Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Packers schedule interview with former Dolphins HC Adam Gase

By Category

Packers schedule interview with former Dolphins HC Adam Gase

-- The Green Bay Packers' coaching search is expanding by the day, with another significant name being added to their list of candidates.

According to Tom Silverstein of, the team will interview former Miami Dolphins head coach, Adam Gase.

Gase was fired by the Dolphins earlier this past week after finishing his third year in Miami with a 7-9 record and losing their final three games by a combined score of 100-41. He was originally hired on in 2016, making the postseason in his first season but immediately being eliminated by the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Wild Card round.

Gase, 40, held various assistant positions with the Detroit Lions for five seasons before becoming a positional coach -- wide receivers and quarterbacks -- for the Denver Broncos in 2009. He was their offensive coordinator in 2013, holding the title for two seasons.

Gase's familiarity with the Packers stems from 2015 when he was the Chicago Bears' offensive coordinator.

There's been known evidence to attest to Gase's ability to maximize the talent of his offense's signal-caller. IIn his lone season with the Bears, he helped quarterback Jay Cutler achieve one of the most productive seasons of his career.

In 2013, while he was the offensive coordinator in Denver, future Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning had one of the best seasons ever quarterbacked. He threw for the most touchdowns (55) and most yards (5,477) in a single season in league history, adding to Gase's pedigree

That kind of area of expertise could do wonders for a team with someone like Aaron Rodgers, whose 2018 campaign saw a sizable decline from the usual standard of play he's capable of achieving -- a standard he's set.

ESPN's Rob Demovsky reported that Gase's interview with the Packers will take place on Sunday. They're also scheduled to meet with Tennesee Titans offensive coordinator Matt LaFleur on Sunday.

Gase is the sixth -- and possibly not even final -- candidate the Packers have scheduled to interview this weekend. They met with New England Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels and defensive coordinator Brian Flores on Friday, and they'll meet with New Orleans Saints tight ends coach Dan Campbell and offensive coordinator Pete Carmichael Jr. on Saturday.


Zachary Jacobson is a staff writer/reporter for Cheesehead TV. He's the voice of The Leap on iTunes and can be heard on The Scoop KLGR 1490 AM every Saturday morning. He's also a contributor on the Pack-A-Day Podcast. He can be found on Twitter via @ZachAJacobson or contacted through email at [email protected].

  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (39) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

canadapacker's picture

Pullleeassse Nooooooo. I dont think that we need to be in any hurry to hire somebody. Is there somebody out there that we really dont want some other team to take. Now MM might interest both the Browns and Cinci and especially AZ – but we do not have to be in any big hurry to take anybody – If people want to roll the dice on any Patriots people – be my guest after what they have done in the past McDaniels pulling out and Patricia for the Lions – why hurry – Gase may have been the Cutler whisperer ( dont throw picks Cutsy) but that is not needed with AR. So again I ask why hurry – what am I missing – so wait until the season is over and go after whomever you want – I still like Fangio to get a look at least – and I like a Defensive guy – but somebody who will have a DC and OC calling the plays – stop micromanaging

John Kirk's picture

It's strange that with 8 head coaching openings almost a week after the season they're all still open.

Once one gets hired, I'll bet it's like dominos falling similar to when a certain position starts coming off draft boards. Somebody takes a LT and all of a sudden there's a run on LTs.

Gase has the worst body language I've ever seen from a HC. He looks like he's on meth to me. I'm not saying he is just that he looks like a meth head. (need better look at his teeth to confirm) Ha ha.

However, he was nearly .500 in Miami without having his starter about half the time there. We saw what our old HC did when his guy was out.

Just watching him some over the years, he seems like the guy who became a HC who should've stayed a coordinator.

Since '61's picture

Teams are probably waiting to interview some of the coaches currently involved with playoff teams. Also when interviewing for a position as important as the HC for a professional team you are going to want at least a second interview once you narrow down your candidate list from your first round of interviews.

Teams may even go though a third interview series. It's a process and it needs to take as long as necessary to make the right choice. When I work with clients on filling a senior executive position I recommend they start with 20-25 candidates in their first round, 10- 12 in round 2, 5 in round 3 and maybe even a 4th interview if they can't decide between a final 2 or 3. Even with all of that some hires just don't work out.

