ESPN - Lions had 4th worst offseason

[Sllim Pickens]

3 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

Slay did a lot for the community and doesn't seem like a bad guy at all. He just seems to have a bit of an ego. In fairness, a lot of professional athletes, especially WR's and DB's tend to. 

The Diggs trade definitely made an impact and they were probably skirting around his contract extension to the point where he knew it wasn't going to happen. Not having the Diggs trade cleared with him probably showed him that he was being moved outside of a leadership position and then it is firmed up when they aren't meeting his demands for a new contract. The writing was clearly on the wall. 

That is my point though.  You have to know how to lead and lead your people.  If they were so tone deaf to realize trading Diggs would hurt the locker room, that is on them.  If they knew he was close friends with Slay, they should have discussed it with him.  Not saying he gets a say in it, but as your best defensive player and leader of your defense, you need to maintain that relationship.  I dont like everyone I have worked with, but I know which ones I need to keep happy and do a little extra for.  The whole situation screams that our leadership doesnt have its hand on the pulse of the team.  Again, even if you plan to move Slay, you have to sometimes cater to an ego for the betterment of the team.  If you don't, than its just a sign your ego is bigger and you dont have the collectives best interest in mind. 

[LionArkie]

23 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

That is my point though.  You have to know how to lead and lead your people.  If they were so tone deaf to realize trading Diggs would hurt the locker room, that is on them.  If they knew he was close friends with Slay, they should have discussed it with him.  Not saying he gets a say in it, but as your best defensive player and leader of your defense, you need to maintain that relationship.  I dont like everyone I have worked with, but I know which ones I need to keep happy and do a little extra for.  The whole situation screams that our leadership doesnt have its hand on the pulse of the team.  Again, even if you plan to move Slay, you have to sometimes cater to an ego for the betterment of the team.  If you don't, than its just a sign your ego is bigger and you dont have the collectives best interest in mind. 

I think this is where it gets complicated.  The NE way, all people are equal and your stars aren't worth more than the lowest man on the team to some extent.  Example, calling out Brady in front of the team...calling out Slay in front of the team. As a manager, I personally don't think I have to discuss personnel moves to the team before I make them.  For one, it is not fair to the player being moved that everyone in the room knows before he does.  Two, the player we are kissing up to, doesn't have a say anyways in it so it doesn't matter.  I think the thought of any player being that important is a huge issue and one that could also divide the locker room.

At my work, as a middle manager I would love to know the direction my company is going in because it will effect what I do at my job, but I in no terms expect that or even think it is appropriate.

Edited May 20, 2020 by LionArkie

[Karnage84]

2 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

That is my point though.  You have to know how to lead and lead your people.  If they were so tone deaf to realize trading Diggs would hurt the locker room, that is on them.  If they knew he was close friends with Slay, they should have discussed it with him.  Not saying he gets a say in it, but as your best defensive player and leader of your defense, you need to maintain that relationship.  I dont like everyone I have worked with, but I know which ones I need to keep happy and do a little extra for.  The whole situation screams that our leadership doesnt have its hand on the pulse of the team.  Again, even if you plan to move Slay, you have to sometimes cater to an ego for the betterment of the team.  If you don't, than its just a sign your ego is bigger and you dont have the collectives best interest in mind. 

So what would you suggest they have done with Diggs, given that Slay would never have signed off on that trade?

Slay had already held out at the start of training camp with the desire for a new contract. If you're the FO you know that is going to rear its head again in the off-season. So they would have had to look into the future and determine whether Slay fits into their plans or not. If the answer is not, then you're not going to have him influence long term decisions. 

Diggs: Traded in October with team record at 2-4-1. He had a 58.7 PFF grade when the trade was made. He missed two games with us and then missed another three with Seattle. Maybe Diggs was a guy that was being vocal in a way that was counterproductive for what they were trying to accomplish. 

I do agree and feel that it was an error on Patricia's part to not understand the issues with Slay and his circle of players from the 2018 meeting. To have your best player be upset with you to that extent and not know about it until he tells you a year later is not a positive. You do need leaders in the locker room communicating with you and your staff, acting as the go between for the players and the coaches. 

[Sllim Pickens]

1 minute ago, LionArkie said:

I think this is where it gets complicated.  The NE way, all people are equal and your stars aren't worth more than the lowest man on team.  Example, calling out Brady in front of the team...calling out Slay in front of the team. I personally, don't think as a manager, I have to discuss personnel moves to the team before I make them.  For one, it is not fair to the player being moved that everyone in the room knows before he does.  Two, the player we are kissing up to, doesn't have a say anyways in it so it doesn't matter.  I think the thought of any player being that important is a huge issue and one that could also divide the locker room.

