Inbox: There's no magic bullet to account for all that

Dan from Augusta, KS

Is the lack of official news concerning a new DC a matter of contract negotiations or did some media jump the gun with a report that one has been selected? I've been looking forward to hearing what all is said at his introduction and the articles I'm sure packers.com will be writing about all the changes in coaching staff.

To my knowledge, nothing that's been reported by reputable media outlets regarding the coaching staff is incorrect. It's just a matter of waiting for the organization to make things official, which is when announcements and coverage will appear on our website.

Jim from Hudsonville, MI

I know Matt has the final say on the coaching staff, but does the not-yet-but-soon-to-be-named DC play a bigger role on that side of the ball? Similarly, would the OC have more influence over those coaches? Or is it all Matt?

LaFleur has mentioned before that he's sought input from his defensive coordinators on filling out the staff, but the final say belongs to the head coach.

Jake from Madison, WI

I understand the frustration around Holmgren's (too) long wait to get into the Hall of Fame. But using that frustration to imply Belichick should be an automatic first-ballot guy? Outrageous. There's nothing "silly" about penalizing a coach with a known track record of cheating. He can wait a year and be happy those scandals didn't eliminate his eligibility. To suggest otherwise degrades the Hall of Fame even more than Holmgren's unfortunate situation. Please, what am I missing here?

I understand that argument, and while I endorse much of what Wes said yesterday, here's the part I didn't get into earlier that really frosts me. If Belichick needs to pay some penance for Spygate and wait a bit, fine, but with the subcommittee on coaches allowed to push forth only one nominee each year, that decision should be made at the nominating stage, not the voting stage. That way another coach can have his case heard this year and not have to wait as well. The process is so (messed) up that those voters who wish to punish Belichick are in turn punishing all the other coaches who deserve their shot. That's not right, and it's the gigantic flaw in the process that has now been exposed. As I said the other day, hopefully it leads to a meaningful revamp.

Mark from Bettendorf, IA

Here's my issue with the HOF. ALL HOF's across the sports, actually. Either you're a HOFer or you're not. Why should it depend on who's eligible at the time for your competition? The competition should be who's already in the HOF. Instead of limiting how many they can vote for, they should just vote on each individual separately. Maybe this year 10 get the necessary %, but next year one, or, the horror, nobody gets voted in. IT'S OK!

There's a lot of wisdom in that, which is essentially baseball's procedure. Football's always done it differently, and while Canton's modern-era process has worked OK for the most part, it's gotten complicated with these other categories, particularly "senior" nominees whose cases are getting heard again after they weren't inducted previously. There's merit to revisiting cases, as long-ago careers stack up differently as more time goes by. But I suspect Canton changed the senior/coach/contributor voting process, and lumped them into this competition amongst one another, because for many years those nominees were all getting rubber stamped by the full committee. So in going from rubber stamps to a convoluted cut-throat battle, the process broke down. What's the fix? It probably starts with keeping all these extra categories separate again, but it'll take more than that.

Jay from Big Flats, WI

Sorry, not a question – just my two cents worth. Bill Belichick's snub wasn't due to some massive conspiracy or lesson being taught, just a result of the flawed induction process. If I'm voting for candidates into the Hall of Fame, and I have only a certain number of votes, I'm voting for candidates worthy of induction. Belichick probably is worthy, but if I have a chance to vote for someone deserving who has been waiting, I'll pass on the shoo-in candidate who gives me pause.

And that very well may be all that happened here, because it took potentially just 11 of the 50 voters not including Belichick among their three senior/coach/contributor votes for him to get left out. Robert Kraft was the contributor nominee, so if Belichick didn't get in, I can't imagine Kraft did. The seniors were an impressive trio of Ken Anderson, Roger Craig and L.C. Greenwood, and some voters may have simply cast their three votes for them, believing they all should've been in long ago. But that doesn't change the fact a massive flaw was exposed.

Troy from Westminster, CO

Wes brought up Mike Shanahan yesterday not being in the HOF yet. IMO, there isn't a more overrated HC in recent memory than Shanahan. He won two Super Bowls...congrats. However, in his remaining 18 years as a HC, his teams won a grand total of just ONE playoff game. He made the playoffs only eight of his 20 years, which is fewer than Belichick has Super Bowl appearances, and won at least one playoff game in just three of those 20 years. Great offensive mind, sure, but great HC? Not so much.

I think there's more to Shanahan's case when you look at all the current successful NFL head coaches who got their start under him. But he's no slam dunk to get in, for the reasons you outlined. Still, it's a case that should be on the table for discussion sooner than later, along with the other two-time Super Bowl champs Seifert and Coughlin. Then you've got 200-game winners Reeves and Schottenheimer lingering as well, with Knox (193 wins) right behind them. Not saying they're all HOFers, but their cases are worth hearing, and it's going to take a while. That's why it was so devastating for Holmgren to get caught in this voting change last year and not get in when he was finally up. As Wes noted, he may not get another chance unless the process for coaches gets significantly altered.

Joe from Fargo, ND

On Wednesday, Anthony from Middleton said this about Vic, "I can't imagine he'd agree with Bill Belichick not being a first-ballot Hall of Famer." I beg to differ. What I remember was whenever there was a question about Belichick being the greatest coach ever, he always brought up his record before Tom Brady. And even said that Belichick was on the hot seat before Bledsoe got hurt. He gave more credit to Brady for the Pats' success than Belichick. You know Vic, what are your thoughts Mike?

Every time Vic would pipe up about Brady/Belichick, I'd gently remind him Chuck Noll only won two playoff games in nine years after Bradshaw was done, and his entire coaching career took place before the advent of free agency. Brady/Belichick also went to three more Super Bowls and won two after Vic's time in Green Bay.

