The Short Term Playoff Push Quinn/Patricia Offseason (Mock)

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

10 hours ago, Nnivolcm said:

What evidence do you have their catastrophic season after Stafford was injured was intentional? If that was the case, why did they wait so long to put Stafford on IR? The lack of trading picks for players is the only thing I've seen mentioned, but trades during the season are rare in the NFL under any circumstances. 

I thought this was a playoff push mock, not a better than 3-12-1 mock.

Because, despite the clearly devastating injury to their best player, they spent 0 resources of value to actually improve the team. They were signing guys off of the street to start games. If winning this season meant everything to Quinn and Patricia, they would have made a move for a QB that would have helped us make a push. We didn't.

(I also think they kept Stafford off of IR because they need to give the impression that they're not tanking. The NFL doesn't want teams to tank. Had it been openly stated, I don't think Quinn and Patricia would have been brought back. Keeping Stafford on the roster with a back fracture makes it seem like they're at least trying.)

We've been over this quite a bit, but I'll repeat it again. (I'm a nice guy.) With Stafford, this isn't a 3-12-1 team. With Stafford, I feel we would have won at least 7 or 8 games this year. Improving from that mark puts us in the 10 win range.

Edited January 5, 2020 by TL-TwoWinsAway

[Nnivolcm]

4 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Because, despite the clearly devastating injury to their best player, they spent 0 resources of value to actually improve the team. They were signing guys off of the street to start games. If winning this season meant everything to Quinn and Patricia, they would have made a move for a QB that would have helped us make a push. We didn't.

(I also think they kept Stafford off of IR because they need to give the impression that they're not tanking. The NFL doesn't want teams to tank. Had it been openly stated, I don't think Quinn and Patricia would have been brought back. Keeping Stafford on the roster with a back fracture makes it seem like they're at least trying.)

We've been over this quite a bit, but I'll repeat it again. (I'm a nice guy.) With Stafford, this isn't a 3-12-1 team. With Stafford, I feel we would have won at least 7 or 8 games this year. Improving from that mark puts us in the 10 win range.

Stafford was injured in the November 3rd game against Oakland. The NFL trade deadline was October 29th. You think the fact they didn't spend any resources of value after Stafford went down is a sign of tanking? What resources could they have spent? 

If not trading for vets after the trade deadline is an indicator of tanking, all 32 teams tank every year. That's ludicrous. 

Edit: They did trade a draft pick for Blough before Stafford was injured. Why would they do that if their intention was to tank if Stafford went down?

Edited January 5, 2020 by Nnivolcm

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, Nnivolcm said:

Stafford was injured in the November 3rd game against Oakland. The NFL trade deadline was October 29th. You think the fact they didn't spend any resources of value after Stafford went down is a sign of tanking? What resources could they have spent? 

If not trading for vets after the trade deadline is an indicator of tanking, all 32 teams tank every year. That's ludicrous. 

... nope. Missed the mark completely, but points for the huge swing and good effort.

This was the same injury that Stafford played through during the second half of last season, and it flared up before the week 4 game against the Chiefs. (He was said to be in "severe pain" as they approached that game.) The team was fully aware that the injury was significant, and had plenty of time to come up with a backup plan. After those losses, it's no surprise that they didn't.

[Nnivolcm]

3 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

... nope. Missed the mark completely, but points for the huge swing and good effort.

This was the same injury that Stafford played through during the second half of last season, and it flared up before the week 4 game against the Chiefs. (He was said to be in "severe pain" as they approached that game.) The team was fully aware that the injury was significant, and had plenty of time to come up with a backup plan. After those losses, it's no surprise that they didn't.

Except they did trade a draft pick for a backup QB... why would a tanking team spend resources on a backup QB if their intention was to tank and make that draft pick as valuable as possible?

If they wanted to tank when Stafford was in "severe pain" why play Stafford at all?

There is no evidence that points to your theory. None. You're seeing phantoms you want to see to make this regime seem competent, when they have shown they are not.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Nnivolcm

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

4 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

Except they did trade a draft pick for a backup QB... why would a tanking team spend resources on a backup QB if their intention was to tank and make that draft pick as valuable as possible?

For Blough? You mean that swap of 2022 7th round picks? It's not even a lost pick... it's minuscule draft value in the 7th round.

Nope. Missed the mark again. 

[Nnivolcm]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

For Blough? You mean that swap of 2022 7th round picks? It's not even a lost pick... it's minuscule draft value in the 7th round.

Nope. Missed the mark again. 

Easy to miss the mark when you keep moving it lol.

The point still stands. Why give up anything of value if tanking is the goal?

Edited January 5, 2020 by Nnivolcm

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, Nnivolcm said:

Easy to miss the mark when you keep moving it lol.

The point still stands. Why give up anything of value if tanking is the goal?

They didn't even give up a draft pick! It was trade down value in the 2022 7th round, not even a 7th round pick!

The fact that you think this is "something of value" speaks volumes. (It's quite adorable.)

(And I guess you're also giving Quinn and Patricia credit here, which I love to see. They managed to trade practically nothing for a young QB that, as you admitted, kept this team competitive. Masterful trade by Quinn, and even better development by Head Coach Patricia!)

[Nnivolcm]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

They didn't even give up a draft pick! It was trade down value in the 2022 7th round, not even a 7th round pick!

The fact that you think this is "something of value" speaks volumes. (It's quite adorable.)

(And I guess you're also giving Quinn and Patricia credit here, which I love to see. They managed to trade practically nothing for a young QB that, as you admitted, kept this team competitive. Masterful trade by Quinn, and even better development by Head Coach Patricia!)

