Let's be real, going 17-0 is unrealistic. Even the best teams will have an off day, which is why losing isn't the end of the world in the NFL. That said, some losses are indicative of bigger issues. That was clearly the case in Week 3 when the Atlanta Falcons steamrolled the Green Bay Packers at Lambeau Field.
The Packers sit at 1-2 now, and while there's a chance they can get back on track, the disheartening 35-14 loss to Atlanta exposed the team's most glaring holes. Whether it was the inadequate protection Jordan Love got or the team's inability to stop (or at least slow down) Bijan Robinson, many of the problems stemmed from general manager Brian Gutekunst's inability to replenish the roster.
But head coach Matt LaFleur isn't without fault and also deserves a lion's share of the blame for Green Bay's underwhelming start.
Why Matt LaFleur has played a role in the Packers' underwhelming start to 2026
There's no way to sugarcoat it: LaFleur has been dealt a bad hand. He can only do with the talent he's been given.
The offensive line is underwhelming. Years of bad drafting and decisions have left what once was a formidable unit devoid of much talent. It hasn't helped that a rash of injuries has struck the offensive trenches, but the team's brass deserves blame for not adding adequate depth.
The same is true on defense. Lukas Van Ness is finally living up to his draft billing. But without Micah Parsons or anyone else, Green Bay can't stop opponents from running the football.
Last but not least, without Josh Jacobs, the Green Bay backfield leaves much to be desired. Chris Brooks and MarShawn Lloyd have shown that they're not much more than backups at this stage of their respective careers. Brian Gutekunst tried to patch up the void with the Kaleb Johnson trade, but it hasn't panned out so far.
Now that we've established where Gutenkunst's blame falls (and where it stops), it's time to look at LaFleur's role in the team's underwhelming record. The Packers have shown that they cannot finish games in either the regular season or the playoffs. Despite the team's offseason talk about finishing strong, the issue once again arose in Week 1 against the Minnesota Vikings.
Another issue LaFleur has a big part in? Discipline. The Packers lead the league in penalties. Before the Thursday Night debacle, they led the league with a concerning 28 penalties (including declined). Against the Falcons, Green Bay was flagged an additional six times for 45 yards.
Gutekunst doesn't have control over practice, so the execution, or lack thereof, falls on LaFleur and his staff. Now, it's still early in the season, and there's a chance he'll steer the ship in the right direction, but if he doesn't, the Packers need to strongly consider cutting ties with him in 2027.
Would firing Matt LaFleur fix the Packers' issues?
Probably not; while LaFleur has struggled to get the team going since signing his extension in 2022, it's hard to imagine any other coach would have success in the same conditions the Packers find themselves in right now.
For the sake of the argument, let's say LaFleur was kicked to the curb midseason. It would be unrealistic to expect an interim to turn things around with the same roster. But how about 2027? Would it make a difference if Green Bay waited until the season ended to dismiss LaFleur?
There are some intriguing head-coaching candidates in the upcoming 2027 coaching cycle, but none of them truly stand out as of this writing, and whoever the Packers bring in will deal with the same issues LaFleur is facing.
Keep in mind that Green Bay doesn't have a first-round selection next year due to the Micah Parsons trade, and the team isn't particularly swimming in cap space (they're currently $4 million over the cap for 2027), so a big roster turnaround may be unlikely.
Does that mean the Packers should keep LaFleur for another year even if they fail to make the playoffs in 2026? That may not be a feasible solution either, because they might just be postponing the inevitable.
The next few months will ultimately lay out the Packers' offseason strategy, but the truth is that, right now, there doesn't seem to be an enticing path ahead. What's certain is that turning things around won't be easy.
Add us as a preferred source on Google