Packers football leadership poll

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If I could have my pick of the litter I would go after Brian Flores. Belichick tree, won't have a tolerance for sloppiness that has plagued ST, defensive-minded, hungry for the opportunity.

[homer]

Grass is always greener.

It seems like Gute is getting a pass for signing turds like Hobbs and Banks. Is it MLF's fault he had to start Rasheed Walker? I don't know enough about coaching offensive linemen or cornerbacks to know if it's personnel or coaching. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

2 minutes ago, homer said:

Grass is always greener.

It seems like Gute is getting a pass for signing turds like Hobbs and Banks. Is it MLF's fault he had to start Rasheed Walker? I don't know enough about coaching offensive linemen or cornerbacks to know if it's personnel or coaching. 

They can essentially cut both of those guys this year if they want to with minimal consequence. He should have just signed Stokes to the same deal he got elsewhere though. They both sucked but I don't see many giving him a pass, it's probably the first thing people point out about his last offseason, which was awful and face was saved by getting Parsons, who fell into their lap with a deal anybody would have made.

A certain poster will disagree, but I believe consensus is generally that the game management snafus have been more frequent and more disastrous than any FO failures in the last handful of years, and that talent generally hasn't been the issue. Even with this OL which was not very good this year, they were solidly positioned to win a bunch of games they lost.

[homer]

4 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

They can essentially cut both of those guys this year if they want to with minimal consequence. He should have just signed Stokes to the same deal he got elsewhere though. They both sucked but I don't see many giving him a pass, it's probably the first thing people point out about his last offseason, which was awful and face was saved by getting Parsons, who fell into their lap with a deal anybody would have made.

A certain poster will disagree, but I believe consensus is generally that the game management snafus have been more frequent and more disastrous than any FO failures in the last handful of years, and that talent generally hasn't been the issue. Even with this OL which was not very good this year, they were solidly positioned to win a bunch of games they lost.

But the reason they had to sign Hobbs and Banks is that the guys Gute drafted/acquired weren't good enough to play.

Two things can be true at once: Gute hasn't done a good enough job with the backups/back half of the roster and MLF has not figured out how to game manage.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

6 minutes ago, homer said:

But the reason they had to sign Hobbs and Banks is that the guys Gute drafted/acquired weren't good enough to play.

I am not sure why they signed Hobbs tbh. Stokes had a quietly adequate year and they let him walk for a $3.5 million 1-year deal while knowing Jaire was out, and then signed a frequently injured guy who was apparently "more physical at the line" but about the same level of player. It made no sense to me at the time. Going into the season with the corners they had was the absolute worst thing Gute did last summer IMO.

[DR28]

19 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

If I could have my pick of the litter I would go after Brian Flores. Belichick tree, won't have a tolerance for sloppiness that has plagued ST, defensive-minded, hungry for the opportunity.

Yes totally agree! Flores or Stefanski would be my choice.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Been a few articles/comments in Chicago meatball media about how the Bears have a couple players who were on the Falcons when the Patriots came back from down 28-3 in that Super Bowl, and how a tape Ben Johnson showed the team about that comeback in training camp to emphasize "never giving up"...I think the only reason I'd put any stock into that being a reason the Bears won Saturday night is because those Falcons had a certain quarterbacks coach on that sideline to witness it himself, and he has been unable to learn from that and many other games where significant 4th quarter leads vaporized under his watch - MLF

 

I'll be irate if they extend this guy - he's not a head coach you can expect to be a leader of a team who can win it all, he's proven that over his tenure in Green Bay in multiple ways.  I think he is an innovative offensive mind and knows how to get the most out of the quarterback position - but that isn't enough to be the caliber of an NFL coach a team with title aspirations needs running the ship.

 

Either fire him or let him enter 2026 as a lame duck coach on a totally "prove it year" - I don't like the idea of him and Gute staying on as lame ducks, but I can stomach that over extending MLF after what we all saw Saturday knowing that's the culture he's built on the pile of postseason failures he's been here for.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

48 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Been a few articles/comments in Chicago meatball media about how the Bears have a couple players who were on the Falcons when the Patriots came back from down 28-3 in that Super Bowl, and how a tape Ben Johnson showed the team about that comeback in training camp to emphasize "never giving up"...I think the only reason I'd put any stock into that being a reason the Bears won Saturday night is because those Falcons had a certain quarterbacks coach on that sideline to witness it himself, and he has been unable to learn from that and many other games where significant 4th quarter leads vaporized under his watch - MLF

 

I'll be irate if they extend this guy - he's not a head coach you can expect to be a leader of a team who can win it all, he's proven that over his tenure in Green Bay in multiple ways.  I think he is an innovative offensive mind and knows how to get the most out of the quarterback position - but that isn't enough to be the caliber of an NFL coach a team with title aspirations needs running the ship.

