Por Renan Filho · 2026-09-25The Green Bay Packers did not just lose to the Atlanta Falcons on Sunday – they were dismantled. The final score, 38-10, does not fully capture the one-sided nature of the game. The Falcons, a team still in rebuild mode under head coach Raheem Morris, outgained the Packers 478 total yards to 269, controlled the time of possession by nearly 15 minutes, and forced three turnovers. For a franchise that prides itself on a championship pedigree, this performance was an indictment of the entire coaching staff – and especially head coach Matt LaFleur.
LaFleur arrived in Green Bay in 2019 with a reputation as an offensive innovator. He posted a 13-3 record in his first season and reached the NFC Championship Game in two of his first three years. But that success was built largely on the arm of Aaron Rodgers, a future Hall of Famer who masked many of the roster’s deficiencies. Since Rodgers' departure – and even before it – the Packers have steadily declined. They finished 8-9 in 2023, missed the playoffs in 2024, and now sit at 3-6 in 2025 after this debacle. The numbers do not lie: under LaFleur, Green Bay has gone from Super Bowl contender to also-ran in just three seasons.
Why does this matter for the broader conversation? Because the Packers are a publicly owned, non-profit entity that often operates with less accountability than private franchises. The front office, led by general manager Brian Gutekunst, has made questionable draft decisions and failed to surround Jordan Love with a competent supporting cast. But coaching is where the buck stops. LaFleur’s offensive schemes have become predictable; the team ranks 24th in yards per play and 27th in points per game. The defense, coordinated by Joe Barry, has been a sieve – allowing over 27 points per game. Yet LaFleur has kept Barry employed, a loyalty that now looks like stubbornness.
From a free-market perspective, the Packers' situation is a case study in what happens when meritocracy is replaced by inertia. The team’s ownership structure – with no single owner to hold the GM and coach accountable – often leads to delayed tough decisions. In a competitive league, the teams that succeed are those that quickly cut losses and replace underperformers. The Packers, clinging to past success, have allowed mediocrity to fester. The result is a fan base that is growing restless, as evidenced by the chants of “Fire LaFleur” that echoed through Lambeau Field on Sunday.
Critics will argue that LaFleur has a winning record – 52-31 overall – and that the roster is in transition after years of salary cap mismanagement. There is some truth to that. Gutekunst’s heavy spending on declining veterans like David Bakhtiari and Kenny Clark has left the team with little flexibility. The offensive line is a patchwork, and the receiving corps lacks a true number one target. LaFleur, the argument goes, is making the best of a bad hand. But that argument falters when you look at the fundamentals. Good coaches elevate their rosters; LaFleur’s teams have consistently underperformed in situational football – third downs, red zone, and two-minute drills. In Sunday’s loss, the Packers went 2-for-11 on third down and 0-for-3 in the red zone. That is not a roster problem; that is a coaching problem.
The counterpoint also includes the fact that Jordan Love has battled injuries all season, and the team lost key defensive players early in the year. But excuses are not a substitute for results. The Falcons, who started a rookie quarterback in Michael Penix Jr., looked disciplined and well-prepared. They executed a game plan that attacked Green Bay’s defensive weaknesses relentlessly. Meanwhile, the Packers looked disorganized, committing eight penalties for 78 yards and missing multiple tackles. Preparation – or lack thereof – falls squarely on the coaching staff.
FORTIS analysis: The Packers are at a crossroads. The front office must decide whether to give LaFleur another year to develop Love, or to cut bait and start the search for a new voice. The data suggests the arrow is trending down. Since Week 12 of last season, Green Bay is 2-10 in games decided by more than one score. That is not the mark of a competitive team. In a meritocratic league where accountability drives performance, LaFleur’s seat should be scorching hot. The Packers’ ownership and management must decide if they value loyalty over results. If they choose the former, Green Bay risks becoming the new Chicago Bears – a once-proud franchise mired in mediocrity for the better part of a decade.
The bottom line: Matt LaFleur is a good coordinator who has struggled as a head coach when his quarterback is not an elite talent. The Packers need a leader who can build a system around the players they have, not one who demands players fit his system. The loss to the Falcons was not an anomaly; it was the culmination of two seasons of decline. The time for accountability is now.