At my work, as a middle manager I would love to know the direction my company is going in because it will effect what I do at my job, but I in no terms expect that or even think it is appropriate.

If you don't think NE discussed Moss, or letting Welker go with Brady you are delusional.  They did all they could to keep him happy until the last year or two.  I think ignoring that there is a status pyramid in a locker room and treating everyone the same is not the way to build a team given the coach can't be around all of the time.  Its the natural dynamic of sports teams and to not support your best players is a sure way to lead to disaster.  Especially when you don't have any winning under your belt to hang your hat on.  

As a middle manager at your job, are you made aware of anything that happens to your part of the team?  I get not knowing the long term plan or the decision to buy up a couple more subsidiaries but you still have to know whats happening to your team.  If your assistant manager was someone you respected and the company fired him with no warning, it would ruin your moral for your team and your views of that company.   

[Karnage84]

2 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

I think this is where it gets complicated.  The NE way, all people are equal and your stars aren't worth more than the lowest man on team.  Example, calling out Brady in front of the team...calling out Slay in front of the team. I personally, don't think as a manager, I have to discuss personnel moves to the team before I make them.  For one, it is not fair to the player being moved that everyone in the room knows before he does.  Two, the player we are kissing up to, doesn't have a say anyways in it so it doesn't matter.  I think the thought of any player being that important is a huge issue and one that could also divide the locker room.

At my work, as a middle manager I would love to know the direction my company is going in because it will effect what I do at my job, but I in no terms expect that or even think it is appropriate.

Especially if you're asking for them to substantially increase your pay despite the fact that, while you are still capable, you are going to be less efficient sooner rather than later. As a result, you aren't going to be a factor in their long term plans. 

Star players are going to get unequal treatment.... Stafford certainly is asked of his opinion at times. However, the team can listen to him or choose to do something differently. His job is to work with what he is provided with. You know that certain moves are going to have negative consequences short term but you can't let that dictate the future of the whole organization. The Packers had to know that taking Love was going to ruffle Rodgers' feathers. It could turn out to be the best move for the organization long term despite that. I hope not but just another recent example. 

[Sllim Pickens]

4 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

So what would you suggest they have done with Diggs, given that Slay would never have signed off on that trade?

Slay had already held out at the start of training camp with the desire for a new contract. If you're the FO you know that is going to rear its head again in the off-season. So they would have had to look into the future and determine whether Slay fits into their plans or not. If the answer is not, then you're not going to have him influence long term decisions. 

Diggs: Traded in October with team record at 2-4-1. He had a 58.7 PFF grade when the trade was made. He missed two games with us and then missed another three with Seattle. Maybe Diggs was a guy that was being vocal in a way that was counterproductive for what they were trying to accomplish. 

I do agree and feel that it was an error on Patricia's part to not understand the issues with Slay and his circle of players from the 2018 meeting. To have your best player be upset with you to that extent and not know about it until he tells you a year later is not a positive. You do need leaders in the locker room communicating with you and your staff, acting as the go between for the players and the coaches. 

Maybe they should have traded Slay first.  The season was done by the trade deadline, and if they knew they wouldn't keep him trade him first.  Or at least let him know so he doesnt read about it on twitter.  Approach him and say as the leader of our defense we want to let you know we are moving Diggs.  We know he is a friend but his style doesnt fit with our defense and we got a good offer to better the team.  We need you to help keep the locker room together.......

Bottom line, there are various ways to be a good leader, but the best leaders can adapt and know how to read people's motivators and use them in a positive form.  Poor leaders have their way of leading and crap on anyone that doesnt agree with it.  That method is much more doable when you have a proven track record but still is unsustainable. 

[Karnage84]

2 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

If you don't think NE discussed Moss, or letting Welker go with Brady you are delusional.  They did all they could to keep him happy until the last year or two.  I think ignoring that there is a status pyramid in a locker room and treating everyone the same is not the way to build a team given the coach can't be around all of the time.  Its the natural dynamic of sports teams and to not support your best players is a sure way to lead to disaster.  Especially when you don't have any winning under your belt to hang your hat on.  

As a middle manager at your job, are you made aware of anything that happens to your part of the team?  I get not knowing the long term plan or the decision to buy up a couple more subsidiaries but you still have to know whats happening to your team.  If your assistant manager was someone you respected and the company fired him with no warning, it would ruin your moral for your team and your views of that company.   

Which is only important if the company views you as a part of their long term plans for success. If they've been interviewing candidates to take your job and/or restructure the responsibilities into different roles then they aren't going to be overly concerned about your morale. 

What we don't know, and likely never will, is how well Slay fits into the NE/Patricia organizational style.

