Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NW Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,753

    Is it time to look for a new GM and coach?

    Matt Lafleur took a 10 - 6 talent level football team and produced a 13 -3 record and took his team within 1 game of the Superbowl. Would Green Bay be wise to move on from him after 1 very successful season?

    Brian Gutekunst, last off season, did what Packer fans have wanted for years, by dipping heavily into free agency to address some of the teams defensive needs and it appears he hit the lottery with the additions of the Smith Brothers and Adrian Amos. Has he wore out his welcome in Green Bay?

    The answer to the 2nd question is yes and the answer to the 1st question is maybe. It appears that the 2 of them have decided it's their team and it's time for a rebuild after a 13 -3 season and an nfc championship appearance. After a 2019 draft which can best be described as a blown opportunity, the 2020 draft is beyond description. Normally you need to wait a season or 2 to judge a draft class, but that's not necessary in this case. It's painfully obvious that this draft finishes 32nd out of 32 teams. We drafted the QB of the future to piss off the best QB ever to play in round 1. In round 2 we took a 4th round RB and in round 3 we took a 5th round TE/H Back.

    Everyone likes to say that Aaron Rodgers didn't have his best year and that he's not the same player he was 8 to 10 years ago and that may be true and then again it might not be. I watched a replay of the opening game of the season a year after we won the Superbowl the other day. Rodgers threw to Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, Randall Cobb and Jermichael Finley. Now he throws to Devante Adams. So has Aaron Rodgers ability declined or is it just that 5 was greater than 1?

    So here we sit in late April, knowing that we have a 0% chance to win the Superbowl this season and it didn't have to be that way. So yes it's time to fire Brian Gutekunst from the Packers GM position and if Matt Lefleur can't apologize to Aaron Rodgers and mend the relationship, it might be time to fire him too.
    Last edited by HacksawButch; 04-29-2020 at 10:58 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,237
    I'm not a fan of the draft, but this is one of your worst takes yet, and that's saying something. Right now we have the 8th best super bowl odds. That's hardly a 0% chance of winning it.

    San Fran is a bad matchup for us. That being said, you don't neccesarily have to beat them either. Seattle is a good matchup against San Fran and we are a bad matchup for Seattle. Id argue we are a decent matchup against New Orleans, who should have beaten San Fran if they could tackle kittle.

    But lafluer and Gute have earned the benefit of the doubt. You dont fire them because you don't like 1 draft before anyone even plays a snap.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    30,633
    Lol címon man are you serious? I hated this last draft but itís wayyyyyy to early to be talking about this. And if anything the next person that should be relived of his duties is Mark Murphy. Heís the one that picked Gute and LaFluer. Iíd say that have at least the next 3 years or so before we talk about making changes.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    19,831
    No.

    This team made huge strides in year 1 under this regime.
    Move on based off of 1 draft that we don't like on paper? For all we know this could turn out to be an excellent draft.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,162
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I'm not a fan of the draft, but this is one of your worst takes yet, and that's saying something. Right now we have the 8th best super bowl odds. That's hardly a 0% chance of winning it.

    San Fran is a bad matchup for us. That being said, you don't neccesarily have to beat them either. Seattle is a good matchup against San Fran and we are a bad matchup for Seattle. Id argue we are a decent matchup against New Orleans, who should have beaten San Fran if they could tackle kittle.

    But lafluer and Gute have earned the benefit of the doubt. You dont fire them because you don't like 1 draft before anyone even plays a snap.
    You forgot the Bucs. They will be a tough team. Probably as good as us and Seattle.

    Also our def balled out for like the first 6-7 games then teams caught on: and now we are worse yet on def. my worry is we take a big step back defensively ...


    At least 7 make it this year bc I bet we are 7-8th best in nfc record wise at the end of the year

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,237
    Where you stand doesn't matter when you win the division, which should always be the goal.

    And my list wasn't neccesarily a comprehensive list of good nfc teams, just pointing out that despite getting smoked by San Fran twice, one team that we beat and one team that I think we match up okay with definitely could have beat them. It's fairly common, espeically amongst the mid tier "good" teams that sometimes you match up better against one team than another. And that team may match up better against a different team.

    The way to beat San Fran is to be strong in the middle of the field. They have some guys capable of making big plays at wr, but generally speaking, their wr's aren't that great. You don't need great corners. And since everything is built on the run and kittle, if you're strong at IDL, ILB and S, you can take some of that away. You don't even really need an elite pass rush against them. That's not our strengths. While I agree our defense could regress, our strengths are outside pass rush and our corners are pretty solid cover guys.

