Picking #3

[Karnage84]

32 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

https://detroitsportsnation.com/nfl-draft-twitter-rips-lions-hc-matt-patricia-senior-bowl-practice/apowell/detroit-lions-news/01/22/2020/217930/

There are conflicting reports that people were really impressed with the pace of practice in comparison with the Bengals. It appears that Patricia and the Lions are taking these guys through a regular practice schedule and helping them avoid getting hurt in a meaningless game. 

[Karnage84]

15 hours ago, Sllim Pickens said:

He wasn't hired to rebuild.mmhe was hired to get over the hump because we were good enough to not have to rebuild.  We were a playoff team that he has turned into a bottom 3 team in the league.  I have no patience for that. 

The Front Office hired a guy with a vastly different philosophy than what the previous guy ran. That leads to a transitional period, which we are currently in. If we were built as a 3-4 defense it's going to take time to bring in guys to run a 4-3 and vice versa. This was a roster that couldn't get over the 9-7 hump. They're using some of the same foundations while rebuilding the house in a different style. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, Sllim Pickens said:

I will look at all factors when doing this, and realize there are trajectories involved in the three examples you have provided (which three examples in history isnt all that great to go on.  Hoping for the exception as opposed to the rule is a good way to continue failing). 

Bill Walsh took over a team that was 2-14, 5 games the year before that. After his first year he also went 2-14, the team went 5-11, then drafted Joe Montana which changed the trajectory.   Still, he had three years and was in a SB.  So Patricia has a lot to live up to if he is going to take our 9-7 team to a 6-10 team to a 3-12-1 team and then reverse course to a winner. 

Kyle Shannahan also took over a team void of talent that had gone 5-11 and 2-14 the years before he got there.  Again, they found Jimmy G midway through his first year, lost him very early his second year but the team showed improvement.  Again, building something as opposed to taking over a solid team is different, but also he turned them into a Sb team in three years, so Patricia has a lot to try and live up to another one of these three exceptions. 

Vermeil I am not as high on.  I think he was a below average coach that found an exception (a grocery store clerk that somehow turns into the best QB in the league overnight).  If we can find one of those, great, but I am not holding my breath.  

Patricia can have this year, I wouldnt give it to him because he hasn't shown me anything to make me think he will continue in the right direction.  But either way, he needs to be in the playoffs and at least win a game this year for it to be a success.  If not, I am moving on from him. 

So: context. I agree. I love context. You said: "there are no examples of someone failing for years and suddenly improving". I gave you three. (Three that were readily available. There are undoubtedly more.)

Now, if context is part of the conversation: during his first year, a number of (crybaby) veterans were upset because Caldwell was fired, were mad because the practices were harder, and were mad that their coach wasn't acting like their buddy. They decide to mail it in. The team finishes 6-10. During his second year, and after the team's most difficult 8 games, the team is 3-4-1. Their starting QB (and arguably best player at the most important position) gets hurt, and they finish 0-8.

If we want to ignore context, there's a head coach in his third year preparing for a Super Bowl after an identical record after his first two seasons. If we want to consider context, there's plenty to go on that points to why this team wasn't more successful. We can't have it both ways.

Edited January 23, 2020 by TL-TwoWinsAway

[LionArkie]

I don't do twitter, or social media for that matter, but I looked up this Sandman guy and found this:

https://twitter.com/Sandman7773/status/1220067581278801921

It looks like the guy posted above is actually pro Patricia...

 

****Forget this post, I didn't read the link Sliims provided until after I posted this.

Edited January 23, 2020 by LionArkie

[Karnage84]

8 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

I don't do twitter, or social media for that matter, but I looked up this Sandman guy and found this:

https://twitter.com/Sandman7773/status/1220067581278801921

It looks like the guy posted above is actually pro Patricia...

 

****Forget this post, I didn't read the link Sliims provided until after I posted this.

There are always two sides to a story and the truth is often found in the middle. Maybe Patricia is running things differently than he should be in a way that helps people evaluate the players. He also could just be deciding to use this opportunity to develop the players as NFL professionals while also keeping the best stuff for themselves. 

People seem to forget that they're interacting with these guys in interviews, meeting rooms, in the lunch room, hallways, etc. It's part of the unique experience being the coaching staff. You get those hands on looks that are different than just sitting in the stands. 

I also don't put a lot of weight into what draft twitter says. They're basically you and I with a little bit more time on their hands and took a trip down to Mobile. Patricia doesn't care that @NFLtwitScout or whoever can't scout a guy and post about it on Twitter. He's trying to improve the Lions and help develop some of these kids to get into the next level. 

[Sllim Pickens]

32 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

So: context. I agree. I love context. You said: "there are no examples of someone failing for years and suddenly improving". I gave you three. (Three that were readily available. There are undoubtedly more.)

