The Lions, my view.

[BarryTheBest]

4 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

I feel plenty objective. One guy has 1st hand experience being coached by Patricia. The other guy has none I'm aware of and is in his self interest to get on his new bosses good side. Which person's statements should an objective person place more weight?

Why cant said objective person see the situations for what they are instead of assuming that one of the players is "sucking up"? I think the objective person would take what Trufant said at face value as in, he is being truthful.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

9 minutes ago, BarryTheBest said:

Why cant said objective person see the situations for what they are instead of assuming that one of the players is "sucking up"? I think the objective person would take what Trufant said at face value as in, he is being truthful.

Right? And it's not just Trufant. Most of the signings mention "Matty P" as a coach that they respect and want to play for.

[Nnivolcm]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I'll answer your question first: it's a pointless, unproductive hypothetical, as you could ask that exact same thing about every coach, every year. If we fired Patricia and hired ______, one could ask: "If _____ fails, wouldn't these resources have been better spent by the next coach?" You can't argue with such a hypothetical, filling in the blank with the next, unknown coach, as it can always apply to the next individual. (Now, if you gave me a name and/or coaching staff for this hypothetical, it could lead to a legitimate conversation.)

(This is a flaw often seen in relationships, where one partner starts to convince themselves that things might be better with someone else. If you have that mentality, you'll never be happy - and, in turn, won't work to be happy - with the person you're with. My related, unrelated perspective on that mindset.)

That quote was your response to Caldwell's firing. You were against Caldwell being fired, as you believed it was part of a "vicious cycle" where a Lions' coach is fired before he has a chance to implement "their system" and acquire talent. This was after four years of Caldwell, yet you wanted Patricia fired after just two. It seems like, based on your stance towards Caldwell, you'd certainly feel that Patricia hasn't had enough time. (Which is exactly what many of us are arguing.)

1. If a 9-7 coach is our "most successful head coach in Lions' history", we need to realize that our history is bad, not that our coaches (and that coach in particular) haven't been good.

2. I guess Belichick hadn't done the same background investigation. Patricia wasn't a 'new' coach: he had been coaching in the NFL since 2004. The journalist wasn't "scolded"... he was calmly asked to sit up. Patricia admitted, after his first season, that he had things to improve with himself.

3. And... context. Like "your starting quarterback missing half of the season" context. That's a lot of key context.

I answered your pointless, unproductive hypothetical. You side stepped mine, as expected. 

1. Caldwell was hamstrung with two 1st time GMs learning as they went, and still managed to have a winning record, without making the team into a laughing stock. It would make sense as his GM got better Caldwell would continue to improve. Instead, the GM fired Caldwell, and brought in someone to win in 2018, and the team regressed each following season. Nothing but blind optimism indicates that'll be any different in year 5 of Quinn. Caldwell was much closer to being successful in Detroit than Patricia has been.

2. I'm glad Patricia can admit he needs to improve. Several posters here seem happy with his performance and the toxic environment he created.

3. We've had this discussion before, but you still refuse to acknowledge the key context of the Lions had a losing record, with several embarrassing showings, with Stafford too.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

7 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

I answered your pointless, unproductive hypothetical. You side stepped mine, as expected. 

Nope. Fake news. I'll happily answer the rest of the post, but don't run from this.

Don't just say "What if (insert imaginary coach) would be successful?! Wasn't it a waste to keep Patricia?" There's no value to it. Using that rationale, after only one season of that coach, I could say the exact same thing: "What if another imaginary coach would be more successful with these resources? We should fire this guy!"

If you want to suggest that an actual, living, breathing football coach and his coaching staff could use these resources to build a successful team, that's a fine conversation to have. (I can make that conversation with this coaching staff and this roster/draft value, because this coaching staff actually exists.) So: feel free. Name a coach, some coordinators, a scheme, and make the argument that those pieces would likely lead to more short and long term success. That's a legitimate conversation.

Edited March 27, 2020 by TL-TwoWinsAway

[Nnivolcm]

16 minutes ago, BarryTheBest said:

Why cant said objective person see the situations for what they are instead of assuming that one of the players is "sucking up"? I think the objective person would take what Trufant said at face value as in, he is being truthful.

Why would an objective person place more weight in what someone without 1st hand knowledge says about any topic? When plenty of people with 1st hand knowledge say something different?

Why would an objective person not question statements made in someone's self interest that counter claims others made that don't serve their own interests? 

I suspect the answer to be: homerism.  

[BarryTheBest]

6 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

Why would an objective person place more weight in what someone without 1st hand knowledge says about any topic? When plenty of people with 1st hand knowledge say something different?

Why would an objective person not question statements made in someone's self interest that counter claims others made that don't serve their own interests? 

I suspect the answer to be: homerism.  

I never made any mentions of placing more weight one way or the other.

I was simply saying that our coach is still well respected across the league and the last example was Trufant saying he came here because of the coach.

You then went on to say that Trufant only said that to suck up. I was using the Slay issue as a counter argument.

I believe both men were being truthful... Homerism or not. 

 

[Nnivolcm]

2 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Nope. Fake news. I'll happily answer the rest of the post, but don't run from this.