    But those strengths are actually a solid matchup against say Seattle. King and jaire are both physically good matches for Lockett and metcalf. Our outside rush helps against Russ. They like to try to run it, but our IDL is good enough against their below average IOL. But they have been a tough matchup for San Fran. So it all sort of depends on how the cookie crumbles for us. But there's definitely a not crazy path that lines up for us with good matchups. It's impossible to tell exactly, but I actually think all things considered, tampa isn't a horrible matchup for us either.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    747
    Honestly, this draft could end up looking brilliant 4 years from now. And we won't know any earlier than that. The only thing I don't like about the Love pick is trading up to get him. But if they got the pick right and he ends up being the guy, then that will be a very small price to pay. I don't like our 2nd or 3rd round picks at all. Both seem like reaches. The rest of the draft I'm fine with.

    Also, I think people are too hung up on last year's record and making it to the NFCC game. We were lucky to be there. Our supposedly much improved defense still finished, what, like 20th overall? Our defense still isn't good. Bottom line is this team still has quite a ways to go before it's legitimately a contender. I hope it's not that bad, but we could almost be like the Bears last year- wildly overachieved the year before and then came back to reality. I think 9-10 wins is very likely this year and that has nothing to do with what we did in the draft.

    And I don't think theres any doubt that Rodgers is declining. He still shows flashes, but he can't consistently do what he used to. The frustrating part is he refuses to play within the system and just take whats there. When you look at Brady and Manning, both just took what was there and didn't force stuff and that's a huge part of why they were both successful and productive late into their careers. Rodgers just insists on trying to do too much and prove how good he is and it's backfiring on him.

    If Rodgers continues to decline, many will be ready to move on from him. His level of play simply isn't worth what they're paying him and it's not even close. So two more years of potential decline, and trust me every fan is going to be ready to move on and spend that money elsewhere.

    Last thing I'll say is this. For one, I don't think this came as a huge shock to Rodgers. He talked about the possibility of it before the draft and even made the statement about nobody being able to beat him out for a while. But if this pick does piss Rodgers off, that's good for us. A pissed off Aaron Rodgers is very dangerous.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Schofield, WI
    Posts
    2,907
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfishguy85 View Post
    Honestly, this draft could end up looking brilliant 4 years from now. And we won't know any earlier than that. The only thing I don't like about the Love pick is trading up to get him. But if they got the pick right and he ends up being the guy, then that will be a very small price to pay. I don't like our 2nd or 3rd round picks at all. Both seem like reaches. The rest of the draft I'm fine with.

    Also, I think people are too hung up on last year's record and making it to the NFCC game. We were lucky to be there. Our supposedly much improved defense still finished, what, like 20th overall? Our defense still isn't good. Bottom line is this team still has quite a ways to go before it's legitimately a contender. I hope it's not that bad, but we could almost be like the Bears last year- wildly overachieved the year before and then came back to reality. I think 9-10 wins is very likely this year and that has nothing to do with what we did in the draft.

    And I don't think theres any doubt that Rodgers is declining. He still shows flashes, but he can't consistently do what he used to. The frustrating part is he refuses to play within the system and just take whats there. When you look at Brady and Manning, both just took what was there and didn't force stuff and that's a huge part of why they were both successful and productive late into their careers. Rodgers just insists on trying to do too much and prove how good he is and it's backfiring on him.

    If Rodgers continues to decline, many will be ready to move on from him. His level of play simply isn't worth what they're paying him and it's not even close. So two more years of potential decline, and trust me every fan is going to be ready to move on and spend that money elsewhere.

    Last thing I'll say is this. For one, I don't think this came as a huge shock to Rodgers. He talked about the possibility of it before the draft and even made the statement about nobody being able to beat him out for a while. But if this pick does piss Rodgers off, that's good for us. A pissed off Aaron Rodgers is very dangerous.
    What I can't stand is people calling this similar to Packers drafting AR in 2005. Favre was skipping training camp. AR says legacy is important and he wants to retire a Packer. Also he wants to play into 40s. Also GB was in the NFC title game last year. AR fell into Packers lap at 24. GB trades a R4 pick and 30 to move up 4 spots in a deep draft. Also, that's a thing to Packers could have probably traded 30 if Love was there for a haul. Instead they trade up to take him. Again, if he turns out great OK it's a win but he is sitting 3 years potentially and doesn't do anything to help a team 1 win from a SB now. Which goes to crewfan saying they didn't fill holes or take BPA...because no way on any board was Dillon at 62 or Deguara at 94 the bpa. Reaches from moving R4 pick to move up. If Dillon R3/Degaura 4 and hybrid LB at 62 Chinn or Gay it's stomachable.