An NFL team really doesn't want to be hiring a new HC every 2-4 years. However, since MM was hired by the Packers in 2006, 108 NFL HCs have been hired by 27 teams during that period. That is just under 4 years per HC hired by those teams. Only the Packers, NE, Pitt, Cincy and NO have had the same HC during that period. Now it is down to NE, Pitt and NO.
No guarantee that the Packers are not joining the other 27 teams at this point. Thanks, Since '61

John Kirk's picture

That's great with what you do in your personal life, but this is the NFL.

The major difference is each guy has a visually verifiable resume. It isn't just a stack of resumes like it is in the corporate world.

The reason many hires don't work out is few are true readers of people and don't know how to ask the right questions. I used to sit on hiring boards comprised of 5 other people. We all got to take turns asking questions of the candidates. I could be very tough and intrusive because I was trying to get to some real life scenarios to see how a person's thought process actually worked in a specific situation. My ability to read people and ask tough questions set me apart. Most questions people ask of candidates are vanilla and boring and typical...I asked questions based on answers I heard in other questions. The profile I developed on candidates were spot on. I recall the time I was adamantly opposed to a young man who I thought was wholly unimpressive and had character issues and wasn't mature enough. I was overruled by the other 5 voters and he was hired. It wasn't but two months later that kid was in an office being told if he didn't resign he might face legal issues. I was in that meeting and I had a bit of an I told you so feeling. I knew that kid couldn't hack it. He couldnt' and almost got himself in a host of legal issues that would've ruined his life. Sadly, he had a wife and new child but he had to go for his own protection.

What I'm concerned about in these types of situations is a guy mike Magic Mark can be "sold" by flowery words.

I understand needing to talk to these guys just like I do the 15-20 minutes teams get at the combine with players.

However, the majority of your decision to hire has to be based on what that visual resume says.

Take LaFleur for example. Guy was OC of 25th ranked offense. You should watch hours of tape on their offense. You think Magic Mark is qualified to do that? Someone needs to be. Someone needs to see what that offense did well conceptually and what it didn't. Derrick Henry doesn't start getting the ball until the final weeks of the season?

That guy wouldn't be on my list to begin with, but with Magic Mark, if LaFleur is a salesman type he can woo with words while his actual performance is substandard. What we get is a coach who says all the right things but can't do the job.

With the visually available evidence I'm not sure why this coaching search doesn't include bigger and better names. I'm really surprised we haven't heard at least one name like Jim Harbauh, Bill Cowher, etc. Of course, we've heard Harbaugh rumors but there's been no actual reported link that we've contacted him.

A guy like Rex Ryan would be interesting but I highly doubt they'd ever hire someone with that kind of personality. We're going to end up with another guy like MM was. Some non-descript guy with little personality and little presence that just "fits" with the Packers. That's been my biggest concern. Magic Mark trying find a coach that fits his dysfunctional culture not finding a guy who could rise above it and transform it in spite of him.

Since '61's picture

You just gave all of the reasons why the Packers should not rush into making an HC hire and why they should interview as many candidates as possible. Thanks, Since ‘61

John Kirk's picture

Why? They had a month head start to do visual verification on the guys they were interested in. The team had a month jump and proabably a lot longer knowing they were firing MM long before the Cards game.

Magic Mark did say this was going to be long search and not over quickly. He rarely tells the truth, but he seems to be telling it now but what did he mean by that?

Did he mean the guy he wanted wasn't able to be interviewed for awhile? Perhaps. Maybe, the guy is on a team playing this weekend? Can't talk to them "officially". I have no doubt they've talked to everyone they want to talk to through back channels. Making it official is what is taking the time if it's a guy from one of these teams.

Since '61's picture

sorry double post.

Rossonero's picture

So it's ok for you to be dismissive of Since '61's experience hiring executives, yet you then dive into your own job experiences as if they are somehow better?

Sounds like you were hiring young inexperienced people and he was hiring senior executives. So um, yes, there IS a difference.

Regarding your comment about "bigger names," please remember that Mike McCarthy was not a big name back in 2006. As a matter of fact, he was part of arguably the worst season in 49ers history.

Despite having a better record than the 2–14 Texans and 3–13 Saints, statistics site Football Outsiders calculated that the 49ers (4-12) were actually, play-for-play, not only the worst team in the NFL in 2005, but the worst team they've ever tracked.

