Packers football leadership poll

[Jopal78]

4 hours ago, OldHeidelberg said:

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.

Don’t they have still have a waiting list for season tickets that is a lifetime long? There are literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people waiting to have season tickets and pour money into the Titletown District and would gladly do so regardless of who is the coach.

Further I’d the CEO made decisions based on fan sentiment and not what he believed was best for the organization, he’d get fired tomorrow too. 
 

 

[Sixtolezcano]

51 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

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.

Those posts are meaningless. Someone posted this previously, but if any player spoke out against MLF (other than maybe Love and Parsons) they would be on the next slow boat to Nashville, Las Vegas or New York City. That is just how any business works in America. It also been long believed that sports teams, owners and management value money over winning and particularly their fandom, until that fan revenue stream has dried up.

[HarveysWBs]

If they go the route of retaining LaFleur (are we really doing this again?), it would be a pretty big coup if they somehow snag Flores as DC (assuming Hafley gets a HC gig). I read today that Flores is open to accepting a DC position outside of Minnesota, and while I still think he should get a HC job somewhere, I’d love to have him on staff in either capacity.

Ideally, in this scenario, they get LaFleur to take a one year extension, on the understanding that a better deal would be forthcoming in the event of marked improvement next year. Then, he either improves and stays on, or you have an in-house replacement as HC in Flores should the ripcord be necessary.

But, or course, this will not happen. LaFleur will not accept a one-year extension in this job market (it would be agent malpractice), and he would fight tooth and nail against the brass forcing him to accept his possible replacement waiting in the wings.

He seems to me like he would bring a much needed intensity to the team and the sideline that might shake up the “here we go again” mindset that seems to set in during big moments. And I bet he would have found a way to get some more pressure in the 4th quarter and kept the Bears under 25 points somehow.

[Jopal78]

14 hours ago, HarveysWBs said:

If they go the route of retaining LaFleur (are we really doing this again?), it would be a pretty big coup if they somehow snag Flores as DC (assuming Hafley gets a HC gig). I read today that Flores is open to accepting a DC position outside of Minnesota, and while I still think he should get a HC job somewhere, I’d love to have him on staff in either capacity.

Ideally, in this scenario, they get LaFleur to take a one year extension, on the understanding that a better deal would be forthcoming in the event of marked improvement next year. Then, he either improves and stays on, or you have an in-house replacement as HC in Flores should the ripcord be necessary.

But, or course, this will not happen. LaFleur will not accept a one-year extension in this job market (it would be agent malpractice), and he would fight tooth and nail against the brass forcing him to accept his possible replacement waiting in the wings.

He seems to me like he would bring a much needed intensity to the team and the sideline that might shake up the “here we go again” mindset that seems to set in during big moments. And I bet he would have found a way to get some more pressure in the 4th quarter and kept the Bears under 25 points somehow.

It is probably the Dolphins or bust for Hafley, don’t you think? He has a connection to the new GM, and arguably the cupboards aren’t bare as they are in the other teams he’s scheduled to interview with. 

He’s also scheduled to interview with the Raiders, Titans, Falcons and Cardinals, none of whom are the picture of stability and patience. The Cardinals lead the list with only 3 head coaches in the last 7 years. Falcons 4 coaches since 2018. Raiders 5 coaches since 2018. Titans 3 coaches in the last 3 years. 
 

None of the teams he has interviews with have a solid QB so it will be tough sledding no matter what, especially as a defensive coach who will have to rely on an OC to run an offense without a top tier QB.

Is it better to be a head coach of a dysfunctional franchise and get the axe after a couple seasons or is it better to bide your time as a DC for a winning team waiting for  the right opportunity 

[JosephC]

Someone will have to explain to me why Brian Flores is so attractive, or why he would be an upgrade over Matt LaFleur.

Dolphins 2016-2018 (Gase) = 23-25

Dolphins 2019-2021 (Flores) = 24-25

Dolphins 2022-2024 (McDaniel - first 3 years) = 28-23

And Flores really didn't get fired when he was on the up.  They went 10-6 in his second year, and then went 9-8 in his last year.

