Kubiak leaning towards retirement

[psjordan]

The changing of offensive coordinators has been a major problem for Zimmer. Mostly because he relies on his OC to provide structure and "take care" of everything. He himself doesn't seem to has an offensive philosophy beyond "we need to make sure to run the ball enough". Instead of having an overarching plan for the team he'll worry about the defense and let the OC do their thing. I think that makes it a more difficult transition from one OC to the next for the players.

This post made me think of Mike Tice. I was going to write something like "Well, Tice is available" but I just found out he retired. I found the reason interesting:

Tice was hired to be the Oakland Raiders offensive line coach in January 2015.[6] On February 6, 2018, Tice announced that he is retiring from coaching. He says he’s ready to move on from the coaching ranks because “players today don’t want to be coached."

One could read into that two ways I guess.

One, players today truly "don't want to be coached". Not sure one could substantiate this based on any overwhelming evidence.

Or two, players today "don't want to be coached by Mike Tice-like coaches".

Depending on your perspective, you may feel #2 in actuality equals #1.

But I think the "newer" successful coaches like McVay, Shanahan (and Saleh), McDermott (and Daboll), LaFleur, etc. and their staffs are actively coaching players to get better, and the vast, vast majority of players on their respective rosters seem to be 100% on board with being coached. Heck even Diggsy chipped in to get his Bills WR coach a new truck.

I'm not convinced the defensive game has passed Zimmer by, in fact with the right team structure and roster I think he might be just as successful as Leslie Frazier is now as the DC (and asst HC) of the Bills.

[J. Kapp 11]

The changing of offensive coordinators has been a major problem for Zimmer. Mostly because he relies on his OC to provide structure and "take care" of everything. He himself doesn't seem to has an offensive philosophy beyond "we need to make sure to run the ball enough". Instead of having an overarching plan for the team he'll worry about the defense and let the OC do their thing. I think that makes it a more difficult transition from one OC to the next for the players.

This post made me think of Mike Tice. I was going to write something like "Well, Tice is available" but I just found out he retired. I found the reason interesting:

One could read into that two ways I guess.

One, players today truly "don't want to be coached". Not sure one could substantiate this based on any overwhelming evidence.

Or two, players today "don't want to be coached by Mike Tice-like coaches".

Depending on your perspective, you may feel #2 in actuality equals #1.

But I think the "newer" successful coaches like McVay, Shanahan (and Saleh), McDermott (and Daboll), LaFleur, etc. and their staffs are actively coaching players to get better, and the vast, vast majority of players on their respective rosters seem to be 100% on board with being coached. Heck even Diggsy chipped in to get his Bills WR coach a new truck.

I'm not convinced the defensive game has passed Zimmer by, in fact with the right team structure and roster I think he might be just as successful as Leslie Frazier is now as the DC (and asst HC) of the Bills.

Funny you mention LaFleur.

Let me preface this by saying I still hate the Packers with every fiber of my being. Well, every fiber of my being that isn't dedicated to hating the Bears.

Anyway, I heard LaFleur interviewed on the radio today, and I have to say, I came away thoroughly impressed. He said many things, but here's the one that really caught my attention. He was asked how he gets the most out of his players. It went something like this ...

"We have a vision for every player. We talk about that vision with each player and how it contributes to our team's goals. When he knows that, he can buy in."

I have to say, I have never, in any walk of life, known of a leader who said anything that remotely resembled that statement. If I really believed that my boss had a vision for ME instead of for himself or herself, I'd do anything for that boss. Seems to be working for LaFleur. Freaking Packers are 26-6 under him.

Can anybody here ever imagine Mike Zimmer saying something like that?

God, it's hard to be a Vikings fan.

[psjordan]

One could read into that two ways I guess.

One, players today truly "don't want to be coached". Not sure one could substantiate this based on any overwhelming evidence.

Or two, players today "don't want to be coached by Mike Tice-like coaches".

Depending on your perspective, you may feel #2 in actuality equals #1.