NFL GMs seem to value those picks. I don't know why you think you know better than they do.

Quinn has been good at identifying weaknesses on the roster, he's been terrible at fixing them.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

6 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

NFL GMs seem to value those picks. I don't know why you think you know better than they do.

Quinn has been good at identifying weaknesses on the roster, he's been terrible at fixing them.

We've already established that they didn't even lose a pick, just swapped 2022 7th round picks. It must be pointed out that, if the Lions finish the 2021-2022 season with a better record than the Browns, they would've actually gained draft value in the 7th round. Such a masterful move by Quinn.

That's how little NFL GMs value these late picks: the Browns risked LOSING VALUE in a draft two years from now to make this trade happen.

Again, your "argument" has fallen apart.

Edited January 5, 2020 by TL-TwoWinsAway

[Nnivolcm]

39 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

We've already established that they didn't even lose a pick, just swapped 2022 7th round picks. It must be pointed out that, if the Lions finish the 2021-2022 season with a better record than the Browns, they would've actually gained draft value in the 7th round. Such a masterful move by Quinn.

That's how little NFL GMs value these late picks: the Browns risked LOSING VALUE in a draft two years from now to make this trade happen.

Again, your "argument" has fallen apart.

Remember what the common thought of the Browns were at the time of the trade? A team on the rise, about to take the NFL by storm. They expected to be a very late pick, and expected the Lions to continue being the Lions (IE an early draft pick). At the time of the trade, there was clearly a value assigned to the trade. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

6 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

Remember what the common thought of the Browns were at the time of the trade? A team on the rise, about to take the NFL by storm. They expected to be a very late pick, and expected the Lions to continue being the Lions (IE an early draft pick). At the time of the trade, there was clearly a value assigned to the trade. 

Sure there was. Trade down value assigned to 7th round picks... three drafts into the future.

If this is your train of thought, I guess you're giving even more credit to Quinn for his incredible foresight. He went against the "common thought" at the time, and was right! (You've done more to boost Quinn's image during this thought tangent than I've seen in a long time. It's good to hear.)

[Nnivolcm]

15 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Sure there was. Trade down value assigned to 7th round picks... three drafts into the future.

If this is your train of thought, I guess you're giving even more credit to Quinn for his incredible foresight. He went against the "common thought" at the time, and was right! (You've done more to boost Quinn's image during this thought tangent than I've seen in a long time. It's good to hear.)

I've stated Quinn is good at identifying (obvious) weakness on the team. He's just very poor at fixing them. Call that credit if you want.

They also held 3 QBs on the roster for the first time I can remember in a long time. As much as you want to pretend Patricia and Quinn wanted to tank, there remains zero evidence of that being reality. They tanked in spite of their best efforts to win.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Nnivolcm

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, Nnivolcm said:

I've stated Quinn is good at identifying weakness on the team. He's just very poor at fixing them. Call that credit if you want.

They also held 3 QBs on the roster for the first time I can remember in a long time. As much as you want to pretend Patricia and Quinn wanted to tank, there remains zero evidence of that being reality. They tanked in spite of their best efforts to win.

I'm almost speechless here.

Holding three QBs, two of them being either mediocre or rookies, supports an argument that they were legitimately preparing to have success in case Stafford's lingering injury get re-aggravated? (I mean, you like records so much: the Lions were relying on Jeff Driskel and his 1-4 career record, or the undrafted David Blough, to carry this team if Stafford's existing injury became serious?)

Amazing.

[Nnivolcm]

3 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I'm almost speechless here.

Holding three QBs, two of them being either mediocre or rookies, supports an argument that they were legitimately preparing to have success in case Stafford's lingering injury get re-aggravated? (I mean, you like records so much: the Lions were relying on Jeff Driskel and his 1-4 career record, or the undrafted David Blough, to carry this team if Stafford's existing injury became serious?)

Amazing.

You keep grasping at straws. When a team does things the majority of teams do every year, its not the same as tanking on purpose. There continues to be no evidence of that. If they were tanking on purpose, they wouldn't have left the final game of the year rest on a kicker who they've seen miss a ton of kicks (Crosby). 

The Lions have made several attempts to find Stafford a viable backup QB in case he went down. Just because they failed to complete one of their goals, a common theme with this regime, it's not a sign of tanking  on purpose. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, Nnivolcm said:

You keep grasping at straws. When a team does things the majority of teams do every year, its not the same as tanking on purpose. There continues to be no evidence of that. If they were tanking on purpose, they wouldn't have left the final game of the year rest on a kicker who they've seen miss a ton of kicks (Crosby). 

The Lions have made several attempts to find Stafford a viable backup QB in case he went down. Just because they failed to complete one of their goals, a common theme with this regime, it's not a sign of tanking  on purpose. 

There will never be evidence. The NFL does not want teams to tank. Tanking means lost revenue, bitter fans and a damaged product. Owners do not want their team to tank. Again, it leads to lost revenue, bitter fans and a damaged brand. If Quinn and Patricia openly admitted that they were tanking, they would have been fired after the season. That's not how it works.

If Quinn and Patricia valued winning during the 2019 season, knowing the severity of Stafford's back heading into week 4, they would have traded a significant asset for a significant upgrade at the backup QB spot. They would've also considered other moves, DL possibly being another. They did not. Once we fell to 3-4-1 and Stafford went down with a fractured back, it's my belief that they made the smart move: played for draft value. And that's exactly what they should have done.