He looks like a coach who went to a mediocre franchise and kept them at mediocre.  Which IMO probably means he's a mediocre coach.  Maybe he would be like what Belichick turned to be (unlike Flores, Belichick was a flop his first time around).  But there is still nothing I see with Flores that would get me excited. 

[Jopal78]

44 minutes ago, JosephC said:

Someone will have to explain to me why Brian Flores is so attractive, or why he would be an upgrade over Matt LaFleur.

Dolphins 2016-2018 (Gase) = 23-25

Dolphins 2019-2021 (Flores) = 24-25

Dolphins 2022-2024 (McDaniel - first 3 years) = 28-23

And Flores really didn't get fired when he was on the up.  They went 10-6 in his second year, and then went 9-8 in his last year.

He looks like a coach who went to a mediocre franchise and kept them at mediocre.  Which IMO probably means he's a mediocre coach.  Maybe he would be like what Belichick turned to be (unlike Flores, Belichick was a flop his first time around).  But there is still nothing I see with Flores that would get me excited. 

He’s a name because he sued the NFL for sham interviews he got with teams who had a coach in mind but first needed to satisfy the Rooney rule.
 

The reality is he worked under Bellichek in NE and called plays for the Patriots for just one year. Then he got the Miami job (when hiring Patriots staff members was all the rage) despite a thin resume, was textbook mediocre in results with no playoffs in 3 seasons there and got canned. 

[jay87shot]

I think firing either or both is a bit to reactionary. We are 76-40-1 with LaFluer AND Gutty, I get there hasn't been much playoff success however we only missed the playoffs in 2022 and a couple of those rosters didn't have great talent. I wasn't huge on Gutty's job the 1st couple years but I have been very pleased the past 2 years adding McKinney, Jacobs, and Parson's the past few offseason and have been ok with the past couple drafts outside. Outside of the offensive line decisions (Banks, Morgan, Belton) I haven't been upset with Gutty. 

LaFluer is on thin ice however after Harbaugh just signed with NYG, I don't see a better realistic option. I will say I would like Mike Tomlin if we could keep Hafley and get in a young creative offensive coordinator but I don't see that happening. I would probably give Lafluer like a 2 year extension (if possible) and if results aren't great next year move on (just take the financial hit) and try and lure Tomlin back or hire the next big candidate (Cignetti or whomever).

[HarveysWBs]

Silverstein reported tonight that the hang up is over number of years, not “money.” Considering HC deals are fully guaranteed, however, I think the more accurate description is to say this isn’t about AAV.

Not hard to see the logic from either side. MLF is certainly right that he’d get better than a year or two on the open market, and Policy is certainly justified in wanting a quick out after another disastrous postseason loss and a year with three blown double digit fourth quarter leads (and, more specifically, three blown leads in the final five minutes if I’m not mistaken).

Silverstein speculated that if they don’t come to terms soon, MLF will be allowed to speak to other teams about a trade. In that case, they’d likely pivot to Hafley.

Quo bono? This leak, if true, hurts Green Bay’s position in seeking trade compensation, so I imagine it’s from LaFleur’s people. Not sure I’m down with the idea of Hafley at the helm, since defense would not get any better schematically while the offensive staff becomes a wildcard. Is Hafley likely to be better at in-game decisions? Hard for me to say. I’d like getting a first-rounder this spring, if possible, though.

I still think LaFleur’s return is likely, but things are looking fluid.

[Jopal78]

7 hours ago, HarveysWBs said:

Silverstein reported tonight that the hang up is over number of years, not “money.” Considering HC deals are fully guaranteed, however, I think the more accurate description is to say this isn’t about AAV.

Not hard to see the logic from either side. MLF is certainly right that he’d get better than a year or two on the open market, and Policy is certainly justified in wanting a quick out after another disastrous postseason loss and a year with three blown double digit fourth quarter leads (and, more specifically, three blown leads in the final five minutes if I’m not mistaken).

Silverstein speculated that if they don’t come to terms soon, MLF will be allowed to speak to other teams about a trade. In that case, they’d likely pivot to Hafley.

Quo bono? This leak, if true, hurts Green Bay’s position in seeking trade compensation, so I imagine it’s from LaFleur’s people. Not sure I’m down with the idea of Hafley at the helm, since defense would not get any better schematically while the offensive staff becomes a wildcard. Is Hafley likely to be better at in-game decisions? Hard for me to say. I’d like getting a first-rounder this spring, if possible, though.