But I think the "newer" successful coaches like McVay, Shanahan (and Saleh), McDermott (and Daboll), LaFleur, etc. and their staffs are actively coaching players to get better, and the vast, vast majority of players on their respective rosters seem to be 100% on board with being coached. Heck even Diggsy chipped in to get his Bills WR coach a new truck.

I'm not convinced the defensive game has passed Zimmer by, in fact with the right team structure and roster I think he might be just as successful as Leslie Frazier is now as the DC (and asst HC) of the Bills.

Funny you mention LaFleur.

Let me preface this by saying I still hate the Packers with every fiber of my being. Well, every fiber of my being that isn't dedicated to hating the Bears.

Anyway, I heard LaFleur interviewed on the radio today, and I have to say, I came away thoroughly impressed. He said many things, but here's the one that really caught my attention. He was asked how he gets the most out of his players. It went something like this ...

"We have a vision for every player. We talk about that vision with each player and how it contributes to our team's goals. When he knows that, he can buy in."

I have to say, I have never, in any walk of life, known of a leader who said anything that remotely resembled that statement. If I really believed that my boss had a vision for ME instead of for himself or herself, I'd do anything for that boss. Seems to be working for LaFleur. Freaking Packers are 26-6 under him.

Can anybody here ever imagine Mike Zimmer saying something like that?

God, it's hard to be a Vikings fan.

You mean you wouldn't respond well if your boss told the world you are part of the worst department he's ever had work for him? And that you work like a bunch of kindegartners?

That's surprising. I think most modern management books say Zim's way is the way to motivate employees

[CharVike]

One could read into that two ways I guess.

One, players today truly "don't want to be coached". Not sure one could substantiate this based on any overwhelming evidence.

Or two, players today "don't want to be coached by Mike Tice-like coaches".

Depending on your perspective, you may feel #2 in actuality equals #1.

But I think the "newer" successful coaches like McVay, Shanahan (and Saleh), McDermott (and Daboll), LaFleur, etc. and their staffs are actively coaching players to get better, and the vast, vast majority of players on their respective rosters seem to be 100% on board with being coached. Heck even Diggsy chipped in to get his Bills WR coach a new truck.

I'm not convinced the defensive game has passed Zimmer by, in fact with the right team structure and roster I think he might be just as successful as Leslie Frazier is now as the DC (and asst HC) of the Bills.

Funny you mention LaFleur.

Let me preface this by saying I still hate the Packers with every fiber of my being. Well, every fiber of my being that isn't dedicated to hating the Bears.

Anyway, I heard LaFleur interviewed on the radio today, and I have to say, I came away thoroughly impressed. He said many things, but here's the one that really caught my attention. He was asked how he gets the most out of his players. It went something like this ...

"We have a vision for every player. We talk about that vision with each player and how it contributes to our team's goals. When he knows that, he can buy in."

I have to say, I have never, in any walk of life, known of a leader who said anything that remotely resembled that statement. If I really believed that my boss had a vision for ME instead of for himself or herself, I'd do anything for that boss. Seems to be working for LaFleur. Freaking Packers are 26-6 under him.

Can anybody here ever imagine Mike Zimmer saying something like that?

God, it's hard to be a Vikings fan.

There's no doubt that this coach has had success. They should go to the Super Bowl this year. He has the best QB in the NFC and he didn't create that. Rodgers has a Super Bowl win already before he arrived. When he was with the Titians his offense was ranked 25th in the NFL. He didn't get their QB to play lights out with his vision deal. But the Packers saw something and hired him. Last year he went to the NFC champ game and his vision didn't do a thing in that game. Jimmy G attempted 8 passes. That's early 70 Dolphin football. He allowed that team to literally pound the ball down their throats.You can't let that happen. Make Jimmy G beat you. Of course it was only one game but you think they would have used that vision to put up a fight. He let Zimmer beat him this year with a rag tag secondary and no pass rush. His success can't be argued but has been helped tremendously by having a future HOF QB that is a proven Super Bowl winner. Let him take that vision to a team with a stiff QB and see how it works. I don't think it would work. Every successful coach needs great players. And having a future HOF QB who is in his prime helps big time. Bill Bellichick found that out this year.