 

Either fire him or let him enter 2026 as a lame duck coach on a totally "prove it year" - I don't like the idea of him and Gute staying on as lame ducks, but I can stomach that over extending MLF after what we all saw Saturday knowing that's the culture he's built on the pile of postseason failures he's been here for.

Not that the Packers give a rat's ass but the amount of attention I pay to next season is completely dependent on who the HC is. I am not signing up for 3 hours a week of MLF.

[JosephC]

I have to admit, I look around for coaching candidates, and IMO this is the weakest field I can ever remember seeing.  I do like Harbaugh, and he would probably be my favorite, but I'm not blown away.  Stefanski is interesting.  He actually put up winning seasons in Cleveland, which is impressive, but the overall record (45-56) just doesn't blow me away (even when factoring in the undeniable fact that he had been working for a joke organization).  Thing that worries me about him is that, statistically, their defense has actually been pretty good over the last 5 years, and in those 5 years they have a 34-51 record.

I'm not suggesting this should happen, in fact, I don't think I would want this to happen.  But when looking at the candidates out there, I can't see me putting a list together that wouldn't have Mike McCarthy in the top 5.  What I would say is, that after giving the whole situation some serious thought after the last few days, is that if I had to pick between McCarthy or LaFleur to be the Packers coach in 2026, I would pick McCarthy.  It's just real simple, McCarthy has won some big games, LaFleur (and Gutekunst) have turned this organization into a 9-8, KO'ed in first playoff game franchise.  That said, I really don't want McCarthy.  Just putting this in here to show how weak I think the field is.

Even though it's pretty clear at this point that Gutekunst will not get fired, why not talk about GMs?  I like GM candidates much better.  Alec Halaby, assistant GM from the Eagles, would be my #1.  Has worked under Howie Roseman, Harvard graduate, on the cutting end of football analytics.

 

[homer]

40 minutes ago, JosephC said:

Even though it's pretty clear at this point that Gutekunst will not get fired, why not talk about GMs?  I like GM candidates much better.  Alec Halaby, assistant GM from the Eagles, would be my #1.  Has worked under Howie Roseman, Harvard graduate, on the cutting end of football analytics.

 

Whenever they cut ties w Gute I hope they go this route. Moneyball, baby.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 hour ago, JosephC said:

I have to admit, I look around for coaching candidates, and IMO this is the weakest field I can ever remember seeing.  I do like Harbaugh, and he would probably be my favorite, but I'm not blown away.  Stefanski is interesting.  He actually put up winning seasons in Cleveland, which is impressive, but the overall record (45-56) just doesn't blow me away (even when factoring in the undeniable fact that he had been working for a joke organization).  Thing that worries me about him is that, statistically, their defense has actually been pretty good over the last 5 years, and in those 5 years they have a 34-51 record.

I'm not suggesting this should happen, in fact, I don't think I would want this to happen.  But when looking at the candidates out there, I can't see me putting a list together that wouldn't have Mike McCarthy in the top 5.  What I would say is, that after giving the whole situation some serious thought after the last few days, is that if I had to pick between McCarthy or LaFleur to be the Packers coach in 2026, I would pick McCarthy.  It's just real simple, McCarthy has won some big games, LaFleur (and Gutekunst) have turned this organization into a 9-8, KO'ed in first playoff game franchise.  That said, I really don't want McCarthy.  Just putting this in here to show how weak I think the field is.

Even though it's pretty clear at this point that Gutekunst will not get fired, why not talk about GMs?  I like GM candidates much better.  Alec Halaby, assistant GM from the Eagles, would be my #1.  Has worked under Howie Roseman, Harvard graduate, on the cutting end of football analytics.

 

I don't think this is too shocking, McCarthy is a good coach. His time had run out in GB, but I never thought he was a bad coach. He was no longer the right guy for the storyline they were in.