[Sllim Pickens]

1 minute ago, Karnage84 said:

Which is only important if the company views you as a part of their long term plans for success. If they've been interviewing candidates to take your job and/or restructure the responsibilities into different roles then they aren't going to be overly concerned about your morale. 

What we don't know, and likely never will, is how well Slay fits into the NE/Patricia organizational style.

If they plan to move quickly in moving you out it isn't important.  but if they plan to keep you for 6 more months and want you to be productive and keep your team going in the right direction you have to worry about that persons moral and dedication.  

If they really didnt give a crap about Slay and planned to move on without him, trade him then, when his value is higher as opposed to letting it linger and watch his value plummet.  

[Karnage84]

3 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Maybe they should have traded Slay first.  The season was done by the trade deadline, and if they knew they wouldn't keep him trade him first.  Or at least let him know so he doesnt read about it on twitter.  Approach him and say as the leader of our defense we want to let you know we are moving Diggs.  We know he is a friend but his style doesnt fit with our defense and we got a good offer to better the team.  We need you to help keep the locker room together.......

Bottom line, there are various ways to be a good leader, but the best leaders can adapt and know how to read people's motivators and use them in a positive form.  Poor leaders have their way of leading and crap on anyone that doesnt agree with it.  That method is much more doable when you have a proven track record but still is unsustainable. 

It sounds like they did hear out trade offers and nothing came in that matched what they would have wanted for him. That it was better for them to keep him for the rest of the season and deal with it in the off-season instead of taking pennies on the dollar at the deadline. Had we taken a 2nd for him in a trade, he goes out and has a true Pro Bowl season then the FO would be criticized for having not gotten enough for him. This is still a better return than we received but all of this is being done with hindsight. The Diggs trade was done before Stafford's injury, so even at 2-4-1 the season was not considered to be over. 

[LionArkie]

19 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

If you don't think NE discussed Moss, or letting Welker go with Brady you are delusional.  They did all they could to keep him happy until the last year or two.  I think ignoring that there is a status pyramid in a locker room and treating everyone the same is not the way to build a team given the coach can't be around all of the time.  Its the natural dynamic of sports teams and to not support your best players is a sure way to lead to disaster.  Especially when you don't have any winning under your belt to hang your hat on.  

As a middle manager at your job, are you made aware of anything that happens to your part of the team?  I get not knowing the long term plan or the decision to buy up a couple more subsidiaries but you still have to know whats happening to your team.  If your assistant manager was someone you respected and the company fired him with no warning, it would ruin your moral for your team and your views of that company.   

Delusion is just one of my many unique traits. We have to have it to be Lions' fans.

However, I think we are putting on Slay many attributes here that are not his.

First, Slay is not Brady.  Slay is not even Stafford.  So, no, I don't think personnel decisions should be ran through the second best player on my team and to compare him to a GOAT like Brady is not very accurate.

Second, Slay is not an assistant manager.  He is a player and a worker.  My best worker's have input on things I let them know about.  Not the direction of the company, the department or any software to be used. I appreciate their input, but they aren't hired or fired based on these decisions. They are hired and fired based on performance, which includes team comradeship and following the vision/scope of the company.

Thirdly, letting all the other workers know I'm getting rid of a professional before the professional knows is a crap tactic. I would not do that to the professional I was getting rid of out of courtesy to him. Now if Quinn got rid of him without notifying the coaches, that's a different story.  How would you feel walking out of the doors of your employer knowing everyone knew before you did.  Why would you put that on the other workers?  There is not a lot here to like. This would equally damage the moral.

Fourth, if we are moving Slay anyways, as it was discussed before the Diggs trade to other teams, why then would I value his input? This makes no sense to me.

Edited May 20, 2020 by LionArkie

[Karnage84]

21 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

If you don't think NE discussed Moss, or letting Welker go with Brady you are delusional.  They did all they could to keep him happy until the last year or two.  I think ignoring that there is a status pyramid in a locker room and treating everyone the same is not the way to build a team given the coach can't be around all of the time.  Its the natural dynamic of sports teams and to not support your best players is a sure way to lead to disaster.  Especially when you don't have any winning under your belt to hang your hat on.  

As a middle manager at your job, are you made aware of anything that happens to your part of the team?  I get not knowing the long term plan or the decision to buy up a couple more subsidiaries but you still have to know whats happening to your team.  If your assistant manager was someone you respected and the company fired him with no warning, it would ruin your moral for your team and your views of that company.   

Any QB, especially the GOAT, is always going to be treated differently than the rest of the team. Even so, Stafford isn't going to be treated like he owns the team. Especially not if they don't see him as a piece of the future and are looking to eventually move on. They'll get his requests and then determine how much of that they want to satisfy based on their plans for the direction of the team. That consideration will carry more weight if you are considered to be an integral part of the immediate and long term plans.