    Also bigfish I don't get how you can say you don't mind the draft when you have issues with trading up in R1 to take love and you don't like the R2/3 picks.....kind of where your draft is made.. That's another thing GB took high floor low ceiling guys after Love which makes it unexciting...I wish GB stuck at 30 took Love or my preference Blacklock. I thought when trade up they were taking Queen. But if they go Blacklock/Baun or Blacklock and hybrid Chinn or Gay Jr. the defense suddenly has a run stopper who can rush and a ILB...two needs defensively...Just an underwhelming draft haul.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    8,691
    Quote Originally Posted by gopackgo87 View Post
    What I can't stand is people calling this similar to Packers drafting AR in 2005. Favre was skipping training camp. AR says legacy is important and he wants to retire a Packer. Also he wants to play into 40s. Also GB was in the NFC title game last year. AR fell into Packers lap at 24. GB trades a R4 pick and 30 to move up 4 spots in a deep draft. Also, that's a thing to Packers could have probably traded 30 if Love was there for a haul. Instead they trade up to take him. Again, if he turns out great OK it's a win but he is sitting 3 years potentially and doesn't do anything to help a team 1 win from a SB now. Which goes to crewfan saying they didn't fill holes or take BPA...because no way on any board was Dillon at 62 or Deguara at 94 the bpa. Reaches from moving R4 pick to move up. If Dillon R3/Degaura 4 and hybrid LB at 62 Chinn or Gay it's stomachable.

    Also bigfish I don't get how you can say you don't mind the draft when you have issues with trading up in R1 to take love and you don't like the R2/3 picks.....kind of where your draft is made.. That's another thing GB took high floor low ceiling guys after Love which makes it unexciting...I wish GB stuck at 30 took Love or my preference Blacklock. I thought when trade up they were taking Queen. But if they go Blacklock/Baun or Blacklock and hybrid Chinn or Gay Jr. the defense suddenly has a run stopper who can rush and a ILB...two needs defensively...Just an underwhelming draft haul.
    I think the Runyan pick was a solid choice because he has a chance to be either a RT or the potential RG to take over for Turner. I think this is one of the picks that the experts look at and they love. The Hanson pick has a chance but, his big knock was for his issues with snapping (from what I have read) which for a center is kind of troubling. the Stepaniak was kind of dumb because I don't know if he is any better than any of the guys already on the roster. I have read he is super raw/project player. and the Garvin pick could be a great pick. he came out as a junior and some believe that if he would have went back to school and actually gave more of an effort he could have went a lot higher after his senior season.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by gopackgo87 View Post
    What I can't stand is people calling this similar to Packers drafting AR in 2005. Favre was skipping training camp. AR says legacy is important and he wants to retire a Packer. Also he wants to play into 40s. Also GB was in the NFC title game last year. AR fell into Packers lap at 24. GB trades a R4 pick and 30 to move up 4 spots in a deep draft. Also, that's a thing to Packers could have probably traded 30 if Love was there for a haul. Instead they trade up to take him. Again, if he turns out great OK it's a win but he is sitting 3 years potentially and doesn't do anything to help a team 1 win from a SB now. Which goes to crewfan saying they didn't fill holes or take BPA...because no way on any board was Dillon at 62 or Deguara at 94 the bpa. Reaches from moving R4 pick to move up. If Dillon R3/Degaura 4 and hybrid LB at 62 Chinn or Gay it's stomachable.

    Also bigfish I don't get how you can say you don't mind the draft when you have issues with trading up in R1 to take love and you don't like the R2/3 picks.....kind of where your draft is made.. That's another thing GB took high floor low ceiling guys after Love which makes it unexciting...I wish GB stuck at 30 took Love or my preference Blacklock. I thought when trade up they were taking Queen. But if they go Blacklock/Baun or Blacklock and hybrid Chinn or Gay Jr. the defense suddenly has a run stopper who can rush and a ILB...two needs defensively...Just an underwhelming draft haul.

    Listen dude, I canít talk to you if you canít even read my post. Youíre alleging things and making connections that I never said. Maybe try reading it again, and stay consistent with what I actually said. Or donít, but I canít respond to nonsense.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Schofield, WI
    Posts
    2,907
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfishguy85 View Post
    Listen dude, I canít talk to you if you canít even read my post. Youíre alleging things and making connections that I never said. Maybe try reading it again, and stay consistent with what I actually said. Or donít, but I canít respond to nonsense.
    Only my second graph was directed to you. YOu said the draft could turn out to look brilliant in 4 years....Maybe the Love pick...but you think Dillon and Deguara are going to be studs? You said you didn't like those picks yet didn't mind the draft and could look brilliant. The first 3 picks you don't like 2 of them...after R3 maybe what gets you even feeling fine? Your drafts are made in the 2-5 rounds. The Love pick is all that can save this draft unless Dillon becomes Derrick Henry...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by gopackgo87 View Post
    Only my second graph was directed to you. YOu said the draft could turn out to look brilliant in 4 years....Maybe the Love pick...but you think Dillon and Deguara are going to be studs? You said you didn't like those picks yet didn't mind the draft and could look brilliant. The first 3 picks you don't like 2 of them...after R3 maybe what gets you even feeling fine? Your drafts are made in the 2-5 rounds. The Love pick is all that can save this draft unless Dillon becomes Derrick Henry...
    Jesus, dude. Youíre slow, arenít you?