Now, if context is part of the conversation: during his first year, a number of (crybaby) veterans were upset because Caldwell was fired, were mad because the practices were harder, and were mad that their coach wasn't acting like their buddy. They decide to mail it in. The team finishes 6-10. During his second year, and after the team's most difficult 8 games, the team is 3-4-1. Their starting QB (and arguably best player at the most important position) gets hurt, and they finish 0-8.

If we want to ignore context, there's a head coach in his third year preparing for a Super Bowl after an identical record after his first two seasons. If we want to consider context, there's plenty to go on that points to why this team wasn't more successful. We can't have it both ways.

There is a lot of speculation and excuses in this post, which isn't exactly context.  Thats what you think happened in year one, but what was actually reported by player, media, and other coaches, was our coach was late to meetings, he didn't hold himself accountable and its hard to hold others accountable when you are not yourself.  He also made horrible in game coaching decisions, poor timing and use of timeouts and challenges, and didn't develop his players.  His defense was middle of the pack his first year (16), his offense was bad (25).  His second year, he gets his big free agents, he still runs his practices unprofessionally, he is ridiculed for how he does so (he wouldn't if there were results, but there are not) and his defense now ranks 31 in the league in yards and 26 in scoring.  So you have a defensive guru, how comes in and turns our average defense into a trash defense (Matt Stafford doesnt play defense so can't use that excuse here) with his guys.  I can understand the offense, but he let two rookie QBs have career days against his D (one while Stafford was still healthy), he made average offenses look unstoppable, and had no answers for Kirk Cousins.  Thats the context.  I'll give him a pass on two or three games because of Stafford but thats still a 5-10-1 season.  

[Sllim Pickens]

59 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

The Front Office hired a guy with a vastly different philosophy than what the previous guy ran. That leads to a transitional period, which we are currently in. If we were built as a 3-4 defense it's going to take time to bring in guys to run a 4-3 and vice versa. This was a roster that couldn't get over the 9-7 hump. They're using some of the same foundations while rebuilding the house in a different style. 

Patricia never really ran a 3-4 defense.  And New England hasn't under him.  It's more of a 4-3 hybrid.  And this year he got his players and they are worse.  Also, the GM set the tone and the expectations.  He fired the winningest coach in the Super Bowl era because making the playoffs and losing is not good enough.  Its a poor GM to say that, and then hire a guy that will require a three year transitional period.  But thats right, he just wanted his buddy in town so he ignored that.  

[Karnage84]

8 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Patricia never really ran a 3-4 defense.  And New England hasn't under him.  It's more of a 4-3 hybrid.  And this year he got his players and they are worse.  Also, the GM set the tone and the expectations.  He fired the winningest coach in the Super Bowl era because making the playoffs and losing is not good enough.  Its a poor GM to say that, and then hire a guy that will require a three year transitional period.  But thats right, he just wanted his buddy in town so he ignored that.  

I am using a scheme switch as an example. That's not the point. It's that any big scheme change is going to include a period where guys might not fit and you need to get your own guys. Quinn was brought in with a HC not of his choosing and he scouted for schemes he didn't prefer. The FO brought him in based on a thorough search and was recommended by this committee. He brought in his own HC. Every new coach should get 3 years to figure stuff out. It doesn't always happen that way. To assume that Patricia is going to step into a roster that's vastly different than what he wants to run and then have instant success isn't being realistic with expectations. We were 3-4-1 with Stafford. The Raiders game was his last game and he was clearly injured where maybe he shouldn't have finished the game. Green Bay game was literally taken away by the officials. It has been recognized by the league that those were bad calls after the fact. So we're actually looking at 4-2-1 going into that game against the Raiders. Assuming that we still lose the Raiders game, we likely win another 5 games with a healthy Stafford. The team would then finish with a 9-6-1 record. Probably don't make the playoffs but it would definitely change the narrative. It probably doesn't for some with a couple big losses to TB and MIN. Defense would still have some of its struggles and the running game might not be fully fortified.

So the Lions would still be an incomplete team but with a winning record. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Karnage84

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

18 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

There is a lot of speculation and excuses in this post, which isn't exactly context.  Thats what you think happened in year one, but what was actually reported by player, media, and other coaches, was our coach was late to meetings, he didn't hold himself accountable and its hard to hold others accountable when you are not yourself.  He also made horrible in game coaching decisions, poor timing and use of timeouts and challenges, and didn't develop his players.  His defense was middle of the pack his first year (16), his offense was bad (25).  His second year, he gets his big free agents, he still runs his practices unprofessionally, he is ridiculed for how he does so (he wouldn't if there were results, but there are not) and his defense now ranks 31 in the league in yards and 26 in scoring.  So you have a defensive guru, how comes in and turns our average defense into a trash defense (Matt Stafford doesnt play defense so can't use that excuse here) with his guys.  I can understand the offense, but he let two rookie QBs have career days against his D (one while Stafford was still healthy), he made average offenses look unstoppable, and had no answers for Kirk Cousins.  Thats the context.  I'll give him a pass on two or three games because of Stafford but thats still a 5-10-1 season.  

