Packers hire Nate Hackett as OC

[Pugger]

17 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

I think LaFleur will design that offense, though. 

And Hackett will not be calling the plays.

[Pugger]

13 hours ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Color me unimpressed by these accolades. If you're trying to justify him as better than McCarthy... maybe? McCarthy didn't really have the best resume prior to GB either.

"If LaFleur stayed with the Rams"... well yeah. The Rams seemed just fine without him this season, though. Better, in fact.

Like I said, I don't blame you for being optimistic. Certianly better to roll the dice with LaFleur than stick with the same anemic McCarthy. But from my perspective it's just that: a roll of the dice. I'm not entirely sure what you're objecting to. Do you honestly think LaFleur is a surefire candidate?

And this is why you can't say a guy won't succeed because of his past work.  Could both MLF and Hackett crash and burn?  Sure.  But most of us are cautiously optimistic and hope these new coaches will breathe new life into our stale and predicable offense we had under McCarthy. 

[TheKillerNacho]

12 minutes ago, Pugger said:

And this is why you can't say a guy won't succeed because of his past work.  Could both MLF and Hackett crash and burn?  Sure.  But most of us are cautiously optimistic and hope these new coaches will breathe new life into our stale and predicable offense we had under McCarthy. 

I never said this.

[Pugger]

Just now, TheKillerNacho said:

I never said this.

But you implied it by saying in effect in a separate post because his offense wasn't a world beater in Tennessee you couldn't see how his offense would in GB even with Rodgers under center.

[TheKillerNacho]

27 minutes ago, Pugger said:

But you implied it by saying in effect in a separate post because his offense wasn't a world beater in Tennessee you couldn't see how his offense would in GB even with Rodgers under center.

I said there was no strong reason to believe it would, or not. I've been arguing against the assertion that LaFleur is an offensive genius. Not for the assertion LaFleur is a bad offensive coach.

[vegas492]

Label me as unimpressed with either the new HC, or Hackett.

Look, I'll admit to knowing absolutely next to nothing concerning most of the head coaching candidates...even less regarding their assistants.

But to the fans eye...my eye...these two hires are meh.

And I was meh when they hired McCarthy.  All he did was turn around the career of Favre, develop Rodgers and win a Super Bowl.

Because I'm a fan, I'm going to defer to the GB front office when it comes to selecting these coaches and then let them do their job.  I'll gauge their hires as "successful" or "unsuccessful" after they've been here a few years and we see how the team is going.  Kind of like evaluating a draft...it takes time.

[Superman(DH23)]

On 1/14/2019 at 9:39 PM, 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.

Not disagreeing with what you're really saying but comparing Andy's track record and his tree with Sean Mcvay is ludicrous.  Andy is probably the best guy in the NFL at preparing his assistants to move on to HC jobs.  And Andy just continues a pipeline of hiring good assistants and assistants fall over themselves to go work for Andy for that very reason.

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Not disagreeing with what you're really saying but comparing Andy's track record and his tree with Sean Mcvay is ludicrous.  Andy is probably the best guy in the NFL at preparing his assistants to move on to HC jobs.  And Andy just continues a pipeline of hiring good assistants and assistants fall over themselves to go work for Andy for that very reason.

Thinking i'm comparing their trees is ludicrous.