[J. Kapp 11]

Funny you mention LaFleur.

Let me preface this by saying I still hate the Packers with every fiber of my being. Well, every fiber of my being that isn't dedicated to hating the Bears.

Anyway, I heard LaFleur interviewed on the radio today, and I have to say, I came away thoroughly impressed. He said many things, but here's the one that really caught my attention. He was asked how he gets the most out of his players. It went something like this ...

"We have a vision for every player. We talk about that vision with each player and how it contributes to our team's goals. When he knows that, he can buy in."

I have to say, I have never, in any walk of life, known of a leader who said anything that remotely resembled that statement. If I really believed that my boss had a vision for ME instead of for himself or herself, I'd do anything for that boss. Seems to be working for LaFleur. Freaking Packers are 26-6 under him.

Can anybody here ever imagine Mike Zimmer saying something like that?

God, it's hard to be a Vikings fan.

There's no doubt that this coach has had success. They should go to the Super Bowl this year. He has the best QB in the NFC and he didn't create that. Rodgers has a Super Bowl win already before he arrived. When he was with the Titians his offense was ranked 25th in the NFL. He didn't get their QB to play lights out with his vision deal. But the Packers saw something and hired him. Last year he went to the NFC champ game and his vision didn't do a thing in that game. Jimmy G attempted 8 passes. That's early 70 Dolphin football. He allowed that team to literally pound the ball down their throats.You can't let that happen. Make Jimmy G beat you. Of course it was only one game but you think they would have used that vision to put up a fight. He let Zimmer beat him this year with a rag tag secondary and no pass rush. His success can't be argued but has been helped tremendously by having a future HOF QB that is a proven Super Bowl winner. Let him take that vision to a team with a stiff QB and see how it works. I don't think it would work. Every successful coach needs great players. And having a future HOF QB who is in his prime helps big time. Bill Bellichick found that out this year.

Man, you're just hyper-critical of everything, aren't you?

As much as I hate to give any Packer credit, the man is 26-6 in two seasons. They went to the NFC Championship game with him in his first season, and they're the No. 1 seed this year. Yeah, they played poorly against us. So what? The Chiefs lost a couple games, too. If the Pukers play their best, nobody in the NFC is going to beat them, especially at Lambeau in January.

By the way, the season before LaFleur got there, the Packers were 6-9-1, and that was with Aaron Rodgers starting all 16 games. Also, your "proven Super Bowl winner" hasn't been to one since 2010. So attributing all their success the past two years to Aaron Rodgers is kind of short-sighted.

From where I sit, the "vision deal" seems to be working pretty well.

The game today is as much about motivating players and getting them to play for each other as it is Xs and Os. Mike Zimmer has all the Xs and Os you'd ever want on defense, but he's not 26-6. Hasn't been at any point in his career. Meanwhile, LaFleur has won as many division titles in two years as Mike Zimmer has won in seven.

When the Packers hired Matt LaFleur, I laughed out loud. Who's laughing now? I'd take him as our coach every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[VikingLord]

There's no doubt that this coach has had success. They should go to the Super Bowl this year. He has the best QB in the NFC and he didn't create that. Rodgers has a Super Bowl win already before he arrived. When he was with the Titians his offense was ranked 25th in the NFL. He didn't get their QB to play lights out with his vision deal. But the Packers saw something and hired him. Last year he went to the NFC champ game and his vision didn't do a thing in that game. Jimmy G attempted 8 passes. That's early 70 Dolphin football. He allowed that team to literally pound the ball down their throats.You can't let that happen. Make Jimmy G beat you. Of course it was only one game but you think they would have used that vision to put up a fight. He let Zimmer beat him this year with a rag tag secondary and no pass rush. His success can't be argued but has been helped tremendously by having a future HOF QB that is a proven Super Bowl winner. Let him take that vision to a team with a stiff QB and see how it works. I don't think it would work. Every successful coach needs great players. And having a future HOF QB who is in his prime helps big time. Bill Bellichick found that out this year.