Don't just say "What if (insert random coach) would be successful?! Wasn't it a waste to keep Patricia?" There's no value to it. Using that rationale, after only one season of that coach, I could say the exact same thing: "What if another random coach would be more successful with these resources? We should fire this guy!"

If you want to suggest that an actual, living, breathing football coach and his coaching staff could use these resources to build a successful team, that's a fine conversation to have. (I can make that conversation with this coaching staff and this roster/draft value, because this coaching staff actually exists.) So: feel free. Name a coach, some coordinators, a scheme, and make the argument that those pieces would likely lead to more short and long term success. That's a legitimate conversation.

That wasn't my question and this is less than hypothetical.

The Fords have already all but said if things don't improve Patricia and Quinn are gone. So if things don't improve (less hypothetical than you asking about if things drastically improve) and a new regime is brought in, would it not have benefited that regime having all the assets of the 2020 off season to expedite their vision considering the Stafford window won't be open forever?

A draft class including a top 3 pick? Substantial amount of money in FA? An elite CB1 still under contract? Would those assets not benefit the next regime? It might be a draw to top GM and coaching prospects.

[Nnivolcm]

2 minutes ago, BarryTheBest said:

I never made any mentions of placing more weight one way or the other.

I was simply saying that our coach is still well respected across the league and the last example was Trufant saying he came here because of the coach.

You then went on to say that Trufant only said that to suck up. I was using the Slay issue as a counter argument.

I believe both men were being truthful... Homerism or not. 

 

Well you dismissed the perspective with 1st hand experience and called the perspective without 1st hand experience "facts". That's a pretty strong indicator of which perspective holds the most weight to you.

Sucking up to your new boss is a self serving statement. It shouldn't hold much weight for objective people when the statement isn't based on the speaker's experience. 

[BarryTheBest]

1 minute ago, Nnivolcm said:

Well you dismissed the perspective with 1st hand experience and called the perspective without 1st hand experience "facts". That's a pretty strong indicator of which perspective holds the most weight to you.

Sucking up to your new boss is a self serving statement. It shouldn't hold much weight for objective people when the statement isn't based on the speaker's experience. 

Please point out where I dismissed anyone's perspective.. You stated Trufant said that to suck up, I was asking how someone can say that but defend Slay for making a comment on his way out... Again, I believe both men were being TRUTHFUL... 

[Karnage84]

5 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

That wasn't my question and this is less than hypothetical.

The Fords have already all but said if things don't improve Patricia and Quinn are gone. So if things don't improve (less hypothetical than you asking about if things drastically improve) and a new regime is brought in, would it not have benefited that regime having all the assets of the 2020 off season to expedite their vision considering the Stafford window won't be open forever?

A draft class including a top 3 pick? Substantial amount of money in FA? An elite CB1 still under contract? Would those assets not benefit the next regime? It might be a draw to top GM and coaching prospects.

That would just be starting over from square one all over again without giving the current regime a fair shake. 

If things go the way that some people want and/or expect, we're going to have a top 5 pick next year anyway. We likely will have a much younger and cheaper CB1 (Okudah) and we'd have a number of pieces available that could be traded away to NE style teams for picks. If this does become a rebuild with a new regime, there will be plenty of options to add picks and make those moves next year. 

If you go into anything expecting failure, don't be surprised if you find exactly what you were looking for. Quinn and Patricia have to be looking ahead with the intent of building this team to win this year and in the future. If they don't then a new group will be brought in to try and do what they couldn't. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

2 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

That wasn't my question and this is less than hypothetical.

The Fords have already all but said if things don't improve Patricia and Quinn are gone. So if things don't improve (less hypothetical than you asking about if things drastically improve) and a new regime is brought in, would it not have benefited that regime having all the assets of the 2020 off season to expedite their vision considering the Stafford window won't be open forever?

A draft class including a top 3 pick? Substantial amount of money in FA? An elite CB1 still under contract? Would those assets not benefit the next regime? It might be a draw to top GM and coaching prospects.

I mean... it was your question, and it lacks legitimate substance. But, sure... lets play the blind hypothetical game: what if this next imaginary coach was significantly worse than Patricia? Then, no, these resources shouldn't have been saved for them.

[Karnage84]

So if I get this right... there isn't a player that would willingly come to Detroit and want to play for Patricia but we have 53+ that would run for the hills. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, Karnage84 said:

So if I get this right... there isn't a player that would willingly come to Detroit and want to play for Patricia but we have 53+ that would run for the hills. 

Not only that, but every single player that has said that they'd love to play for "Matty P" is lying. Every. Single. One.

[Karnage84]

1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Not only that, but every single player that has said that they'd love to play for "Matty P" is lying. Every. Single. One.

Yep. Exactly. 

[Nnivolcm]

25 minutes ago, BarryTheBest said:

Please point out where I dismissed anyone's perspective.. You stated Trufant said that to suck up, I was asking how someone can say that but defend Slay for making a comment on his way out... Again, I believe both men were being TRUTHFUL... 

Quote

 

Slay for trashing the coach

...

Like it or not my friends, he is still well respected throughout the NFL.

...

Laughable is the people who refuse to see the facts.

 

These three quotes from you point out your take on Slay's perspective (IE, coach doesn't deserve respect) and how dismissive you are of that perspective (it's laughable and the opposite is a "fact").