Scott Klausing

Independent Contractor - Engineer

[Ken - Packers Cap @KenIngalls]

Here is my stance on Matt LaFleur:

He was hired in 2019 on a 4 year contract.

In his first 3 seasons his teams won 13 games every year, reaching the NFC Conference Championship twice and earning three 1st round playoff byes.

He was rewarded with a 4 year contract extension in 2022.

On his second contract his teams won 54% of regular season games. Missed the playoffs one year, was the 7th playoff seed three straight seasons with one total playoff victory.

This is a major decline.

2025 specifically showcased several epic collapses which unfortunately became expected as falling apart late became baked into the team identity.

I fully thought it was time to move on from Matt LaFleur after the 2025 season. The team performance since the first extension was not good enough.

I did not need to answer “who would you hire instead?” to know I didn’t think he was the right guy to lead this team. It’s ok to dump somebody you like if you fell they are not “the one” for you long term without knowing who you will date next on your search for “the one”.

The Packers instead pointed at his entire Packers resume, highlighting his early success, in their decision to extend him a second time.

To me this the main issue. His early success earned him his first extension - rightfully so.

But the measuring stick, in my mind, should be the performance during the extension years. His initial years already “did their job” and should be background consideration instead of once again being the focal argument for extension.

Now, when Matt LaFleur was hired only 6 teams per conference made the playoffs each season. On this same standard the Packers would have missed the playoffs in each of his seasons on his second contract.

Some don’t like this 6 vs 7 teams comparison. Ok, fine.

For me, if you want to look backwards to his early resume success as a measuring stick, then we should apply the same measuring stick to his teams’ recent performance - which would have been 4 straight non-playoff worthy performances every year of the extension period, apples to apples.

If you don’t want this comparison, then let’s focus entirely on the second contract performance - which again led to 1 total post season win in 4 years - and set aside the early resume.

So to me, using either thought process, it just wasn’t good enough and I didn’t see any reason to expect improvement given the cultural collapses on the field which seem baked deep into the Packers DNA.

The Packers, however, decided to reward Matt LaFleur to a second contract extension with an uncertain number of more years, making an uncertain, yet significantly higher, amount more fully guaranteed money.

So far, nothing I have seen this 2026 has suggested the Packers made the correct decision to re-invest into Matt LaFleur.

[Mike Brown @DieselHokie08]

This looks reminiscent of McCarthys last year in Green Bay. Sometimes it just runs its course and a shake up is necessary.

I think the Packers have reached that point with LaFleur (honesty it should have been done after last year)

[NFL Memes @NFLMemes]

The Green Bay Packers in 2026

[Scott Klausing @klausisa]

Might as well feed Kraft and call it a night

[NFL Talk @NFL_Talk_Sports]

Should the Packers fire HC Matt LaFleur?

🔁 YES
❤️ NO

[Scott Klausing @klausisa]

Embarrass them! #FireLafluer

[NFL Talk @NFL_Talk_Sports]

The Green Bay Packers might be one of the worst teams in the NFL.

[Scott Klausing @klausisa]

I think it’s time for a change up top #FireLafluer

[Scott Klausing @klausisa]

@KurtBenkert @ShopTheDimeLab Go Pack Go!

[Kurt Benkert @KurtBenkert]

🚨GIVEAWAY🚨

For every Touchdown that Jordan Love throws today I’ll give away 1 of these https://t.co/tproQdvYM2 League Balls to someone that Retweets + Likes this

(Must be following me + @ShopTheDimeLab)

Goodluck & GoPackGo!

[Criminal Penguin @Crime_Penguin]

“You guys see the one where the anvil falls on Daffy Duck? Haha, funny stuff!”

“Funny? Funny how? Explain to me why that’s funny.”

“It’s a cartoon man. It’s absurd.”

“Oh, okay. So blunt force trauma is just funny. Bonking waterfowl on the head is funny. Noted.”

[Scott McKay @TheHayride]

I imagine I'm going to start a fight here, but this is why men never wanted women to be sports reporters, have locker room access, any of it.

Arch Manning got asked about an AI video which is funny because it's absurd. Everybody likes Holly Rowe; nobody is going to slap her. It isn't real and it cannot be real.

It's a Tom & Jerry cartoon.

If it was Cole Cubelic getting slapped in the video it would be just as funny. It's Holly Rowe because that's the sideline reporter for the game.

The men all understand this, which is why the men recognize the humor and can laugh about it.

But you let the feminists in and now the feminists are going to dictate to the men what they can do in men's spaces.

And we're going to spend this week lecturing Arch Manning on the sexual politics of his own sense of humor, when there is zero evidence that Arch Manning can't act appropriately toward women.

When he was laughing about a meme involving his coach and Holly Rowe precisely because it isn't real and further is absurd.

These were men's spaces and they were enjoyed by men. Then they were invaded by women of a certain kind, and now the men are being lectured.

By people who also lecture the men that they can't opine about women's spaces. For example, how many of the people who will berate Arch Manning about which memes he thinks are funny are willing to listen to men's opinions on abortion or postpartum depression, for example?

And you wonder why there are people who want to abolish the 19th Amendment. No, I don't think they're serious. They're exhausted, because this is obnoxious and it's accelerating.

[Amy @amyknowsball]

It is insane people are mad about this

Quick comedy lesson for the softies

The reason Arch (and millions of others) find the FAKE AI video of Sarkisian smacking Holly Rowe funny is the absurdity. A man smacking a woman is already absurd. Doing it on national TV during a postgame interview is even more absurd. That’s the whole point

Swap in a male reporter and it still works.. just a little less, because it’s slightly less absurd

And the most absurd part? It didn’t even happen. If it had actually happened, nobody would be laughing

Hope this helps

[Scott Klausing @klausisa]

@Edd230 @tcook3223 😂😂

[Scott Klausing @klausisa]

@webn stays rocking. Hooked when I lived in Cincinnati @iHeartRadio to Columbus and now back home 15 years later

[Scott Klausing @klausisa]

@danabeers Normal for a mid 40 year old man maybe

[Scott Klausing @klausisa]

@tcook3223 The AI with Sark that Manning commented on? 😂 I agree

[ebo @ebosays]

how I stare at my TV when the clock hits 0:00 after another 4th quarter collapse from the Green Bay Packers

[Tony Clements @TonyCMKE]

Again…

If you’re gonna call the body weight roughing the passer, call it for Jordan Love too
#Packers

[Greg Jennings @GregJennings]

The refs have taken over this game, & not in a good way. Smh #GBvsMIN