Jump to content

Packers hire Nate Hackett as OC


pwny

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, beekay414 said:

Who's to say that he didn't maximize their talent level? Let's not forget that Blaine Gabbert saw meaningful action in 5 games and Mariota dealt with a nerve issue with his throwing hand all year so that's kinda going to limit any type of offensive ceiling you might have. 

Basically, all I'm saying is that is far too early to have a definitive stance on what Matt LaFleur is or what he's capable of. 

I mean, if that's how you feel and you wanna take the "lets wait and see approach", you're right, unexpected things happen in the NFL all the time. But I don't know why then you are discussing things on footballs future. The very purpose of the site is to discuss the future, which is by its very nature unknowable. The only way we can speculate is from evaluation on the past and reason. Certainly, sometimes coaches and players exceed expectations. But I think a vast majority of the time, things go as expected.

If you have a reason to think LaFleur will be a great coach, I'm all ears. I'm not saying it can't work out. I don't know the man personally. All I'm pointing out is his resume is ultimately unimpressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

What talent level was there to maximize?  They had a "franchise" QB who couldn't even hold the ball long enough to throw it, and they had Blaine freaking Gabbert as their backup.  Their offensive line is probably the only part of their offense that is talented.  Ask yourself this, how many Titans' offensive players would have started for the Packers last year?  Corey Davis and Taylor Lewan are guaranteed.  Jack Conklin would have been one of the starting guards, but beyond that the Titans are awful.  I'm not taking Taywan Taylor or Tejae Sharpe over MVS or ESB, and certainly not over Davante Adams.  The RBs are a toss up.  The Titans absolutely very little talent.

The Packers will be successful no matter what so long as Aaron Rodgers is at QB and healthy, despite LaFleur.

Instead of trying to defend LaFleur's lack of success in Tennessee, perhaps you should focus on evidence as to why you believe LaFleur may be a good coach? So far as I can see, there isn't any. What exactly did he do well in Tennessee? In what way did the Rams get worse from him leaving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheKillerNacho said:

I mean, if that's how you feel and you wanna take the "lets wait and see approach", you're right, unexpected things happen in the NFL all the time. But I don't know why then you are discussing things on footballs future. The very purpose of the site is to discuss the future, which is by its very nature unknowable. The only way we can speculate is from evaluation on the past and reason. Certainly, sometimes coaches and players exceed expectations. But I think a vast majority of the time, things go as expected.

If you have a reason to think LaFleur will be a great coach, I'm all ears. I'm not saying it can't work out. I don't know the man personally. All I'm pointing out is his resume is ultimately unimpressive.

See what said in a response to @dtait93

Plus, I said a "definitive" stance. We don't know anything about Matt LaFleur other than the guys he's been around and his one year OCing a marginally talented offense with injury issues. I'll take the positive approach here because of what others have said about him, others that know him, which includes McVay and Shanahan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

See what said in a response to @dtait93

Plus, I said a "definitive" stance. We don't know anything about Matt LaFleur other than the guys he's been around and his one year OCing a marginally talented offense with injury issues. I'll take the positive approach here because of what others have said about him, others that know him, which includes McVay and Shanahan. 

In what way do you feel LaFleur has upside? What gave you this impression? I want to know why you believe this. Is it just because of what McVay and Shanahan has said? Nearly every HC hire ever has been hailed with positive words from previous co-workers.

As a Packers fan, I definitely don't blame you being optimistic. But you gotta realize others are going to be skeptical about a HC hire with such an ... unheralded resume. It's not unreasonable to question the hire, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheKillerNacho said:

In what way do you feel LaFleur has upside? What gave you this impression? I want to know why you believe this. Is it just because of what McVay and Shanahan has said? Nearly every HC hire ever has been hailed with positive words from previous co-workers.

His offensive acumen has been praised by two other head coaches that have one hell of a grasp on the offensive side of the ball. He's shown the ability to adapt to his personnel rather than his personnel having to adapt to him. Consistency in playcalling was most definitely an issue due to inexperience but he showed some really well designed concepts in his first year calling plays. He's a QB guy in a QB league and he's entering into a partnership with one of the most talented QBs of all-time while inheriting an offense that already has a #1 RB and #1 WR. 

There's a lot to like about Matt LaFleur. I'm sorry you're caught up solely on what he did in his 1st season with a marginally talented offense with an injured QB all year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Instead of trying to defend LaFleur's lack of success in Tennessee, perhaps you should focus on evidence as to why you believe LaFleur may be a good coach? So far as I can see, there isn't any. What exactly did he do well in Tennessee? In what way did the Rams get worse from him leaving?

Pretty sure defending him in TEN is exactly focusing on why he might be a good coach, no?

Did Reid and the Chiefs get worse when Pederson and Nagy left? That's a pretty silly argument to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Pretty sure defending him in TEN is exactly focusing on why he might be a good coach, no?

Did Reid and the Chiefs get worse when Pederson and Nagy left? That's a pretty silly argument to make.

No - you're explaining why he isn't a bad coach. Not why he's a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

His offensive acumen has been praised by two other head coaches that have one hell of a grasp on the offensive side of the ball. He's shown the ability to adapt to his personnel rather than his personnel having to adapt to him. Consistency in playcalling was most definitely an issue due to inexperience but he showed some really well designed concepts in his first year calling plays. He's a QB guy in a QB league and he's entering into a partnership with one of the most talented QBs of all-time while inheriting an offense that already has a #1 RB and #1 WR. 

There's a lot to like about Matt LaFleur. I'm sorry you're caught up solely on what he did in his 1st season with a marginally talented offense with an injured QB all year.

So its just what McVay and Shanahan have to say about him, I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheKillerNacho said:

So its just what McVay and Shanahan have to say about him, I see.

What more do you want? He's got limited experience. Everyone knows this. If that's all you took from what's being said, there's no conversation to be had. You want something that simply isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

oh ok, kinda like when you towel off after a shower, you're not removing water off your body, you're just adding it to the towel

makes sense

No - that's not what I'm getting at, at all. By merely justifying LaFleur's lack of success in Tennessee, you're merely canceling out, at best, the negative arguments against LaFleur. You aren't building a positive argument for LaFleur. Even if you cancel out all of the negative... let's put it at a numerical value of -50. Your cancellation is +50. That still leaves 0 reason to think LaFleur is a good coach.

What I'm asking is, what is the positive reasons for thinking LaFleur will be a good head coach?

So far, the best answers I've had were that Shanahan and McVay recommended him. Which, honestly, is pretty weak. Every HC hiring is heralded by positive reinforcement from former players and coaches. I've grown tired of such answers.

Maybe he will be a great coach. Like I said, I don't know him. But I really don't see any reason why he will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

What more do you want? He's got limited experience. Everyone knows this. If that's all you took from what's being said, there's no conversation to be had. You want something that simply isn't there.

So now you understand why neutral fans have rightfully questioned the wisdom of the hiring.

I'm glad you're optimistic. You seem to be far more optimistic than I am about my team's (probable) new head coach. And honestly, I'd wager on yours than our's. But recognize your optimism for what it is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

So now you understand why neutral fans have rightfully questioned the wisdom of the hiring.

I'm glad you're optimistic. You seem to be far more optimistic than I am about my team's (probable) new head coach. And honestly, I'd wager on yours than our's. But recognize your optimism for what it is...

It's not unguarded optimism, if that's what you're getting after. He's shown reasons why one should be optimistic and his connections to previous highly successful staffs also brings reason for optimism. If your only critique is inexperience, well, then there's nothing more to talk about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...