[SeaBass]

I think the idea that there isn't a good pool of HC candidates is folly. There will always be someone available in the ranks of football coaches that would make, and one day WILL make, a fantastic hire and successful HC. Just gotta find them. Also just because fans/media don't have insights into the potential coaching pool does not mean that football teams don't have insights.

But I think the writing is on the wall, MLF will be coming back whether it's on a lame duck contract or an extension. If GB was going to fire him he'd be fired by now. There's still a chance they move on, obviously, I think it's just a very small chance at this point.

[Jopal78]

5 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I am not sure why they signed Hobbs tbh. Stokes had a quietly adequate year and they let him walk for a $3.5 million 1-year deal while knowing Jaire was out, and then signed a frequently injured guy who was apparently "more physical at the line" but about the same level of player. It made no sense to me at the time. Going into the season with the corners they had was the absolute worst thing Gute did last summer IMO.

I thought they should’ve kept Alexander, they didn’t, and he basically quit football in October. So I was wrong, but he at least had track record. 
 

But Stokes? He missed a year and a half with injuries and didn’t break up a pass or make an interception in the 29 games he played with the Packers after his rookie year. That he was competent for the Raiders is their dumb luck, and to suggest the Packers should’ve kept him is 100% hindsight analysis. 
 

Hobbs did not work out, but was healthier, broke up more passes and made more interceptions than Stokes had to that point, and easy to see why he was signed instead.

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, JosephC said:

I have to admit, I look around for coaching candidates, and IMO this is the weakest field I can ever remember seeing.  I do like Harbaugh, and he would probably be my favorite, but I'm not blown away.  Stefanski is interesting.  He actually put up winning seasons in Cleveland, which is impressive, but the overall record (45-56) just doesn't blow me away (even when factoring in the undeniable fact that he had been working for a joke organization).  Thing that worries me about him is that, statistically, their defense has actually been pretty good over the last 5 years, and in those 5 years they have a 34-51 record.

I'm not suggesting this should happen, in fact, I don't think I would want this to happen.  But when looking at the candidates out there, I can't see me putting a list together that wouldn't have Mike McCarthy in the top 5.  What I would say is, that after giving the whole situation some serious thought after the last few days, is that if I had to pick between McCarthy or LaFleur to be the Packers coach in 2026, I would pick McCarthy.  It's just real simple, McCarthy has won some big games, LaFleur (and Gutekunst) have turned this organization into a 9-8, KO'ed in first playoff game franchise.  That said, I really don't want McCarthy.  Just putting this in here to show how weak I think the field is.

Even though it's pretty clear at this point that Gutekunst will not get fired, why not talk about GMs?  I like GM candidates much better.  Alec Halaby, assistant GM from the Eagles, would be my #1.  Has worked under Howie Roseman, Harvard graduate, on the cutting end of football analytics.

 

Gutekunst has been the GM 7 seasons now since January of 2018. How many All-Pro players has he drafted? One. Jaire Alexander. How many pro-bowl players (and I don’t know if that even means anything anymore) has Gutekunst drafted?  Three. Alexander, Jenkins and Gary.

Thompson, by comparison, was GM for 12 seasons and drafted a HoFer in Rodgers, a likely HoFer in Davante Adams and multiple All Pros: Clay Matthews, Jordy Nelson, and David Bakhtiari. Thompson also drafted a plethora of Pro Bowl players. (Bakhtiari probably was on a HoF path too until ripping up his knee).

Viewed through that prism, the Packers are not drafting as well as they have historically. However, Rodgers was so skilled he could paper over a lot of their shortcomings in talent in the regular season until it usually caught up with them in the playoffs. Without Rodgers’ ability to beat many teams almost single-handedly they’re a fringe playoff team in their conference.

Thus, why shouldn’t Gutekunst be shown the door? What has he really assembled in Green Bay? A handful of really good but not great players, and Micah Parsons. And he paid dearly for Parsons in terms of cap space and picks. 

[Sixtolezcano]

The problem with MLF and the Packers roster is they are SOFT and passive players. You don’t see any player get up and hold his teammates responsible (an example is Nixon saying he had a successful year and met all his pre-season goals - how delusional).You see it in MLF by his post-game comments (and for the past 7 years his post-season comments). He always comments that when they lose important games he feels sorry for his players, that his team played  “disheveled’ and takes the responsibility for their losses. He gives the player an out and never holds them accountable.  This team needs a coach like Lombardi, Dan Campbell, Saleh and even Ben Johnson. Football is an emotional game for tough players and our MLF coaches with no emotion, he’s passive and holds none of his players accountable. 
 