    Iíll make this simple. I specifically said that I donít like the 2nd and 3rd pick. Read my post again, itís there. That said, depending on LaFleurís scheme and playing the style he wants, maybe those picks end up fitting better than expected. They look like reaches to me.

    I like the OL picks, they seem like solid prospects and they make sense. We def need new blood on the OL, so I donít know how anyone can argue with those.

    And the biggest thing anyone is questioning right now is the decision to draft a Qb in the 1st instead of wrís. Itís pretty clear that this draft is meant in positioning this team for the future. Rodgers is on the decline, he wonít see the end of his contract in GB and the FO knows it. If they hit on the the Qb pick and heís ready to start and play well in 3 years, and a couple of these OL guys turn into anything, and we get some solid play out of the RB, then this draft will be viewed much differently. Youíre slow, so Iíll try and put this at a speed you can keep up with. Youíre trying to judge this draft before these guys have played a single snap, all on the basis that they canít help this team right now. Thatís clearly not the point, and you need to alter your world view to a different expectation. This draft could also be a total disaster. It could be 2015 again and nothing pans out. But at least we didnít draft a safety in the 1st round to start at CB.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NW Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,753
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfishguy85 View Post
    Honestly, this draft could end up looking brilliant 4 years from now. And we won't know any earlier than that. The only thing I don't like about the Love pick is trading up to get him. But if they got the pick right and he ends up being the guy, then that will be a very small price to pay. I don't like our 2nd or 3rd round picks at all. Both seem like reaches. The rest of the draft I'm fine with.

    Also, I think people are too hung up on last year's record and making it to the NFCC game. We were lucky to be there. Our supposedly much improved defense still finished, what, like 20th overall? Our defense still isn't good. Bottom line is this team still has quite a ways to go before it's legitimately a contender. I hope it's not that bad, but we could almost be like the Bears last year- wildly overachieved the year before and then came back to reality. I think 9-10 wins is very likely this year and that has nothing to do with what we did in the draft.

    And I don't think theres any doubt that Rodgers is declining. He still shows flashes, but he can't consistently do what he used to. The frustrating part is he refuses to play within the system and just take whats there. When you look at Brady and Manning, both just took what was there and didn't force stuff and that's a huge part of why they were both successful and productive late into their careers. Rodgers just insists on trying to do too much and prove how good he is and it's backfiring on him.

    If Rodgers continues to decline, many will be ready to move on from him. His level of play simply isn't worth what they're paying him and it's not even close. So two more years of potential decline, and trust me every fan is going to be ready to move on and spend that money elsewhere.

    Last thing I'll say is this. For one, I don't think this came as a huge shock to Rodgers. He talked about the possibility of it before the draft and even made the statement about nobody being able to beat him out for a while. But if this pick does piss Rodgers off, that's good for us. A pissed off Aaron Rodgers is very dangerous.
    The Jordan Love pick could look brilliant, but the draft is not just about 1 pick. Day 2 was worse than day 1 and we got nothing to make the team better this year other than a short yardage/goal line RB.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NW Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,753
    One of my friends gave me this quote which I think represents our draft philosophy this year. He said " We drafted backup's to positions where we had stud's"

    I might not be a brain surgeon, but that doesn't sound like a wise draft philosophy to me.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by HacksawButch View Post
    One of my friends gave me this quote which I think represents our draft philosophy this year. He said " We drafted backup's to positions where we had stud's"

    I might not be a brain surgeon, but that doesn't sound like a wise draft philosophy to me.
    Except, who is your friend and exactly what are his credentials? I.e. why should I consider his opinion valid? I don't agree with his statement at all.

    We don't have a stud TE.
    We don't have studs on the OL, aside from Bakhtiari.
    We don't have a stud at ILB.
    Rodgers is on the decline and clearly doesn't have much time left at his current pay rate, so thinking about his replacement isn't crazy.
    Aaron Jones had 1 good complete year, after having injury issues the previous two. You really mean to tell me that drafting a backup running back- even if that's all this draft pick turns into- is a bad move?

    Your friend's quote makes for a good sound byte but absolutely nothing more. There is zero logical basis behind it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •