What do you think of Green Bay Head Coach Matt LaFleur?

[smetana34]

10 hours ago, TENINCH said:

They've only beaten the Matt Moore led Chiefs and the Vikings if you count teams over .500.

I mean, they've got 7 wins when playing against teams at or over .500, by far the most in the league. Minnesota twice, Dallas was 3-0, Carolina 5-2, Oakland 3-3, Chicago 7-6, and KC was 4-2. But carry on. 

[Pugger]

10 hours ago, TENINCH said:

You don't game plan the Packers to stop Mat Lafleur. You game plan them to stop Rodgers and Adams. It was a weak handshake but had nothing to do with his like or dislike or Lafleur

Maybe not but it is a bad look for Zimmer.

[TENINCH]

10 hours ago, smetana34 said:

I mean, they've got 7 wins when playing against teams at or over .500, by far the most in the league. Minnesota twice, Dallas was 3-0, Carolina 5-2, Oakland 3-3, Chicago 7-6, and KC was 4-2. But carry on. 

Lmao...if that was legit the Cousins record against teams wouldn't be 6-27 or whatever it is and people wouldn't remind us about it every week.You have KC and Minnesota.

[Anc360]

18 hours ago, smetana34 said:

I mean, they've got 7 wins when playing against teams at or over .500, by far the most in the league. Minnesota twice, Dallas was 3-0, Carolina 5-2, Oakland 3-3, Chicago 7-6, and KC was 4-2. But carry on. 

This is kind of an odd argument. I get that it’s relevant to consider a team’s record when you play them, but Dallas, Carolina, Oakland, and Chicago are all teams with losing records that are in the bottom half of the league in most power rankings. Those are hardly impressive wins in retrospect. Also, GB beat KC when Matt Moore was starting, and that was still a game that could have gone either way.

If you’re going to make an argument about a team’s record against other teams with a winning record, I think it makes more sense tracking wins against teams that finished with a winning record. 

[incognito_man]

13 minutes ago, Anc360 said:

This is kind of an odd argument. I get that it’s relevant to consider a team’s record when you play them, but Dallas, Carolina, Oakland, and Chicago are all teams with losing records that are in the bottom half of the league in most power rankings. Those are hardly impressive wins in retrospect. Also, GB beat KC when Matt Moore was starting, and that was still a game that could have gone either way.

If you’re going to make an argument about a team’s record against other teams with a winning record, I think it makes more sense tracking wins against teams that finished with a winning record. 

Or we could take all of that into consideration and look at DVOA 

[Forge]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

Or we could take all of that into consideration and look at DVOA 

Puts you about middle of the pack (15). Just behind NO and SF (tied at 13), though SF will get a boost week 17 while you guys will get nudged a bit. KC is a little higher, while Baltimore and new England have had a much easier go if it with regards to opponent dvoa. 

Out of the contenders, Seattle seems to have had the hardest go of it all around. Highest opponent winning percentage out of contenders, and the sixth highest opponent dvoa. 

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, Anc360 said:

Also, GB beat KC when Matt Moore was starting, and that was still a game that could have gone either way.

It's almost like a D who prepared to play a superstar all around QB like Patrick Mahomes might get thrown off by a totally different type of QB.....

Matt Moore, while not a star, is hardly a slouch. He's been successful against good teams in the past and was a guy a lot of teams looked at seemingly every offseason for a few years (yet for whatever reason, he openly stated he was content as Miami's backup). 

Considering that other current NFC playoff teams have gone off and lost to the likes of Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mitch Trubisky, Matt Moore, or eeked out close wins by teams QB'd by Baker Mayfield, Mason Rudolph, Jared Goff, Kyle Allen, Gardner Minshew, Brandon Allen, Daniel Jones, and Case Keenum- only 1 team of which is a true contender (KC, ironically) and another (Pitt) only looking at the playoffs by default, why you would choose the Matt Moore-led Chiefs game to point out is....crazy?

[Anc360]

1 minute ago, ronjon1990 said:

It's almost like a D who prepared to play a superstar all around QB like Patrick Mahomes might get thrown off by a totally different type of QB.....

Matt Moore, while not a star, is hardly a slouch. He's been successful against good teams in the past and was a guy a lot of teams looked at seemingly every offseason for a few years (yet for whatever reason, he openly stated he was content as Miami's backup). 

Considering that other current NFC playoff teams have gone off and lost to the likes of Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mitch Trubisky, Matt Moore, or eeked out close wins by teams QB'd by Baker Mayfield, Mason Rudolph, Jared Goff, Kyle Allen, Gardner Minshew, Brandon Allen, Daniel Jones, and Case Keenum- only 1 team of which is a true contender (KC, ironically) and another (Pitt) only looking at the playoffs by default, why you would choose the Matt Moore-led Chiefs game to point out is....crazy?

Are you seriously asking me why it is noteworthy that the Packers played the Chiefs during a 2 game stretch in which they were starting their 3rd string QB? And are you suggesting that this was somehow an advantage for the Chiefs?

The Packers were not preparing to face Mahomes. If they were then LaFleur is genuinely a terrible coach. 

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

Puts you about middle of the pack (15). Just behind NO and SF (tied at 13), though SF will get a boost week 17 while you guys will get nudged a bit. KC is a little higher, while Baltimore and new England have had a much easier go if it with regards to opponent dvoa. 