Bud Grant said exactly that - every great coach needs great players, and there is no doubt that LeFleur has a great player in Rodgers upon which a lot of his early success has been based.

When I think about bad coaches, Brad Childress comes to mind. Les Steckel comes to mind. Yeah, Childress had more relative success than Steckel, but neither were good and both obviously lost their players at some point in their head coaching careers. Steckel lost his in a single season while Childress managed to drag things out a bit, likely because he had some really outstanding individual players who simply were good enough to overcome him.

Even Grant himself was fairly average once the Superbowl window closed on him. Was Grant suddenly a bad coach incapable of getting the most out of his players and his team after 1975? Doubtful. What changed was his core player talent was no longer better than most of the teams in the league. The overall talent level of the Vikings after 1975 relative to other teams in the NFL was simply not all that different, and with that change, Grant's teams reverted to the mean.

Coaches get a lot of credit for success, and a lot of blame for failure. They probably deserve about 30% of it. The other 70% is a combination of the talent and dedication of their players coupled with good fortune on the field in terms of injuries, the way the ball bounces, and refs.

[Mothman]

The game today is as much about motivating players and getting them to play for each other as it is Xs and Os.

True and having a vision for each player goes beyond motivation to strategy as well. It's one thing to assemble and motivate talent, it's another to do so with strategy in mind, to make the most effective use of that talent, to allow players to play to their strengths. LeFleur seems to be doing both well, certainly better than Zimmer.

Mike Zimmer has all the Xs and Os you'd ever want on defense, but he's not 26-6. Hasn't been at any point in his career. Meanwhile, LaFleur has won as many division titles in two years as Mike Zimmer has won in seven.

... and it's not simply because of Aaron Rodgers even though we all understand he's a true difference-maker.

[CharVike]

There's no doubt that this coach has had success. They should go to the Super Bowl this year. He has the best QB in the NFC and he didn't create that. Rodgers has a Super Bowl win already before he arrived. When he was with the Titians his offense was ranked 25th in the NFL. He didn't get their QB to play lights out with his vision deal. But the Packers saw something and hired him. Last year he went to the NFC champ game and his vision didn't do a thing in that game. Jimmy G attempted 8 passes. That's early 70 Dolphin football. He allowed that team to literally pound the ball down their throats.You can't let that happen. Make Jimmy G beat you. Of course it was only one game but you think they would have used that vision to put up a fight. He let Zimmer beat him this year with a rag tag secondary and no pass rush. His success can't be argued but has been helped tremendously by having a future HOF QB that is a proven Super Bowl winner. Let him take that vision to a team with a stiff QB and see how it works. I don't think it would work. Every successful coach needs great players. And having a future HOF QB who is in his prime helps big time. Bill Bellichick found that out this year.

Bud Grant said exactly that - every great coach needs great players, and there is no doubt that LeFleur has a great player in Rodgers upon which a lot of his early success has been based.

When I think about bad coaches, Brad Childress comes to mind. Les Steckel comes to mind. Yeah, Childress had more relative success than Steckel, but neither were good and both obviously lost their players at some point in their head coaching careers. Steckel lost his in a single season while Childress managed to drag things out a bit, likely because he had some really outstanding individual players who simply were good enough to overcome him.

Even Grant himself was fairly average once the Superbowl window closed on him. Was Grant suddenly a bad coach incapable of getting the most out of his players and his team after 1975? Doubtful. What changed was his core player talent was no longer better than most of the teams in the league. The overall talent level of the Vikings after 1975 relative to other teams in the NFL was simply not all that different, and with that change, Grant's teams reverted to the mean.

Coaches get a lot of credit for success, and a lot of blame for failure. They probably deserve about 30% of it. The other 70% is a combination of the talent and dedication of their players coupled with good fortune on the field in terms of injuries, the way the ball bounces, and refs.

