Bob McGinn suggests Matt LaFleur “simply had enough of [Aaron] Rodgers’ act”

First my disclaimer. Whatever it takes for the packers to implode is perfectly fine with me. 
Now, I have to wonder if the coach is a bit on an ego trip if you want to take the ball out of the hands of your best player to be ground and pound. Oh well, Vanguard where are you to put a period on this.........

Ego trip, power stugle, or just sheer stupidity...God bless Matt the Flower...

On the flip side, Rodgers is a shell of himself...

Both the Vikings and packers have laid a foundation for a return to the late 60's and 70's...

I kinda wish Rogers would  screw GB's entire plan and demand  to be traded right now.

 
popcorn ready.

  

It's funny how before last season started, the talking heads were talking about Lafleur and Rodgers getting along quite well and it would be a nice fit. What a difference a year makes. 

Mike Freeman's 10-Point Stance: Packers Send Message to Rodgers with Love PickMike Freeman

To understand what the Packers may have been trying to say to quarterback Aaron Rodgers with their selection of Utah State QB Jordan Love in the first round of last week's draft, you have to go back in time for a moment, to the year 1992.
It was then that Broncos coach Dan Reeves, who was also essentially the general manager, drafted quarterback Tommy Maddox in the first round. Denver, at the time, however, also had a guy named John Elway on the roster, and he was only heading into his age-32 campaign.
The relationship between Reeves and Elway had long been contentious, and Elway didn't hide that fact when Reeves was fired following the 1992 season.
"The last three years have been hell," Elway said then in an interview with Sports Illustrated. "I know that I would not have been back here if Dan Reeves had been here. It wasn't worth it to me. I didn't enjoy it. It wasn't any fun, and I got tired of working with him." 
To Elway's way of thinking, Reeves' drafting of Maddox was a gigantic middle finger to his starting quarterback. Particularly since the Broncos desperately needed a receiver at the time.
"I was standing at the baggage claim at , and we needed a wideout," Elway said last year, remembering that draft. "I said, 'Oh, Pickens must have been gone.' He didn't go until the second round."
Put simply, Reeves' decision to draft Maddox was a message to Elway: You're not in control. I am.
An AFC coach this week told B/R that the Broncos situation wasn't so dissimilar to the Packers' choice to draft Love and then not pick a single wide receiver in the entire draft. 
"The Packers couldn't have sent a clearer message to Aaron," the coach said.
"We run this, not you."
Now, this is one coach's opinion, and it's entirely possible the Packers just did what they believed was right for the organization. Nothing more, nothing less.
However, the coach is not alone in his sentiment, as has been expressed to me privately from multiple team executives and coaches across the league.
The idea that a franchise would waste a first-round pick just to spite one of its players does seem absurd. But it's happened before.
Now, years later, it may have just happened again.
2. Shoot your shot
Before the draft, Rodgers openly expressed his desire for the Packers to select a skill-position player in the first round this year, and it's not hard to understand why. According to SEC Network analyst Cole Cubelic, Rodgers has thrown just one touchdown pass to a first-round pick over his entire career.
My belief (and the belief of others in football) is that Rodgers has been underserved by the Packers front office. Others believe that Green Bay has given Rodgers plenty of good receivers, like Jordy Nelson, from later rounds.
But those hits are bigger gambles.
The first round of the draft is the shoot-your-shot round, where teams select someone they think won't just be a starter but also a star.
If you do what the Packers did—not use a first-round selection for a skill-position player since 2005 until this year—you are not prioritizing that position. 
That's why what the Packers did with Love was so remarkable. They prioritized a quarterback when they already have one of the best to ever do it, and he's not close to being done.
3. Grudge match
One last thing on Rodgers...if you don't believe he's ultra-mad at this selection, well, you're wrong.
That Rodgers is a world-class grudge-holder should come as no surprise.
But he's also a professional, so it's likely he won't say a word publicly now. He'll be the good soldier, and if the Packers win, everything will be OK.
However, if the inevitable happens, and a key offensive player gets hurt, Rodgers won't stay quiet.
That's where things could get really interesting.
4. Meanwhile, in the NFC North
On the bright side of all the drama surrounding the Packers is the fact that their division didn't get markedly better this offseason. The Lions still have a lot of building to do, the Bears still have massive questions at quarterback, and while the Vikings are solid, the loss of receiver Stefon Diggs will seriously sting.
In other words, this is still the Packers' division to win.

