What's a successful first season for Matt LaFleur?

[rrayy]

Just give me the playoffs and then anything can happen. We won it all as a 10-6 6th seed.

I get what you're saying but that was a 14-2 roster, you had Rodgers just entering his prime and the team was stacked on both sides of the ball. They went 10-6 and damn near missed the playoffs because they had a dolt of a head coach. The fact that the team won the Super Bowl in spite of McCarthy shows how good they actually were and how good Rodgers was.

It's still hilarious to me when I think back that you had arguably the best QB to ever step on a football field, playing some of the best football of his life on a stacked roster, and you still needed a win week 17 to secure the final playoff spot.

As for LaFluer, 8-8 is solid, 9-7 earns him coach of the year. 10-6 and a playoff spot with this roster and an aging Aaron Rodgers and we might have the 2nd coming of Bill Belichick.

You are absolutely wrong about the last Super Bowl win. You ignore the fact they ended up with 15 guys on the IR. Injuries were why they only went 10-6. Hell the fact that they won the Supe Bowl despite all that is a testament to Mike McCarthy's coaching ability at the time. Your hatred for him is leading to grossly inaccurate statements.

[CWoodfan]

Heart says with a new head coach, a rejuvenated and healthy Aaron, and what looks like a more talented defense a deep playoff run is possible.

Head says rookie head coach with a new offensive system, tough division, still trying to overcome all the roster problems left by Ted and the team is still one year away from being serious contenders.

After back to back losing seasons, I'd like to be .500 or better.

More importantly, I'd love to see a Packers team in 2019 with a creative and at time explosive offense, a competent to dare I say good defense, and a special teams unit that does not constantly look as confused as its former coach Ron Zook.

[paulpressey25]

I just want proof that Mark Murphy and Gutekunst know what they’re doing.

That means a year 1992 (Holmgren), 2000 (Sherman) or year 2006 (McCarthy), where they finish .500 or over while looking like a team on the rise.

[trwi7]

I just want proof that Mark Murphy and Gutekunst know what they’re doing.

That means a year 1992 (Holmgren), 2000 (Sherman) or year 2006 (McCarthy), where they finish .500 or over while looking like a team on the rise.

I think Gutekunst knows what he's doing.

[LittleRooster]

I just want proof that Mark Murphy and Gutekunst know what they’re doing.

That means a year 1992 (Holmgren), 2000 (Sherman) or year 2006 (McCarthy), where they finish .500 or over while looking like a team on the rise.

I think Gutekunst knows what he's doing.

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rrayy]

I just want proof that Mark Murphy and Gutekunst know what they’re doing.

That means a year 1992 (Holmgren), 2000 (Sherman) or year 2006 (McCarthy), where they finish .500 or over while looking like a team on the rise.

I think Gutekunst knows what he's doing.

DeShone Kizer says the jury is still out on that.

[Ryan5UW]

I just want proof that Mark Murphy and Gutekunst know what they’re doing.

That means a year 1992 (Holmgren), 2000 (Sherman) or year 2006 (McCarthy), where they finish .500 or over while looking like a team on the rise.

I think Gutekunst knows what he's doing.

DeShone Kizer says the jury is still out on that.

And of course, the entire defensive side of the ball... don't forget that.

[LittleRooster]

I just want proof that Mark Murphy and Gutekunst know what they’re doing.

That means a year 1992 (Holmgren), 2000 (Sherman) or year 2006 (McCarthy), where they finish .500 or over while looking like a team on the rise.

I think Gutekunst knows what he's doing.

DeShone Kizer says the jury is still out on that.

No such thing as a perfect gm but keep looking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rrayy]

I think Gutekunst knows what he's doing.

DeShone Kizer says the jury is still out on that.

No such thing as a perfect gm but keep looking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

t isn't about a perfect GM. But it is riduloucs to say with any authority that he knows what he is doing when he hasn't accomplished anything yet and there hasn't been any improvement over the team he inherited yet either. The jury is very much still out on his ability,

[trwi7]

"I think" where is the authority there? Learn to read.

[PintSizedBox10]

DeShone Kizer says the jury is still out on that.

No such thing as a perfect gm but keep looking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

t isn't about a perfect GM. But it is riduloucs to say with any authority that he knows what he is doing when he hasn't accomplished anything yet and there hasn't been any improvement over the team he inherited yet either. The jury is very much still out on his ability,

You talk as if he's been in the role of GM for 5 years already. Plus the guy inherited a downward spiraling team with limited talent on both sides of the ball.

[rrayy]

No such thing as a perfect gm but keep looking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

t isn't about a perfect GM. But it is riduloucs to say with any authority that he knows what he is doing when he hasn't accomplished anything yet and there hasn't been any improvement over the team he inherited yet either. The jury is very much still out on his ability,

You talk as if he's been in the role of GM for 5 years already. Plus the guy inherited a downward spiraling team with limited talent on both sides of the ball.

Not what I am saying at all. I am saying the jury is still out and that it is ridiculous to say he knows what he is doing when he hasn't accomplish anything yet. It is no different than judging a draft pick this soon after he was drafted.

And I complete disagree about inheriting a team with limited talent on both sides of the ball.

[Oscar71]

I'd say winning the NFC North would be a successful first year.

[PintSizedBox10]

t isn't about a perfect GM. But it is riduloucs to say with any authority that he knows what he is doing when he hasn't accomplished anything yet and there hasn't been any improvement over the team he inherited yet either. The jury is very much still out on his ability,

You talk as if he's been in the role of GM for 5 years already. Plus the guy inherited a downward spiraling team with limited talent on both sides of the ball.

Not what I am saying at all. I am saying the jury is still out and that it is ridiculous to say he knows what he is doing when he hasn't accomplish anything yet. It is no different than judging a draft pick this soon after he was drafted.

And I complete disagree about inheriting a team with limited talent on both sides of the ball.

I'm not quite sure how you could think the team he inherited is anymore talented than our current roster.

[rrayy]

You talk as if he's been in the role of GM for 5 years already. Plus the guy inherited a downward spiraling team with limited talent on both sides of the ball.

Not what I am saying at all. I am saying the jury is still out and that it is ridiculous to say he knows what he is doing when he hasn't accomplish anything yet. It is no different than judging a draft pick this soon after he was drafted.

And I complete disagree about inheriting a team with limited talent on both sides of the ball.

I'm not quite sure how you could think the team he inherited is anymore talented than our current roster.

Considering you haven't seen this team play, you can't even say how talented this team is. The point is the jury is still out both on the team and the GM because neither have proven anything yet.

[dinderdan]

Sean McVay, Ben McAdoo, Bruce Arians... there's a lot of coaches that do well their first year. I'd be happy with 10-6 and a shot at the playoffs.