Out of the contenders, Seattle seems to have had the hardest go of it all around. Highest opponent winning percentage out of contenders, and the sixth highest opponent dvoa. 

GB is 9th in DVOA. I just meant the overall rank takes all of this into consideration.

[smetana34]

12 hours ago, TENINCH said:

Lmao...if that was legit the Cousins record against teams wouldn't be 6-27 or whatever it is and people wouldn't remind us about it every week.You have KC and Minnesota.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportsline.com/sportsline-web/amp/nfl-week-10-vikings-vs-cowboys-kirk-cousins-rarely-beats-winning-teams/

 

Second paragraph. Want to try again? 

[smetana34]

5 hours ago, Anc360 said:

This is kind of an odd argument. I get that it’s relevant to consider a team’s record when you play them, but Dallas, Carolina, Oakland, and Chicago are all teams with losing records that are in the bottom half of the league in most power rankings. Those are hardly impressive wins in retrospect. Also, GB beat KC when Matt Moore was starting, and that was still a game that could have gone either way.

If you’re going to make an argument about a team’s record against other teams with a winning record, I think it makes more sense tracking wins against teams that finished with a winning record. 

All those teams were playing good ball at the time of facing off against Green Bay. A lot changes throughout the year. Doesnt make those wins any less quality at the time they happened. 

[Forge]

2 hours ago, smetana34 said:

All those teams were playing good ball at the time of facing off against Green Bay. A lot changes throughout the year. Doesnt make those wins any less quality at the time they happened. 

I mean, Dallas' three wins at that time were against Washington, New York and Miami. It doesn't really take playing good ball at the time to win those games.

Carolina's stretch around that time involved getting beat down 51-13 against the niners, a solid win against the Titans, then a loss against Green Bay and getting smashed by Atlanta 29-3 at home. 

Chicago was having a nice run, winning three straight, except two of those wins were against the Giants and David Blough in his first start (a game they almost unforgivably lost). They did beat a mediocre Dallas team before playing you guys though, which was a solid win. The Bears are kind of a hard one to peg around that time. Were they playing well? Eh...like, kind of maybe? I could go either way on that one, tbh. 

The others are pretty solid, but if you're going to break it down that much with regards to being solid wins at the time, you have to dig into it like that. I don't disagree with your premise, but don't think that those teams were necessarily playing solid around the times that they played you either. It also doesn't account for teams that actually were playing well but maybe didn't hit that .500 mark yet (for the Packers and other teams), which seems slightly disingenuous. 

FWIW, accounting for all 16 games (obviously its subject to change slightly since week 17 games haven't been played), I believe Tankathon lists your SOS as worst in the NFC and second easiest in the NFL all together at .454 (only Buffalo has had an easier schedule). May change slightly after Sunday. But it's really not that big of a deal. I mean, New Orleans' SOS is .485. Their big games were the 49ers  / Seahawks / Texans. You had the 49ers / Vikings / Vikings / Chiefs. The saints bottom dweller opponents were just better, which honestly made up the difference. The Saints got games against more mediocre opponents as opposed to flat out bad ones (namely, teams like Jax / Arizona / Atlanta 2x >>>>>> Giants / Washington / Detroit 2x from a win loss perspective. Just right there alone is a difference of like 9 wins, which is probably a huge chunk of that difference. The Saints bottom dwellers had 22 wins, yours had 13).  

The whole strength of schedule thing is a little overplayed. I mean, does New Orleans get a ton more credit for playing Arizona / Jacksonville rather than Washington / Giants? All 4 of those teams had about the same chance to win the games against the Packers / Saints respectively. Though the falcons were problematic for teams this year - they had some nice wins for a 6 win team so they probably do deserve a worthy bump for those games over the Lions (though at least that first Lions game involved Stafford and was probably closer in tenor to playing the Falcons than a 3 win record would indicate at the current point in time) 

[ronjon1990]

5 hours ago, Anc360 said:

Are you seriously asking me why it is noteworthy that the Packers played the Chiefs during a 2 game stretch in which they were starting their 3rd string QB? And are you suggesting that this was somehow an advantage for the Chiefs?

The Packers were not preparing to face Mahomes. If they were then LaFleur is genuinely a terrible coach. 

No, I'm saying that anyone who has actually watched football over the last 5-6 years would recognize that dogging on the Packers for playing and beating a team that's currently 11-4 during a stint with a QB who is arguably better than at least 7 QBs who beat/played close with the 49ers, Eagles, Saints, Seahawks, and Vikings, on far less talented Denver, Jacksonville, Washington, Miami, Carolina, Pittsburgh, and possibly Chicago teams is a ludicrous hill to try and die on in this debate. 

Clearly, you think Matt Moore is some slouch afterthought signing and that him playing in place of Mahomes takes the team from stellar down past decent or even average and into the cellar of the NFL. No, him playing QB wasn't an "advantage", nor was he a detrimental disadvantage. 

You also clearly don't keep up with the Chiefs well enough to make such absurd assumptions  given that Matt Moore was never their "3rd string QB" as he was signed to be Mahomes' primary backup after Henne went to IR. This is the same Matt Moore who turned down several workouts for teams that he likely could have been starting for DESPITE being unofficially retired. 

By all means, have your opinions, but when you sit around tossing out objectively false arguments, you've already lost the debate.

[childofpudding]

B

[m haynes]

He and Josh McDaniels riding coat tails.