Doug from Neenah, WI

Good morning, Mike. After the regular season ended, I asked you about the upcoming spin cycle of coaching changes. Your response was something like, "We ain't seen nothin' yet." Did you foresee 10 head coaching vacancies? What about the domino effect plowing through the coordinator and position coach jobs? It seems deeper and broader than ever before and it's not over yet.

Agreed, this has been a huge coaching cycle. I never envisioned double-digit teams looking for new head coaches in one offseason. I believe more than half the teams will have a new offensive coordinator in 2026 as well. Wild.

Chris from Delafield, WI

Dodging the clickbait articles at nfl.com, I found a couple of interesting articles in which the writer listed his unsung heroes for each team. Of particular interest was that the player selected for the Pack was Evan Williams, a selection I think most GB fans can appreciate. A bonus was seeing three former Packers on the list: Eric Stokes (Raiders), Rasul Douglas (Dolphins), and Eric Wilson (Vikings).

Not surprising those are all really good locker room guys, too.

Jason from Austin, TX

Speaking of Vic-isms, one of my favorites was, "What are you saving him for? The prom?" I bring this up because I can just hear him say this when I start to think that if the NFL goes to an 18-game season, will teams rest players to try to keep them healthy as the season progresses? I don't think it'll be obvious (like in the NBA), but any slight injury would be enough of an excuse to rest that player a week. Is this a realistic possibility?

I don't think the shift from 17 to 18 games would change that thought process much, but once there are 20 games and no preseason, then yeah.

Al from Green Bay, WI

Both championship games last weekend were entertaining, and both hinged on precious few plays. One of the key plays was a QB sack of Matthew Stafford on a pivotal third down. It was apparent to those of us watching on TV that Stafford was taken down by the facemask (and confirmed by slow-motion replay), yet there was no flag. Is that a situation where the "eye in the sky" can radio down to the refs on the field and instruct them to drop the flag? If not, why not?

Replay assist was available this past season to undo an erroneous facemask call, but was not available to flag a facemask that was not called on the field. Which just tells you how myopic the NFL remains when it comes to this stuff as it continues to slow-play the eventual conclusion that all safety rules should be reviewable. But I'll be long retired before that moment the blue can finally leave my face.

Dan from Rothschild, WI

Not directly Packer-related, but hope it will be next year. I read online about some in the NFL wanting to move conference championship games to neutral sites to avoid games like the Patriots-Broncos game. It is my understanding this has been mentioned a few times the last few years. Please tell me this would never come to pass. The Super Bowl is one thing. Championship games are another. Top remaining seed should always host. If teams can't handle the weather, put skirts on and stay home.

I'm not sure what anyone's clothing has to do with it, but I agree moving the conference title games to neutral sites would be a colossal mistake. I'm pretty much against anything that would constitute devaluing the regular season.

Bob from St. Germain, WI

I will try one last time to ask this question. Why doesn't it seem possible to admit after a loss that perhaps we got beat by a better team "that day"? Are you and Mike saying we always have the best team? I'm not trying to be snarky or rude. Please help me understand as I have seen comments made about critical injuries, penalties, execution issues, etc., that have contributed to losses. So why never a discussion about how maybe on this particular day we just got beat by a better team? Thanks.

The better team "that day" does win, most of the time, but that's the thing about this league – it's just "that day" because the margins are forever small, with games hinging on a play here or there. So I don't get into declaring which team, big picture, is supposedly "better" because the next week can produce an entirely different result. For the most part, the records after 17 games provide some separation and tell us who some of the "better" teams are, but little is ever definitive in this league. You either win or you lose, and come January, you're either still playing or you're not. Those are the definites.

Mike from Kalamazoo, MI

I've been watching highlight videos of Reggie White. We all know he could certainly rush and sack but what was the scouting report on him against the run?

I think it was just two words. Good luck.

Matt from US

In regards to Andrew from Chicago, I don't buy into the excuse our special teams results are because of youth. Our experienced field goal kickers and our experienced hands specialist may have cost us two games against Chicago.

Exactly. In my view, the Packers' special teams failures this past season were (1) missed kicks, (2) the botched onside kick, (3) a couple of blocked FGs/PATs, (4) a lackluster return game, and (5) punt coverage in the playoff loss to the Bears. The first two were on those individuals (Brandon McManus and Romeo Doubs) and nobody else. The third was a coaching/youth issue. The fourth was a personnel hole, in part due to injuries. And the fifth was primarily being without flyers Bo Melton and Zayne Anderson in the playoffs. There's no magic bullet to account for all that. There's just not.

Josh from Arvada, CO

I know this is a Packers forum, but I couldn't believe my eyes when reading about the zero interest Wes currently has in MLB. Sure, the economics of the game are as flawed as they've ever been…and yes, a potential doomsday situation looms at the end of the upcoming season. But good god, man, this could very well be the golden age of Brewers baseball. Talented roster, great dudes, and backed by the mantra of friendship and unity. If David ever does take down Goliath…I am here for it. CREW!

Me, too. The current sports landscape will never give us another Miracle on Ice again, when a ragtag bunch of American college kids took down a roster of polished Soviet pros on the world's biggest stage. But the next-best possibility might be a baseball team like the Brewers beating the Dodgers in the NLCS and Yankees in the World Series. Likely? No. But impossible? Also no.

Marshall from Mesa, AZ

"But the Packers will get it when they earn it." True, but as you and many others have pointed out, injuries and flat-out luck are a big part of it as well. If you can tell me how the Packers can earn that, I'm all ears.

Happy Friday.

HAVE A QUESTION?