I still think LaFleur’s return is likely, but things are looking fluid.

How does it hurt their position? LaFleur is under contract with the Packers in 2026. 

Teams without a head coach right now can’t really wait a season to fill their vacancy.

If the implication is about contract length; LaFleur probably wouldn’t demand X number of years from the Packers (one of the most stable franchises) and suddenly agree to less than X number of years to coach in Vegas, Arizona. Tennessee, etc (volatile impatient franchises).

[GAME05]

The Packers have always wanted stability, so losing both MlF and Hafley would be the last thing they'd want. But if there's any thought to promoting Hafley, they better hurry up. 

Could Jim Leonhard be our next DC?

[HarveysWBs]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

How does it hurt their position? LaFleur is under contract with the Packers in 2026. 

Teams without a head coach right now can’t really wait a season to fill their vacancy.

If the implication is about contract length; LaFleur probably wouldn’t demand X number of years from the Packers (one of the most stable franchises) and suddenly agree to less than X number of years to coach in Vegas, Arizona. Tennessee, etc (volatile impatient franchises).

If teams know the Packers are in a bind, I imagine they can hold out for less draft pick compensation in a trade. The less it looks like LaFleur and Policy will be able to come to an agreement, the weaker their hand gets in seeking a trade. Other franchises can hold the line on a first rounder, for instance, and bet the Packers to just extend him. The longer this goes, the clearer it becomes that Policy doesn’t have enough faith in him to do a five year deal, fearing he’ll have to eat the last three or four years if we crash out of the postseason again next year.

So far, the seeking a trade thing is all speculation. But if we get to that point, and teams know the Packers are done with him (which they would easily deduce if LaFleur was allowed to negotiate with them), why would they give up premium draft compensation and a new contract? They could low ball the Packers or dare them to fire him, and keep all their picks in the process.

For all these reasons, I think he’ll be back. And I wonder if that was the point of the leak all along.

[adambr2]

I don’t expect to get a 1st for Lafleur. A 2nd would be fantastic. Anything is better than nothing.

[Sixtolezcano]

12 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I don’t expect to get a 1st for Lafleur. A 2nd would be fantastic. Anything is better than nothing.

Would you trade a 1st or even a 2nd forMLF? Enough said!

[igor67]

In the abstract sense of wanting to get the most value out of a trade the possibility of losing leverage is not great. But any pick is OK with me, saves the buy out money and pulls some talent back in. If some how they got a 1st or second rounder that would be incredible. A 3rd feels like a good get to me.

[adambr2]

27 minutes ago, HarveysWBs said:

If teams know the Packers are in a bind, I imagine they can hold out for less draft pick compensation in a trade. The less it looks like LaFleur and Policy will be able to come to an agreement, the weaker their hand gets in seeking a trade. Other franchises can hold the line on a first rounder, for instance, and bet the Packers to just extend him. The longer this goes, the clearer it becomes that Policy doesn’t have enough faith in him to do a five year deal, fearing he’ll have to eat the last three or four years if we crash out of the postseason again next year.

So far, the seeking a trade thing is all speculation. But if we get to that point, and teams know the Packers are done with him (which they would easily deduce if LaFleur was allowed to negotiate with them), why would they give up premium draft compensation and a new contract? They could low ball the Packers or dare them to fire him, and keep all their picks in the process.

For all these reasons, I think he’ll be back. And I wonder if that was the point of the leak all along.

Few things:

- If MLF gets fired, he’s going to interview at every vacancy that wants to interview him and potentially take multiple bids. If he is acquired in trade, he has one option to talk to and he’s likely going to take a market value long-term extension there. So that’s one point of trading for him versus waiting out the Packers. 

- The other leverage on our side is that we don’t actually have to do anything. We can end all talks and bring him back as a lame duck in 2026. He won’t love it, and it’s probably not the best thing for the 2026 Packers, but it is an option, and likely a better one than extending him long-term and then wanting out again at this time next year.

It’s clear at this moment that Policy is willing to stick with Matt for now, but wants to be able to easily pivot in a year or two if things continue to trend the same or worse.