I was looking at some info on Mahomes and an interesting thing I saw was that Brad Childress worked with Mahomes when he came to the Chiefs. I think Childress is a respected coach. I was thinking to myself who would bring Childress in to work with any QB. He missed on our team with TJ of course. At one point Andy Reid was considered a playoff choker. Through his first 5 champ games he was 1-4. The Packers have a great setup for any coach. I'm not knocking their current guy because he has done a wonderful job. It has nothing to do with vision. Every coach has a vision. Having a QB like Rodgers helps that vision come true. I'm sure our special teams coach told Bailey I vision you making every FG inside 50 yards. Bailey hit a point were he couldn't make any FG . Grant was a great coach but I got pissed at him many times. He kept old man Fran playing with Tommy on the bench. Grant kept guys around for their pension. Marshall was one of them. That's a great thing to do and shows he was a great person. Coaching is a tough job but having an all time great QB makes the job much easier. Bill Bellichick will find that out the hard way.

[VikingLord]

I was looking at some info on Mahomes and an interesting thing I saw was that Brad Childress worked with Mahomes when he came to the Chiefs. I think Childress is a respected coach.

You make a good point with Childress. Coaching requires a common set of skills and temperament, but different coaching positions require special sets of skills or temperament. Childress didn't get to where he was in the coaching ranks because he was a bad coach generally, and it isn't fair for me to imply that. He brought something to the table that was good enough to elevate him to where he was hired as a head coach, and he deserves recognition for that.

He just wasn't a good head coach.

Grant was a great coach but I got pissed at him many times. He kept old man Fran playing with Tommy on the bench. Grant kept guys around for their pension. Marshall was one of them. That's a great thing to do and shows he was a great person. Coaching is a tough job but having an all time great QB makes the job much easier. Bill Bellichick will find that out the hard way.

That's another good point. Probably some of what made Grant well-liked and respected by his players also hurt the ability of his teams to remain competitive over time as he stuck with players who were no longer at the top of their game. As you said, that makes him a great person, but also illustrates how fine the line is for any leader, much less a head coach, when it comes to balancing the many factors that go in to making a team competitive over time.

I bet Belichek knows already. I bet he's always known. That's probably why he says so little after most games. People took that as his personality, and that might be part of it, but deep down he knows most of his success on the field was driven by his players, specifically his player leaders, and more specifically one of the greatest player leaders of all time in Tom Brady.

LaFleur is benefiting from something similar in Green Bay with Rodgers.

[RandyMoss84]

I was looking at some info on Mahomes and an interesting thing I saw was that Brad Childress worked with Mahomes when he came to the Chiefs. I think Childress is a respected coach.

You make a good point with Childress. Coaching requires a common set of skills and temperament, but different coaching positions require special sets of skills or temperament. Childress didn't get to where he was in the coaching ranks because he was a bad coach generally, and it isn't fair for me to imply that. He brought something to the table that was good enough to elevate him to where he was hired as a head coach, and he deserves recognition for that.

He just wasn't a good head coach.

Grant was a great coach but I got pissed at him many times. He kept old man Fran playing with Tommy on the bench. Grant kept guys around for their pension. Marshall was one of them. That's a great thing to do and shows he was a great person. Coaching is a tough job but having an all time great QB makes the job much easier. Bill Bellichick will find that out the hard way.

That's another good point. Probably some of what made Grant well-liked and respected by his players also hurt the ability of his teams to remain competitive over time as he stuck with players who were no longer at the top of their game. As you said, that makes him a great person, but also illustrates how fine the line is for any leader, much less a head coach, when it comes to balancing the many factors that go in to making a team competitive over time.

I bet Belichek knows already. I bet he's always known. That's probably why he says so little after most games. People took that as his personality, and that might be part of it, but deep down he knows most of his success on the field was driven by his players, specifically his player leaders, and more specifically one of the greatest player leaders of all time in Tom Brady.

LaFleur is benefiting from something similar in Green Bay with Rodgers.

