I don't think the Packers roster ST appropriately. Bo Melton is a roster spot that some other teams use on a specific ST ace that they go out and find specially for that purpose. And our OL couldn't run block worth a lick this year anyway so it doesn't surprise me the backups can't execute a punt without a hold or allow a few kicks to get blocked. 

I don't think they roster anyone with the intention that they will be a good ST player. They only worry about the 30 or so guys who will see the field on offense or defense and their reserves. 

The TLDR is that I don't think another coordinator is the solve. 

 

[adambr2]

It’s still not over until MLF actually signs an extension. It’s a weird spot because MLF probably knows he can get 12-15M a year somewhere else, and Policy is sitting there thinking …”man I look like a cuck if I give that guy that kind of money right now.”

So it’s an interesting spot. It does look a bit ridiculous right now to give MLF a huge raise.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 minute ago, adambr2 said:

It’s still not over until MLF actually signs an extension. It’s a weird spot because MLF probably knows he can get 12-15M a year somewhere else, and Policy is sitting there thinking …”man I look like a cuck if I give that guy that kind of money right now.”

So it’s an interesting spot. It does look a bit ridiculous right now to give MLF a huge raise.

Probably the only time in my Wisconsin sports fandom where I actually have no fear of the guy leaving and dunking on us with his new team. In fact I hope we get to play him. 

[yourout]

9 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

It’s still not over until MLF actually signs an extension. It’s a weird spot because MLF probably knows he can get 12-15M a year somewhere else, and Policy is sitting there thinking …”man I look like a cuck if I give that guy that kind of money right now.”

So it’s an interesting spot. It does look a bit ridiculous right now to give MLF a huge raise.

Yeah there's no way in hell you're going to come out looking good giving him that kind of money after his post Rogers record.

[Sixtolezcano]

12 hours ago, adambr2 said:

Hoping this is just kind of a prelude to them eventually saying they couldn’t work out a contract and had to part ways just to save face.

I’ll be honest, I’m pretty much done for now if they give him a big extension. I’ll still pay attention in a casual way like I follow Badger basketball. But I’m not going to go spend my money attending games, get my hopes up, just to go through another inevitable choke job next year. Nah. Just not worth getting that emotionally invested anymore.

JC please NO, NO, NO!!!

[nate82]

 

[Jopal78]

10 hours ago, adambr2 said:

It’s still not over until MLF actually signs an extension. It’s a weird spot because MLF probably knows he can get 12-15M a year somewhere else, and Policy is sitting there thinking …”man I look like a cuck if I give that guy that kind of money right now.”

So it’s an interesting spot. It does look a bit ridiculous right now to give MLF a huge raise.

Not really. The cost of head coaches has gone up in the last couple seasons.
 

I’m not certain the CEO cares what the podcasters and pundits think he looks like. But to your point about looking like a cuck, there is the other side of the coin looking like a team with Super Bowl aspirations that then goes cheap on coaching staff.

[SeaBass]

12 hours ago, adambr2 said:

It’s still not over until MLF actually signs an extension. It’s a weird spot because MLF probably knows he can get 12-15M a year somewhere else, and Policy is sitting there thinking …”man I look like a cuck if I give that guy that kind of money right now.”

So it’s an interesting spot. It does look a bit ridiculous right now to give MLF a huge raise.

Craig Counsell is out there somewhere crying a single tear and thinking, "I helped make a difference in coaches' salary."

[nate82]

I didn't even notice this on this play.  Kmet was the right tackle on the Bears last TD.