@"Vikergirl" said: It's funny how before last season started, the talking heads were talking about Lafleur and Rodgers getting along quite well and it would be a nice fit. What a difference a year makes. 

Did anyone really buy into that? Rodgers couldn't respect a HC with a Super Bowl ring. 

@"BarrNone55" said:

@"Vikergirl" said: It's funny how before last season started, the talking heads were talking about Lafleur and Rodgers getting along quite well and it would be a nice fit. What a difference a year makes. 

Did anyone really buy into that? Rodgers couldn't respect a HC with a Super Bowl ring. 

Still the Packers division to win?  Geez... that would be appropriate for the Saints or 49ers to say.  They were genuinely good teams.  The Packers skated by on luck and friendly refs.  That- and Stefanski's inability to adjust when other teams loaded up vs. the run- is what enabled the Packers to take the division.

That Rodgers is a world-class grudge-holder should come as no surprise.

But he's also a professional, so it's likely he won't say a word publicly now. He'll be the good soldier, and if the Packers win, everything will be OK.

However, if the inevitable happens, and a key offensive player gets hurt, Rodgers won't stay quiet.

First sentence, true.  Second sentence, not so much.  He may not say it publicly, but there will be hints, drama, passive aggressive moves.  He is not a good quiet soldier even when the team wins.  third sentence, true.  And I can't wait.

@"pumpf" said: Still the Packers division to win?  Geez... that would be appropriate for the Saints or 49ers to say.  They were genuinely good teams.  The Packers skated by on luck and friendly refs.  That- and Stefanski's inability to adjust when other teams loaded up vs. the run- is what enabled the Packers to take the division.

division versus conference.  He said division.  I still disagree but as many talking heads worship Rodgers as the greatest ever, they think he can carry them.

Boy, I bet Jon Gruden would like a chance to coach Rodgers...

Speak it into existence.

@"pumpf" said: Still the Packers division to win?  Geez... that would be appropriate for the Saints or 49ers to say.  They were genuinely good teams.  The Packers skated by on luck and friendly refs.  That- and Stefanski's inability to adjust when other teams loaded up vs. the run- is what enabled the Packers to take the division.

Hey, I won't argue that the media loves the Packers, but are you guys really saying it's outlandish that the Packers should be favored for the division?? They won this division by 3 games, which is like a 20-game lead in baseball. They were 6-0 in the NFC North. They manhandled us, in our own stadium, when we had a chance to move into a tie with them. Credit where it's due.

It's not hard to make the argument that Minnesota didn't improve either Line and actually got worse.

Why should anyone in the Media assume Samia will be as good as Kline? Or that Elf won't start at LG and be his usual train wreck? Or that Odenigbo, who appeared to be more effective on the interior, won't be as good as Everson? Or that Shamar won't start and continue to suck?

And that's all assuming the Baby CBs step up and equal the performance of last year's group. And that Jefferson and Irv go a long way to offset the loss of Diggs' production. 

One layer deeper is expecting two Rookie DEs to contribute earlier than either Griff or Hunter did as Rookies. Or a Rookie Safety to step in if there's an injury. What happens if Thielen pulls a hammy?

Objectively speaking, how many Teams lose 7 Starters and several depth guys that consistently contributed and got better the next season? You also have to factor in the potentially vastly truncated offseason to acclimate all the Rookies that will be called upon to contribute. Far more Rookies than Rick or Mike has ever had to rely on before. And there's the lasting image of Green Bay shredding Minnesota up the gut with its pass rush and wearing down the Defense on the ground on MNF.

It's no surprise at all that the Media is going to view the Vikings as underdogs to the Packers this year. 

@"greediron" said:

@"pumpf" said: Still the Packers division to win?  Geez... that would be appropriate for the Saints or 49ers to say.  They were genuinely good teams.  The Packers skated by on luck and friendly refs.  That- and Stefanski's inability to adjust when other teams loaded up vs. the run- is what enabled the Packers to take the division.

division versus conference.  He said division.  I still disagree but as many talking heads worship Rodgers as the greatest ever, they think he can carry them.