Childress was not that bad, he won 2 division titles and has a winning record which is way better than Tice and Frazier

[CharVike]

You make a good point with Childress. Coaching requires a common set of skills and temperament, but different coaching positions require special sets of skills or temperament. Childress didn't get to where he was in the coaching ranks because he was a bad coach generally, and it isn't fair for me to imply that. He brought something to the table that was good enough to elevate him to where he was hired as a head coach, and he deserves recognition for that.

He just wasn't a good head coach.



That's another good point. Probably some of what made Grant well-liked and respected by his players also hurt the ability of his teams to remain competitive over time as he stuck with players who were no longer at the top of their game. As you said, that makes him a great person, but also illustrates how fine the line is for any leader, much less a head coach, when it comes to balancing the many factors that go in to making a team competitive over time.

I bet Belichek knows already. I bet he's always known. That's probably why he says so little after most games. People took that as his personality, and that might be part of it, but deep down he knows most of his success on the field was driven by his players, specifically his player leaders, and more specifically one of the greatest player leaders of all time in Tom Brady.

LaFleur is benefiting from something similar in Green Bay with Rodgers.

Childress was not that bad, he won 2 division titles and has a winning record which is way better than Tice and Frazier

Childress was a dam good coach. The game he lost to the Saints in the NFC champ game was the ultimate heart breaker. But he only made it that far because of Farve. Farve was a great QB. The ultimate gunslinger. All HCs need a good QB to have success. I gave the Packer coach credit also. Give him Case Keenum and it wouldn't be the same IMO. I don't think he would make the playoffs. That Packer entire unit isn't good enough regardless of the HC. Rodgers pushes that team over the top. Does that mean Super Bowl every year? No.

[CharVike]

You make a good point with Childress. Coaching requires a common set of skills and temperament, but different coaching positions require special sets of skills or temperament. Childress didn't get to where he was in the coaching ranks because he was a bad coach generally, and it isn't fair for me to imply that. He brought something to the table that was good enough to elevate him to where he was hired as a head coach, and he deserves recognition for that.

He just wasn't a good head coach.



That's another good point. Probably some of what made Grant well-liked and respected by his players also hurt the ability of his teams to remain competitive over time as he stuck with players who were no longer at the top of their game. As you said, that makes him a great person, but also illustrates how fine the line is for any leader, much less a head coach, when it comes to balancing the many factors that go in to making a team competitive over time.

I bet Belichek knows already. I bet he's always known. That's probably why he says so little after most games. People took that as his personality, and that might be part of it, but deep down he knows most of his success on the field was driven by his players, specifically his player leaders, and more specifically one of the greatest player leaders of all time in Tom Brady.

LaFleur is benefiting from something similar in Green Bay with Rodgers.

Childress was not that bad, he won 2 division titles and has a winning record which is way better than Tice and Frazier

Belichek is a great coach. He knows he is screwed right now because he doesn't even have what I would call a good QB. He has a fashion model or legend in his own mind guy. He picked Cam up for nothing because he needed a body to take the snaps. It's a laugh. But I will blame him for not having a guy in the hole in case something happen to old guy Brady. That was not planning very well at all. He shy's away talking about picking Brady. He had zero idea that he picked the best QB to ever play the game. It was pure luck. The Pats weren't the only team that knew about him.

[halfgiz]

One question that really hasn’t been talked about much is.
Is Kubiak leaving on good terms...or did Zimmer leave a burr under his saddle.
Myself I wasn’t expecting Kubiak to retire.
A constant with Zimmer is new offensive Coordinators.

[S197]

One could read into that two ways I guess.

One, players today truly "don't want to be coached". Not sure one could substantiate this based on any overwhelming evidence.

Or two, players today "don't want to be coached by Mike Tice-like coaches".

Depending on your perspective, you may feel #2 in actuality equals #1.