MLF’s friend Robert Saleh said this following his Jets team destroyed the Packers 27-10 in 2022. ‘The mindset is to go 60 minutes. And just giving them body blow after body blow after body blow, and just keep hitting them and keep hitting them in the mouth. O-line keep pushing and just keep leaning on them.  We felt like if we just keep taking them to deep water, they’ll find out that they can’t swim.’ This says a lot about a MLF coached team.

 

[Jopal78]

13 minutes ago, Sixtolezcano said:

The problem with MLF and the Packers roster is they are SOFT and passive players. You don’t see any player get up and hold his teammates responsible (an example is Nixon saying he had a successful year and met all his pre-season goals - how delusional).You see it in MLF by his post-game comments (and for the past 7 years his post-season comments). He always comments that when they lose important games he feels sorry for his players, that his team played  “disheveled’ and takes the responsibility for their losses. He gives the player an out and never holds them accountable.  This team needs a coach like Lombardi, Dan Campbell, Saleh and even Ben Johnson. Football is an emotional game for tough players and our MLF coaches with no emotion, he’s passive and holds none of his players accountable. 

You’re likely right and there are soft players. But in today’s game no coach throws their players under the bus to the media.

The Lombardi days are long gone too and it’s simply not a question of cutting players who “aren’t tough” enough because often times financials or necessity mean teams are stuck with certain players.

And the Rah-Rah coach’s act usually wears out shortly after the team starts consistently losing (Saleh), and there’s already significant criticism of Campbell’s emotions affecting his strategic decision making for the worse (Having missed the postseason by a game,  he’d  probably want the one back where he went 0-5 on 4th downs and lost 16-9).

[adambr2]

2 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

You’re likely right and there are soft players. But in today’s game no coach throws their players under the bus to the media.

The Lombardi days are long gone too and it’s simply not a question of cutting players who “aren’t tough” enough because often times financials or necessity mean teams are stuck with certain players.

And the Rah-Rah coach’s act usually wears out shortly after the team starts consistently losing (Saleh), and there’s already significant criticism of Campbell’s emotions affecting his strategic decision making for the worse (Having missed the postseason by a game,  he’d  probably want the one back where he went 0-5 on 4th downs and lost 16-9).

I bet that there is also a game that Campbell won with his approach.  I tend to to think he is on the right track more often than not although there are some instances where he takes it too far.

I’ve noticed aggression gets second guessed to death when it doesn’t work, conservatism almost never gets second guessed. Seems barely remembered to me that we converted a 4th and goal from the 1 right before half to go up 21-3. Had we taken the points and still lost by 4 no one would be second guessing it. But the “take the points” crowd would have crucified it if we had failed and ended up losing by 4 because they would have assumed everything else would be the same and that we could have won with a field goal on the final drive.

Probably the play of the game IMO was the 4th and 8 with the Bears in their territory that they converted. An old school coach could have talked himself into the idea that with the 3 timeouts and 2 minute warning and almost 6 minutes left, he could have afforded to punt.

[GAME05]

6 hours ago, SeaBass said:

I think the idea that there isn't a good pool of HC candidates is folly.

How many people said "Who?" when Hafley was hired, yet apparently he was a well-known name in NFL circles? Probably a lot of guys out there we just can't see from the outside, in.

Really think Stefanski will get a HC job right away next year? He's apparently an old-school coach and I wonder if GMs will worry he'd not gel with the younger players. He certainly didn't with Sanders, though Sanders was maybe impossible. Still, though, how many more are just like Sanders, especially now showing up at rookie camp as millionaires already?

[Jopal78]

3 hours ago, adambr2 said:

I bet that there is also a game that Campbell won with his approach.  I tend to to think he is on the right track more often than not although there are some instances where he takes it too far.

I’ve noticed aggression gets second guessed to death when it doesn’t work, conservatism almost never gets second guessed. Seems barely remembered to me that we converted a 4th and goal from the 1 right before half to go up 21-3. Had we taken the points and still lost by 4 no one would be second guessing it. But the “take the points” crowd would have crucified it if we had failed and ended up losing by 4 because they would have assumed everything else would be the same and that we could have won with a field goal on the final drive.