It’s clear that MLF wants commitment from the Packers, doesn’t want to go into 2026 already worried about his job security.

IMO, divorce is best for both sides. I don’t see how you can finish 2025 like MLF did, have the reputation for disappearing in big games like his teams do, and get a long-term extension and NOT be on the hot seat. At the same time, I acknowledge that his regular season is good enough to get a big deal elsewhere where they would be willing to commit to him and he wouldn’t be on the hot seat elsewhere.

MLF really screwed himself last weekend. All he has to do is finish off the Bears, and  no matter what happens in Seattle , “choking” is not much of a talking point next week. He’s getting his extension, not everyone is thrilled about it but the main point being made is that his time almost reached the NFCCG with all the injuries.

 

[adambr2]

8 minutes ago, Sixtolezcano said:

Would you trade a 1st or even a 2nd forMLF? Enough said!

I personally wouldn’t as a Packer fan, but I don’t have the same perspective as fans of other teams that have had revolving doors at HC and losing records the last few years.

[igor67]

8 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

MLF really screwed himself last weekend. All he has to do is finish off the Bears, and  no matter what happens in Seattle , “choking” is not much of a talking point next week. He’s getting his extension, not everyone is thrilled about it but the main point being made is that his time almost reached the NFCCG with all the injuries.

Yep, and as an offensive guru it probably only takes a couple of first downs in the 3rd quarter to keep the defense off the field a little more to hold up.

[JosephC]

1 hour ago, Sixtolezcano said:

Would you trade a 1st or even a 2nd forMLF? Enough said!

Only if I was a Jimmy Haslam-level owner that did zero research on critical decisions.  Takes about 30 seconds to look at Pro Football Reference and see that LaFleur's record was very good for three years and completely average the last four years.  Good enough to get another NFL head coaching job?  Sure.  Trade a pick (any pick) for a head coach that has never won a Super Bowl and is on a 38-34-1 streak?  Only someone who isn't paying any attention would do that.  Trade a pick (any pick) for a head coach that has a 3-6 playoff record?  Only someone who isn't paying any attention would do that.

[OldHeidelberg]

1 hour ago, JosephC said:

Only if I was a Jimmy Haslam-level owner that did zero research on critical decisions.  Takes about 30 seconds to look at Pro Football Reference and see that LaFleur's record was very good for three years and completely average the last four years.  Good enough to get another NFL head coaching job?  Sure.  Trade a pick (any pick) for a head coach that has never won a Super Bowl and is on a 38-34-1 streak?  Only someone who isn't paying any attention would do that.  Trade a pick (any pick) for a head coach that has a 3-6 playoff record?  Only someone who isn't paying any attention would do that.

There is something to be said for that the trading team would be getting the first year at a reduced rate from the 15 million/ year he will get. But I think we are probably looking at a 3rd round pick at best. That's a heck of a lot better than a long term extension in my mind. It would have to really go bad for the Packers to eat ~50 million for a coach. He could probably survive consecutive 5-12 seasons.

[adambr2]

[adambr2]

2 hours ago, JosephC said:

Only if I was a Jimmy Haslam-level owner that did zero research on critical decisions.  Takes about 30 seconds to look at Pro Football Reference and see that LaFleur's record was very good for three years and completely average the last four years.  Good enough to get another NFL head coaching job?  Sure.  Trade a pick (any pick) for a head coach that has never won a Super Bowl and is on a 38-34-1 streak?  Only someone who isn't paying any attention would do that.  Trade a pick (any pick) for a head coach that has a 3-6 playoff record?  Only someone who isn't paying any attention would do that.

Pro Football reference doesn’t give all the context, though. Mike McCarthy was 11-16-1 in his last two seasons that MLF immediately turned around and had his very good seasons with. Those seasons still matter to interested teams, maybe not as much as the more recent ones but they still matter.

Also, 2023 was widely expected to be a rebuilding year for the Packers in the first year under Love. Safe to say that going 9-8 in that season and winning a playoff game was a success, the 11-6 last year was about right, and this year was a letdown. But the overall context of the last three regular seasons isn’t bad.