@"FSUVike" said: It's not hard to make the argument that Minnesota didn't improve either Line and actually got worse.

Why should anyone in the Media assume Samia will be as good as Kline? Or that Elf won't start at LG and be his usual train wreck? Or that Odenigbo, who appeared to be more effective on the interior, won't be as good as Everson? Or that Shamar won't start and continue to suck?

And that's all assuming the Baby CBs step up and equal the performance of last year's group. And that Jefferson and Irv go a long way to offset the loss of Diggs' production. 

One layer deeper is expecting two Rookie DEs to contribute earlier than either Griff or Hunter did as Rookies. Or a Rookie Safety to step in if there's an injury. What happens if Thielen pulls a hammy?

Objectively speaking, how many Teams lose 7 Starters and several depth guys that consistently contributed and got better the next season? You also have to factor in the potentially vastly truncated offseason to acclimate all the Rookies that will be called upon to contribute. Far more Rookies than Rick or Mike has ever had to rely on before. And there's the lasting image of Green Bay shredding Minnesota up the gut with its pass rush and wearing down the Defense on the ground on MNF.

It's no surprise at all that the Media is going to view the Vikings as underdogs to the Packers this year. 

Yep. The hate for the Packers is so strong on this site it blinds many fans. They should be favored.

Also: maybe the Packers just REALLY like Love's potential. He can sit for 2-3 years easily and maybe that's what's best. The media acts like they drafted him to start this September. Love has a lot to learn but he's got some hardcore physical intangibles that are rare and it today's modern NFL, very much where the position is going. IMO, this is overreaction by the media, but what else is new? 

The Packers are still on top of the pile until someone comes around and knocks them off...

The top of the pile all right...  ;) B)  & it’s a real steamer eh!

@"StickyBun" said:

@"FSUVike" said: It's not hard to make the argument that Minnesota didn't improve either Line and actually got worse.

Why should anyone in the Media assume Samia will be as good as Kline? Or that Elf won't start at LG and be his usual train wreck? Or that Odenigbo, who appeared to be more effective on the interior, won't be as good as Everson? Or that Shamar won't start and continue to suck?

And that's all assuming the Baby CBs step up and equal the performance of last year's group. And that Jefferson and Irv go a long way to offset the loss of Diggs' production. 

One layer deeper is expecting two Rookie DEs to contribute earlier than either Griff or Hunter did as Rookies. Or a Rookie Safety to step in if there's an injury. What happens if Thielen pulls a hammy?

Objectively speaking, how many Teams lose 7 Starters and several depth guys that consistently contributed and got better the next season? You also have to factor in the potentially vastly truncated offseason to acclimate all the Rookies that will be called upon to contribute. Far more Rookies than Rick or Mike has ever had to rely on before. And there's the lasting image of Green Bay shredding Minnesota up the gut with its pass rush and wearing down the Defense on the ground on MNF.

It's no surprise at all that the Media is going to view the Vikings as underdogs to the Packers this year. 

Yep. The hate for the Packers is so strong on this site it blinds many fans. They should be favored.

Also: maybe the Packers just REALLY like Love's potential. He can sit for 2-3 years easily and maybe that's what's best. The media acts like they drafted him to start this September. Love has a lot to learn but he's got some hardcore physical intangibles that are rare and it today's modern NFL, very much where the position is going. IMO, this is overreaction by the media, but what else is new? 

@"Jor-El" said:

@"pumpf" said: Still the Packers division to win?  Geez... that would be appropriate for the Saints or 49ers to say.  They were genuinely good teams.  The Packers skated by on luck and friendly refs.  That- and Stefanski's inability to adjust when other teams loaded up vs. the run- is what enabled the Packers to take the division.

Hey, I won't argue that the media loves the Packers, but are you guys really saying it's outlandish that the Packers should be favored for the division?? They won this division by 3 games, which is like a 20-game lead in baseball. They were 6-0 in the NFC North. They manhandled us, in our own stadium, when we had a chance to move into a tie with them. Credit where it's due.

@"kmillard" said: First my disclaimer. Whatever it takes for the packers to implode is perfectly fine with me.  Now, I have to wonder if the coach is a bit on an ego trip if you want to take the ball out of the hands of your best player to be ground and pound. Oh well, Vanguard where are you to put a period on this.........

I D G A S