Probably the play of the game IMO was the 4th and 8 with the Bears in their territory that they converted. An old school coach could have talked himself into the idea that with the 3 timeouts and 2 minute warning and almost 6 minutes left, he could have afforded to punt.

No, I think Campbell got heaps of praise for going for it on fourth down, running trick plays and being a “leader of men”.

Like the Packers, the Lions had big expectations for this year, and didn’t meet them so now the coach gets criticized for his decision making .
 

Because they went 9-8 and missed the playoffs does it mean that Campbell was suddenly less a “leader of men” in 2025,  or is it more likely his players were simply not as good as they thought they were, which again is  like the Packers in 2025. 

[adambr2]

30 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

No, I think Campbell got heaps of praise for going for it on fourth down, running trick plays and being a “leader of men”.

Like the Packers, the Lions had big expectations for this year, and didn’t meet them so now the coach gets criticized for his decision making .
 

Because they went 9-8 and missed the playoffs does it mean that Campbell was suddenly less a “leader of men” in 2025,  or is it more likely his players were simply not as good as they thought they were, which again is  like the Packers in 2025. 

I would say more than they had a ton of luck in 2024 and probably less luck in 2025.

[LouisEly]

18 hours ago, Sixtolezcano said:

You see it in MLF by his post-game comments (and for the past 7 years his post-season comments). He always comments that when they lose important games he feels sorry for his players, that his team played  “disheveled’ and takes the responsibility for their losses. He gives the player an out and never holds them accountable.

How do you know that what he says publicly to the media is the same thing that he says privately in team meetings?

[Sixtolezcano]

25 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

How do you know that what he says publicly to the media is the same thing that he says privately in team meetings?

I would think how he acts and speaks in public more than likely demonstrates the coach that he is in private (no off/on switch). He appears to be a very passive person and more than likely remains that way with his players in the locker room. Do you have specific information that refutes his public persona?

[OldHeidelberg]

I know as soon as I post this they will announce an extension keeping MLF in GB through 2035 but I am now thinking he will not be our coach next year. Schefter was the one who said Monday he heard they were working on deal and now I see he is questioning what is taking so long. I think considering fan sentiment right now it may be best for both sides to get fresh start.

[Fear The Chorizo]

4 hours ago, LouisEly said:

How do you know that what he says publicly to the media is the same thing that he says privately in team meetings?

I honestly don't think that matters if we know exactly what he says behind closed doors - look at his teams and how they act when the pressure ramps up at crunch time.  They turtle - and that spans multiple years with both Rodgers and Love at QB and several rounds of roster churn....it's now a culture where the only common denominator is MLF overseeing it.  And no matter what he says to players behind closed doors, it isn't working well enough to translate to disciplined, winning play on the field by his players when it matters most.

Actions speak louder than words - it's time to move on if this organization wants to get back to being a team with legitimate Super Bowl aspirations - not just a "good enough" team that finds its way into the playoffs routinely because half the conference gets a playoff berth and the rest of the NFC North seem intent on taking turns having at least 1 team fall on their face when they get saddled with a 1st place schedule.  The Bears figuring out how to pose as a functional organization will make this division tougher over the next few years (at least until Williams' upcoming extension forces them to restructure/cut a bunch of their veteran talent in an offseason or two due to salary cap constraints)

[LouisEly]

4 hours ago, Sixtolezcano said:

I would think how he acts and speaks in public more than likely demonstrates the coach that he is in private (no off/on switch). He appears to be a very passive person and more than likely remains that way with his players in the locker room. Do you have specific information that refutes his public persona?

I never said it was different or the same because I don't know.  However, these three guys have a much better idea than any of us on this board:

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/green-bay-packers-news/78254/tuesday-cheese-curds-micah-parsons-speaks-in-support-of-matt-lafleur

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/green-bay-packers-coaching-staff/78222/aaron-rodgers-talks-matt-lafleur-hot-seat-after-playoff-loss

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2026/01/11/qb-jordan-love-backs-matt-lafleur-remaining-packers-head-coach/88128201007/

I don't know what it takes to be a successful coach, but I know that one sure way to be a failure is to lose the locker room.