In no way is this my endorsement of MLF. I want him gone. But I can see why teams that are willing to chalk up his playoff record as flukey are interested.

[HarveysWBs]

First round pick compensation may be a pipe dream, but we know there are dumb organizations out there. Some of them give sex offenders fully guaranteed mega deals, and some of them cut bait with generational pass rushers in their primes, so who knows what is possible.

I suspect more and more that the hold up boils down to the brass being cheap on coaching contracts in addition to the (perfectly understandable) doubts about LaFleur’s ability to close out big games. Justis Mosqueda has suggested as much through his reporting at APC, citing numerous off the record conversations with league sources about how GB does business. Just like they don’t prioritize putting starters on special teams during the regular season, they don’t want to commit a bunch of money to coaching and staff payroll, probably due to an abundance of caution about the rainy day fund.

In this aspect, not having a billionaire owner probably hinders the Packers a bit, since instead of being able to sell a percent or two of an ownership stake every few years like other teams can do, we’re limited to very infrequent stock sales which raise comparatively less money.

If we end up getting Hafley as HC and Steno as play calling OC because internal hires are the “Packer way,” I’m not sure I’d prefer that over retaining LaFleur. If they really don’t believe there’s a better option right now, fine, they probably know better than me. But grow a pair and make a call, then be ready to eat some guaranteed money if it doesn’t work out. I would hope our financial situation could handle having two head coaches on the books for a couple years—that isn’t that irresponsible. The stakes are too high for this kind of fence-sitting. If we’re not putting our best foot forward now, when are we going to do it?

[adambr2]

Heck I almost prefer 2nds to 1sts with this organization. Our 1sts are always some athletic freaks with off the chart RAS scores who oozing whose performance in real life never quite matches their “upside”.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

On 1/15/2026 at 11:20 AM, JosephC said:

Someone will have to explain to me why Brian Flores is so attractive, or why he would be an upgrade over Matt LaFleur.

Dolphins 2016-2018 (Gase) = 23-25

Dolphins 2019-2021 (Flores) = 24-25

Dolphins 2022-2024 (McDaniel - first 3 years) = 28-23

And Flores really didn't get fired when he was on the up.  They went 10-6 in his second year, and then went 9-8 in his last year.

He looks like a coach who went to a mediocre franchise and kept them at mediocre.  Which IMO probably means he's a mediocre coach.  Maybe he would be like what Belichick turned to be (unlike Flores, Belichick was a flop his first time around).  But there is still nothing I see with Flores that would get me excited. 

Meh. It's so low energy to just look at W/L on some eternally crappy team and think a guy can't coach because of that. The Ravens owner gave a very transparent presser after firing Harbaugh in which he went on a tangent explaining exactly this as it relates to their coaching search. He was asked what would exclude a candidate and ended up saying he didn't know but that a losing record won't exclude someone. 

He is specifically paying extra attention to guys who were hot candidates in their cycle, but maybe landed with a difficult job where they didn't end up winning. His point was that he doesn't think Baltimore is a difficult job, he thinks it's the best job, and might be a better fit for those candidates. I think GB would be similar. 

Flores is a defensive minded coach and he did take Miami from 32nd to 6th from year 1 to year 2.  

They were 5-11, 10-6, and 9-8 with Tua and Ryan Fitzpatrick. 

I don't think that's enough of a shake to know whether or not he can be an effective HC. 

But here is the real kicker for me. Every Packers hire I have lived through besides Mike Sherman was done with the intent that the QB had to developed. 

Holmgren, McCarthy, LaFleur. That's not a pressing need. I would love to flip the script and get a HC whose emphasis is defense and details.

[GAME05]

I think MlF is the kind of coach who can make bad teams good again, just as Andy Reid is an amazing playoff coach who probably couldn't turn around a 2-15 team. Just two different kinds of coaches. Plus a heck of a lot of value to a coach who is good with QBs (considering a bad team would have a young one) and one who you know will bring stability instead of risking it on a rookie HC who might not.

Every coach has his warts, and "Sure he can win 14 games, but can he lead you to the SB?" is the smallest wart of all. I'm still in on a new HC, but I can absolutely see why a team would give up a pick for him. If I were a team like Tennessee, I absolutely would give up a 2nd for MlF.