According to the site, the 49ers offense in 2005 is the third-worst they'd ever tracked. The 49ers 3,587 total offensive yards were the fewest of any team in 2005, and their 239 points scored were third-worst in the NFL.

And yet, the Packers hired McCarthy, the 49ers OC, anyway. And obviously we had a great run until the past 2 seasons. Just be a little more open minded that maybe the guy they hire won't be a big name. And, as history shows us, it worked out -- quite well actually.

John Kirk's picture

If you can't tell why I typed what I did about my experience vs. his you really missed something.

I'm aware of everything you posted about the Niners.

You missed something again in calling it a "great run". Do you ever consider that hiring someone like Mike McCarthy severely limited the success we could've and maybe should've had? Ever?

The stuff you posted on the Niners is exactly why you don't hire a Mike McCarthy. You're saying the end justified the means. Not how it works. The process to hire MM was unbelievably flawed. You detailed why above and I've added the fact that MM wanted Smith over Rodgers. You don't hail a hire because the process was flawed and you think it worked out. Context is missing. What happens if they hire a guy like Holmgren from a top offense who gets to work with a better QB than Favre was? The expecation would be a Holmgren gets more out of Rodgers than Favre. Holmgren got to back to backers in 7 years while building a team that had been a dumpster fire for decades. McCarthy spent 13 years here getting to one SB and you think that was great? Two SBs in 7 years vs. One in 13 with a better QB and not having to rebuild from decades of incompetence? Holmgren had a GREAT run. McCarthy did not. Had the process been better last time we may have had another Holmgren and multiple SBs, as we should've.

Yet, here you are, minus vision, not understanding that the process was so incredibly flawed to hire a guy like that...JUST BECAUSE HE WORKED HERE IN THE PAST. Yes, he was hired over Payton because he'd worked here before and Payton hadn't. We're all about fresh ideas 'round here.

Since '61's picture

First off Holmgren had a better roster than MM has ever had. The result of having a better GM. Second, Holmgren was a better coach than MM.

However given the current era of the NFL MM had a very successful run in Green Bay by any fair and objective measures and especially when compared versus his peers. As I have posted previously 108 NFL coaches were hired in the NFL during MMs tenure in Green Bay. He is one of five HCs who lasted 13 seasons before being fired. Only BB, Peyton and Tomlinson remain in their positions since 2006 or before.

Rodgers did cover up many of the team’s weaknesses but the fact is that you can trace the Packers recent decline to the quality or lack of for players on the roster. MM did a fine job when you consider FAs who were not resigned, plagues of injuries every season and some absolutely ridiculous officiating. I can only hope that we hire another HC as good as MM for the next 13 seasons.
Thanks, Since ‘61

Rossonero's picture

Amen, Since '61. You provided some nice stats to back up MM's longevity and success. Same things I've been trying to explain to John about Holmgren having a better GM than MM did.

Since '61's picture

I appreciate your generous comments Rossonero. Thanks, Since '61

Rossonero's picture

Anyone can play the "what if" game and say shoulda woulda coulda when it came to the 2006 head coaching decision. Can we speculate on what could've been? Sure. Knock yourself out.

One fact of the matter is that Ron Wolf frequently ventured into free agency to help out Holmgren, while Ted did very little for McCarthy. That does not exonerate MM from his failures as a coach, but putting all your eggs into one basket (the draft) is risky.

The hiring process was flawed? What, were you in conference room on 1265 Lombardi Avenue during the planning of the process? Were you in the room when they decided on Mike? Give me a break!

Just because McCarthy was a QB coach in for one season in '99 -- a year by the way that Ted Thompson was NOT GM -- is just more speculation and merely your opinion. While Ted was in the organization, do you really think he had a ton of interaction with MM, the QB coach?

Just because you feel the process was flawed and you feel that McCarthy didn't have a great run does not make it a fact. I could say I feel it's gonna rain today but that doesn't mean it'll rain. These are just opinions.

John Kirk's picture

I didn't need to be in the room to know it was flawed when the process produced Mike McCarthy. Andrew Brandt talked about how they arrived there saying they felt Payton and MM were "tied" and broke it by going with MM because he'd worked here previously. You, yourself, posted a bunch of unflattering things about the Niners offense under MM and have the audacity to try and validate the choice? Bizarro world. For real.