But I think the "newer" successful coaches like McVay, Shanahan (and Saleh), McDermott (and Daboll), LaFleur, etc. and their staffs are actively coaching players to get better, and the vast, vast majority of players on their respective rosters seem to be 100% on board with being coached. Heck even Diggsy chipped in to get his Bills WR coach a new truck.

I'm not convinced the defensive game has passed Zimmer by, in fact with the right team structure and roster I think he might be just as successful as Leslie Frazier is now as the DC (and asst HC) of the Bills.

Funny you mention LaFleur.

Let me preface this by saying I still hate the Packers with every fiber of my being. Well, every fiber of my being that isn't dedicated to hating the Bears.

Anyway, I heard LaFleur interviewed on the radio today, and I have to say, I came away thoroughly impressed. He said many things, but here's the one that really caught my attention. He was asked how he gets the most out of his players. It went something like this ...

"We have a vision for every player. We talk about that vision with each player and how it contributes to our team's goals. When he knows that, he can buy in."

I have to say, I have never, in any walk of life, known of a leader who said anything that remotely resembled that statement. If I really believed that my boss had a vision for ME instead of for himself or herself, I'd do anything for that boss. Seems to be working for LaFleur. Freaking Packers are 26-6 under him.

Can anybody here ever imagine Mike Zimmer saying something like that?

God, it's hard to be a Vikings fan.

As much as I hate the Packers as well, they're doing everything I wish the Vikings would realize they need to do. They basically took a top down approach and replaced all their leadership (Thompson, McCarthy, etc). Beefed up their defense (especially the secondary which was horrid at one point) in the draft. And this past year started looking for Rodger's heir.

Meanwhile the Vikings remain rigid, plagued by the same problems year after year and are content with Green Bay's castoffs. It's incredibly frustrating.

[RandyMoss84]

There's no doubt that this coach has had success. They should go to the Super Bowl this year. He has the best QB in the NFC and he didn't create that. Rodgers has a Super Bowl win already before he arrived. When he was with the Titians his offense was ranked 25th in the NFL. He didn't get their QB to play lights out with his vision deal. But the Packers saw something and hired him. Last year he went to the NFC champ game and his vision didn't do a thing in that game. Jimmy G attempted 8 passes. That's early 70 Dolphin football. He allowed that team to literally pound the ball down their throats.You can't let that happen. Make Jimmy G beat you. Of course it was only one game but you think they would have used that vision to put up a fight. He let Zimmer beat him this year with a rag tag secondary and no pass rush. His success can't be argued but has been helped tremendously by having a future HOF QB that is a proven Super Bowl winner. Let him take that vision to a team with a stiff QB and see how it works. I don't think it would work. Every successful coach needs great players. And having a future HOF QB who is in his prime helps big time. Bill Bellichick found that out this year.

Man, you're just hyper-critical of everything, aren't you?

As much as I hate to give any Packer credit, the man is 26-6 in two seasons. They went to the NFC Championship game with him in his first season, and they're the No. 1 seed this year. Yeah, they played poorly against us. So what? The Chiefs lost a couple games, too. If the Pukers play their best, nobody in the NFC is going to beat them, especially at Lambeau in January.

By the way, the season before LaFleur got there, the Packers were 6-9-1, and that was with Aaron Rodgers starting all 16 games. Also, your "proven Super Bowl winner" hasn't been to one since 2010. So attributing all their success the past two years to Aaron Rodgers is kind of short-sighted.

From where I sit, the "vision deal" seems to be working pretty well.

The game today is as much about motivating players and getting them to play for each other as it is Xs and Os. Mike Zimmer has all the Xs and Os you'd ever want on defense, but he's not 26-6. Hasn't been at any point in his career. Meanwhile, LaFleur has won as many division titles in two years as Mike Zimmer has won in seven.

When the Packers hired Matt LaFleur, I laughed out loud. Who's laughing now? I'd take him as our coach every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

When the Packers hired LaFleur, I said "Who?" and thought he is going to a terrible head coach but I was wrong, why can't the Wilfs just fire Zimmer and give young coaches a chance? Look at LaFleur and McVay, they are doing well for their teams