Even if they aren't a part of long term plans, you don't have to give it away. If you can afford to hold onto that piece and try to get more value (production and/or trade compensation), it makes sense to do that until you're forced into a decision and/or no longer need the asset at that cost. 

[Sllim Pickens]

27 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

Delusion is just one of my many unique traits. We have to have it to be Lions' fans.

However, I think we are putting on Slay many attributes here that are not his.

First, Slay is not Brady.  Slay is not even Stafford.  So, no, I don't think personnel decisions should be ran through the second best player on my team and to compare him to a GOAT like Brady is not very accurate.

Second, Slay is not an assistant manager.  He is a player and a worker.  My best worker's have input on things I let them know about.  Not the direction of the company, the department or any software to be used. I appreciate their input, but they aren't hired or fired based on these decisions. They are hired and fired based on performance, which includes team comradeship and following the vision/scope of the company.

Thirdly, letting all the other workers know I'm getting rid of a professional before the professional knows is a crap tactic. I would not do that to the professional I was getting rid of out of courtesy to him. Now if Quinn got rid of him without notifying the coaches, that's a different story.  How would you feel walking out of the doors of your employer knowing everyone knew before you did.  Why would you put that on the other workers?  There is not a lot here to like. This would equally damage the moral.

Fourth, if we are moving Slay anyways, as it was discussed before the Diggs trade to other teams, why then would I value his input? This makes no sense to me.

I'm not saying every move goes through Slay.  I am saying when you know they are good friends and are in the same room, you let him know.  And you don't have to prior to moving Diggs, do it right after before Twitter hears it.  Its a small action that will get you back a ton more in return.  No good team has ever been successful by letting the stars or best players in the room get blindsided and be disgruntled.  Sure Slay isnt Brady but he is the best player Detroit has had since Calvin retired.  You don't build a winning culture by trashing the best player because others see that and it kills motivation.  I will guarantee you Blake Griffin was notified that Andre Drummond was getting traded.  If not before it was public I will guarantee they had a meeting with him and the GM/coaches to discuss what they need from him.  Ignore the names, just look at the make up of the team and don't rub those at the top the wrong way, it never works to ignore it.  

[flyguy1609]

the 1 thing i hate about that is trading down(think they said the same thing about the Giants to) it takes 2 teams to make a trade. that shouldn't be why a team "wins or loses" an off-season cause they couldn't trade down the draft.

i thought the whole off-season totally was whatever nothing earth shattering. going be weird not seeing Slay out there. i mean we can still sign a guy or 2 and jump to the top of the off-season winners.

[LionArkie]

1 hour ago, Sllim Pickens said:

I'm not saying every move goes through Slay.  I am saying when you know they are good friends and are in the same room, you let him know.  And you don't have to prior to moving Diggs, do it right after before Twitter hears it.  Its a small action that will get you back a ton more in return.  No good team has ever been successful by letting the stars or best players in the room get blindsided and be disgruntled.  Sure Slay isnt Brady but he is the best player Detroit has had since Calvin retired.  You don't build a winning culture by trashing the best player because others see that and it kills motivation.  I will guarantee you Blake Griffin was notified that Andre Drummond was getting traded.  If not before it was public I will guarantee they had a meeting with him and the GM/coaches to discuss what they need from him.  Ignore the names, just look at the make up of the team and don't rub those at the top the wrong way, it never works to ignore it.  

I can get on board with this.  The one thing we don't know that is if an NFL reporter got wind of this before the trade was finalized and leaked it out to Twitter.  Maybe even from Seattle's side. What do you do then?  I'm not going to sit here and pretend the whole thing wasn't a cluster F---. the wheels were set in motion before the Diggs trade ever happened. but sometimes things that should be done, cant be done for a variety of reasons.

[Sllim Pickens]

57 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

I can get on board with this.  The one thing we don't know that is if an NFL reporter got wind of this before the trade was finalized and leaked it out to Twitter.  Maybe even from Seattle's side. What do you do then?  I'm not going to sit here and pretend the whole thing wasn't a cluster F---. the wheels were set in motion before the Diggs trade ever happened. but sometimes things that should be done, cant be done for a variety of reasons.

Even if it comes out, damage control and do your best to stroke the ego of the best player on your team.  At least enough to try and keep the team together unless you plan on moving that person ASAP.  It just feels this whole thing was mishandled in some way which escalated it to the point of no communication between the two parties.  I know both sides are to blame but I usually say the higher position needs to control himself better to try and keep his group together.