Thank you, '61 for acknowledging the truth about Holmgren being a better coach. Yes, I agree Wolf superior to Thompson but the point is comparing who would've been the better HC...A Holmgren or a McCarthy. Pretty simple and clear.

That's where vision is needed. You call it what iffing and you choose not to play, or played, and don't like the conclusion so you'll say you don't want to go down that road.

We hired a guy who shouldn't have been hired and then sit here 13 years later and brag about the "success" of ONE Super Bowl appearance knowing full well Holmgren got to TWO in about half the time and rebuilding from decades of being a dumpster fire and the SIberia of the NFL.

What happens IF we hired a better HC than Mike McCarthy? Better results, right? You're okay with what happened because you find it acceptable. I don't. I think what happened the last 13 years was a total failure minus 2010.

The Packers going out and hiring Ryan LaFleur would be a total Packers move.

Since '61's picture

John - I am confident that every fan who posts here wishes and/or hoped that the Packers had won more than one SB during the last 13 seasons. My point about comparing MM to his peers is not me saying that it was acceptable. It is me saying that while another HC may have done better as you argue it's more likely that we would have been among the teams that have hired 108 head coaches over the last 13 seasons. Meaning that we would have been hiring a new HC every 3-4 seasons.

We could easily be heading into a period like that now. Speaking for myself it's not a matter of acceptance it's a matter of managing my expectations when viewed against what is happening in this era of the NFL. The league does not want dynasties any longer and hasn't had a true dynasty since the pre-free agency Cowboys of the early '90s. There has not been a repeat NFL champion since the Pats of the early 2000's and they were one play away from losing both of those games.

You have free agency, salary caps, plagues of injuries, rules changes, lack of quality depth at almost every position beyond the starters, no one knowing what a catch or a tackle is, a QB centric league that ends a team's season if the starting QB gets hurt (e.g., the 2018 Redskins or our own 2017 Packers), suspensions for all types of substance and physical abuses (which I support BTW), a media frenzy over every comment or facial expression and every player who has a platform (social media) to express every mindless thought they have whether it is based on facts or not. Not to mention protests, kneeling, etc...

Those are just some of the issues that we are aware of. Who knows what is actually going on in the locker rooms with divided teams and player egos and on and on. Therefore, whether or not I find the Packers results acceptable I do not to expect another Lombardi era type of run in an environment where there are multiples of factors that impact the results many of which I'm not even aware of. I will cheer and support and hope for the Packers to win every season but speaking for myself I'm not so sure that I can realistically expect that to happen regardless of who our HC is. Even Lombardi would have been challenged with the current environment, although I believe that he would be successful today I think the definition of a successful NFL coach has changed drastically since his era of the NFL. Thanks, Since '61

Rossonero's picture

You earlier stated "with the visually available evidence I'm not sure why this coaching search doesn't include bigger and better names."

I posted the unflattering stuff about MM because my point was he was NOT a big name back in 2006, yet they hired him. I also mentioned that sometimes the unexpected candidate gets hired, but you missed all of that too.

Since '61 nails it on the head above. If you are defining success as only winning a SB each year, then you are bound to be disappointed. Hell, even New England went a decade without winning a SB (2004-2014). Are they failures too? That's how difficult it is to win a championship.

It's actually Matt* LaFleur, not Ryan.

John Kirk's picture

I understand...but one of my biggest pet peeves is the hiring of Mike McCarthy in the first place and has been forever.

Who else ever interviewed Mike McCarthy to be a head coach? I don't think he was ever a candidate much less an interviewee of any other organization. How could he be? Who is interviewing Mike McCoy for their open HC job this time around? Nobody, as it should be and should've been with McCarthy...BUT...he worked here previously so we interviewed him. Brad Childress was our main desire but Vikes scooped us. I honestly believe Childress is as successful or not more here as MM.

I know it's Matt. Read something about Matt LaFleur yesterday. Brain fart.

Rossonero's picture

No worries. Everyone is entitled to their pet peeves.

I have no idea who else he interviewed with. I'll try to look it up later, but doubt I'll find anything. I vaguely remember Jim Bates interviewed and he obviously had a Packers connection too.

MarkinMadison's picture

He might be a nice OC to pair with a DC-minded head coach, but I'm not sure what about his resume screams, "make me a HC a week after I got fired, I'll be better than MM!"