Lots of speculation and excuses in both of our posts it seems. At least it's more than "no examples of a coach failing for years and suddenly improving", as this has happened numerous times.

The truth of all of this is that, if the Lions made the playoffs last year, none of this would matter right now. No one would care. It's only an issue because of the record, and the record was only what it was in 2019 because of Stafford's injury. When you look at how ridiculously easy our 2nd have schedule was, managing 5 or 6 wins out of that group is actually pretty reasonable.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

24 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Patricia never really ran a 3-4 defense.  And New England hasn't under him.  It's more of a 4-3 hybrid.  And this year he got his players and they are worse.  Also, the GM set the tone and the expectations.  He fired the winningest coach in the Super Bowl era because making the playoffs and losing is not good enough.  Its a poor GM to say that, and then hire a guy that will require a three year transitional period.  But thats right, he just wanted his buddy in town so he ignored that.  

... unless the Lions make a Super Bowl under Patricia. If that happens, Quinn would've been right, and you would be wrong.

[Karnage84]

8 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Lots of speculation and excuses in both of our posts it seems. At least it's more than "no examples of a coach failing for years and suddenly improving", as this has happened numerous times.

The truth of all of this is that, if the Lions made the playoffs last year, none of this would matter right now. No one would care. It's only an issue because of the record, and the record was only what it was in 2019 because of Stafford's injury. When you look at how ridiculously easy our 2nd have schedule was, managing 5 or 6 wins out of that group is actually pretty reasonable.

Where I will side with some of the guys is that we should be better prepared for a back up situation, especially. Stafford has had injuries in the past he's just been able to play through them. So that's an error on Quinn's part. In most cases though, when a team loses their starting QB things tend to sour pretty quickly. The Saints and the Steelers are really more the exception than the rule. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

8 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

Where I will side with some of the guys is that we should be better prepared for a back up situation, especially. Stafford has had injuries in the past he's just been able to play through them. So that's an error on Quinn's part. In most cases though, when a team loses their starting QB things tend to sour pretty quickly. The Saints and the Steelers are really more the exception than the rule. 

That goes back to the 'tanking' discussion. If it's better for the team to lose during week 17 with a 3-11-1 record, isn't it better to lose during week 16 as well? If you're 3-4-1, and the best player on your team is (likely) out for the year, should you strive for wins, or should you do what's better for the team and attempt to obtain as much draft value as possible? Quinn could have traded valuable future assets to earn a few more wins in 2019, but that most likely wouldn't have gotten us into the playoffs, and would have driven us away from the draft value we have now.

[detroitroar]

1 hour ago, Sllim Pickens said:

There is a lot of speculation and excuses in this post, which isn't exactly context.  Thats what you think happened in year one, but what was actually reported by player, media, and other coaches, was our coach was late to meetings, he didn't hold himself accountable and its hard to hold others accountable when you are not yourself.  He also made horrible in game coaching decisions, poor timing and use of timeouts and challenges, and didn't develop his players.  His defense was middle of the pack his first year (16), his offense was bad (25).  His second year, he gets his big free agents, he still runs his practices unprofessionally, he is ridiculed for how he does so (he wouldn't if there were results, but there are not) and his defense now ranks 31 in the league in yards and 26 in scoring.  So you have a defensive guru, how comes in and turns our average defense into a trash defense (Matt Stafford doesnt play defense so can't use that excuse here) with his guys.  I can understand the offense, but he let two rookie QBs have career days against his D (one while Stafford was still healthy), he made average offenses look unstoppable, and had no answers for Kirk Cousins.  Thats the context.  I'll give him a pass on two or three games because of Stafford but thats still a 5-10-1 season.  

If your going to acknowledge how much losing Stafford hurt us and equate it to wins, it has to be more than 2 or 3.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

3 minutes ago, detroitroar said:

If your going to acknowledge how much losing Stafford hurt us and equate it to wins, it has to be more than 2 or 3.

Especially with that schedule: the Bears (x2), Cowboys, Redskins, Vikings, Bucs, Broncos and Packers. Only two of those teams (Vikings and Packers) finished 2019 with a winning record, and the Blough-led Lions nearly beat the Packers week 17.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

2 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

There are conflicting reports that people were really impressed with the pace of practice in comparison with the Bengals. It appears that Patricia and the Lions are taking these guys through a regular practice schedule and helping them avoid getting hurt in a meaningless game. 

That's exactly what I've read as well: it mimics a regular Lions' practice. I bet the last thing these players want is to have the overzealous coach of a losing team running them around frantically to make the coach look good, risking their health in the process.