Lare's picture

Yeah, some of these names make me wonder if they're interviewing HC candidates or coordinator candidates.

John Kirk's picture

None of these guys are being interviewed to be coordinators. That job belongs to the new HC.

If that was a rhetorical sarcastic question my apologies.

4thand1's picture

Whats the first question Murphy and Gute ask? Can you get AR to take the check down? I say no thanks on Gase, anyone who spends 5 years in Detroit is a red flag.

John Kirk's picture

First question?

We had to pay out McCarthy for 2019, so what's the lowest you'll take?


Do you have any experience babysitting petulant children?

Skip greenBayless's picture

I'm sorry but I can't make a single case for Gase.

The TKstinator's picture

Do you have a cure for LaFleur?
Would you take a gamble on Campbell?

Bure9620's picture

If they hire Gase, l'll just go eat some hay by the bay or make things out of clay. I just may, what'd ya say?

The TKstinator's picture


dobber's picture

I'm just glad there's nobody on the interview list with a name that rhymes with "Nantucket".

Rossonero's picture


The TKstinator's picture

Or “Delores”.

John Kirk's picture

Or "Whores".

LambeauPlain's picture

Packers Scores on Flores!

Nick Perry's picture

Gase is probably my 2nd choice as an offensive minded coach. I'm not really to pumped about Carmichael, Campbell, or even LaFleur. Now I'll admit...I didn't watch any Titans games but the Titans offense certainly wasn't tearing it up this past season. BUT McCarthy's 49ers offense was actually worse than the Titans in his last year as OC there so who knows.

Houndog's picture

I'm with you Nick,
I can't find enough info on LaFleur to figure out why his name is on so many lists. I know Marriota missed 5 or 6 games and I haven't looked to see if's stats improved this year so that's a question.
LaFleur's biggest asset seems to be the work he did with Jared Goff last year which was better than good, but then he left LA for TN after that one season, so.....? He comes from the 'Shanahan Tree' and as a Packer Fan living in 9er country I will say that Kyle Shanahan has changed the recent 9er culture in a short amount of time. He's innovative, a no nonsense guy, not afraid to cut a veteran (or a 1st round pick for being a jerk), and despite their record his teams have never quit.
That would be a start!

dobber's picture

I think you hit the nail on the head: he's not on the list for who he is, but for who he's worked with.

Coach JV's picture

I kinda like LaFleur... at least he know when he designed a play that sucks or isn't working. He ripped a play right out of the book, crumpled it and tossed it aside right on national TV. That shows me he can learn from a mistake. MM would have ran it 12 more times in the same quarter... and again the next week.

We need a coach who isn't afraid to drop his ego and go back to the drawing board if need be... no matter how "highly successful" he is.

Nick Perry's picture

"at least he know when he designed a play that sucks or isn't working. He ripped a play right out of the book, crumpled it and tossed it aside right on national TV. That shows me he can learn from a mistake. MM would have ran it 12 more times in the same quarter"

Common guys...THAT was funny! It certainly rings true.

John Kirk's picture

Here's a not very well thought out quick Packers conspiracy theory:

If you're Magic Mark, and you know how big this hire is, and you have some guy you want to hire that you know might not be well received, what would you do in that case?

I think you'd amass some huge list and go about interviewing tons of candidates for appearances sake. That way, when you have to sell this guy who isn't going to be well received you can sit there and say, "We left no stone unturned!..."X" was the right man for the job without question. "X" rose above the other 10 candidates we spoke to and Brian and I were just blown away. We both looked at each other and knew we'd found the next coach of the Green Bay Packers!"

My level of faith in Murhpy is none. I'm bracing for impact. This is torture waiting for him to sit up there saying his unfunny one-liners and using that canned laughter of his to laugh at his own unfunny one-liner.

Get ready... He fit... We felt he was the best fit...We didn't take this search lightly... It's all prepared. All scripted out. Just waiting for the name that goes on the blank line in the script.

LambeauPlain's picture

Red flag on Gase: Several of his players publicly stated they were happy he was leaving the Dolphins. Some said they had no clue what he was trying to establish in the offense as an identity. Others said he did not get along with the players.

Gute and Murphy need to take a deep dive on this!

Contrast this with Brian Flores who, as a reputed disciplinarian, is said to be tough on his players but very fair when holding them accountable. And they love the guy.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook



"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "