A LOOK AT A POST QUINTRICIA LIONS

[Karnage84]

4 minutes ago, diehardlionfan said:

I see absolutely no way to verify the team would’ve been in the same place. Patricia was a gamble that has failed. Caldwell assisting Quinn in free agency and the draft would’ve resulted in a different roster. I don’t think there’s any way the Lions regress as much with Caldwell in the picture. Suggesting such discredits what positives Caldwell accomplished in Detroit and suggests Patricia is a better coach than results indicate. 

The Lions brain trust put a rookie GM in charge of selecting a head coach. A process he’s never been involved in prior. So, ownership assigns Wolfe to assist. Two people, no input from players, or ownership. Simple briefings to the owners. Then you look at who interviewed and it’s obvious Quinn wanted his guy. It was no secret Quinn wanted Patricia from the start. 

I don’t even mind that he wanted his guy. However, he was wrong and should be held accountable. 

We saw Caldwell with two GM's: Mayhew and Caldwell. We have seen what he is without Peyton Manning. 

I'm not dismissing Caldwell entirely as a coach. He is an average to slightly above average HC that brought some good qualities to Detroit and won some games while he also had flaws that I don't believe he would have overcome. We seem to be assuming that Caldwell had no input in the players during his tenure. Even if we want to use Quinn's own words against him, he has indicated that he did have some difficulty scouting players for a different system than he was accustomed to. He was scouting players for Caldwell and specific to the offensive and defensive schemes that JC wanted to run, not for what Bob Quinn preferred. 

It's possible there is some slight variation in the guys selected during his tenure but we're probably not in a very different situation than we are now. 

[Nnivolcm]

1 hour ago, LionArkie said:

One thing I think worth exploring is if BQ gave Caldwell a worse roster, isn't it also plausible MP received a very poor roster and may not be as bad as advertised? Don't get me wrong, I didn't suddenly become a MP apologist, but doesn't the logic work the same?  We see when BQ got Snacks, a vastly different defense for MP occurred. I don't remember the rank, but wasn't it top 10? BQ has failed to build the defensive line and that has killed the Lions. Do we really think Caldwell would do better with this same defense?

MP quickly drove Snacks, and other talented players, away. He has had an impact on the talent level of the roster, and not a good impact.

[Nnivolcm]

59 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

It's possible there is some slight variation in the guys selected during his tenure but we're probably not in a very different situation than we are now. 

This statement is based on nothing but fantasy. 

[LionArkie]

6 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

MP quickly drove Snacks, and other talented players, away. He has had an impact on the talent level of the roster, and not a good impact.

Absolutely agree with you on this. This argument alone is why I would prefer Caldwell over MP and BQ.  However, in terms of x's and o's and given the exact same roster, is Caldwell the better coach? I understand this is a hypothetical vacuum, but really the last few pages have been this. I'm not certain Caldwell would have faired any better than Patricia did and I'm using Indy's 2-14 record 2 years after a superbowl as my basis.
Once again, this is more me saying BQ failed the team and no coach is going to win with the crap he gave them.  This is not necessarily a knock on Caldwell or MP.

[Karnage84]

9 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

This statement is based on nothing but fantasy. 

None of what any of us are talking about is based on anything else but meaningless opinions and fantasy. You're assuming that Caldwell would be at a championship level with a different GM. Based on what? I'm open to actual evidence but everything at this point (including from myself) is just hyperbole. 

[Nnivolcm]

3 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

None of what any of us are talking about is based on anything else but meaningless opinions and fantasy. You're assuming that Caldwell would be at a championship level with a different GM. Based on what? I'm open to actual evidence but everything at this point (including from myself) is just hyperbole. 

You've repeatedly ignored actual evidence and tried to spin good things as bad while throwing out fantasy as factual. 

[Nnivolcm]

3 hours ago, LionArkie said:

However, in terms of x's and o's and given the exact same roster, is Caldwell the better coach?

I understand this is a hypothetical vacuum, but really the last few pages have been this. I'm not certain Caldwell would have faired any better than Patricia did and I'm using Indy's 2-14 record 2 years after a superbowl as my basis.
Once again, this is more me saying BQ failed the team and no coach is going to win with the crap he gave them.  This is not necessarily a knock on Caldwell or MP.

Yes.

Indy's roster was carried by Manning. When he got hurt he was replaced by Curtis Painter, who is a poor back up QB and terrible starting QB imo, the team was doomed to fail.  

[LionArkie]

7 hours ago, Nnivolcm said:

Yes.

Indy's roster was carried by Manning. When he got hurt he was replaced by Curtis Painter, who is a poor back up QB and terrible starting QB imo, the team was doomed to fail.  

Agreed. Which was exactly what happened to Detroit last year. If it is not an excuse for Patricia, then it cannot be one for Caldwell.

Edited October 15, 2020 by LionArkie

[Karnage84]

11 hours ago, Nnivolcm said:

You've repeatedly ignored actual evidence and tried to spin good things as bad while throwing out fantasy as factual. 

Then clear it up for me. Show me in a post below here, how exactly Caldwell would have been more successful with a GM of his own. Don't say "read past posts". Lay it out in a clear and straightforward manner based on pure facts. 

[SimbaWho]

59 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

Then clear it up for me. Show me in a post below here, how exactly Caldwell would have been more successful with a GM of his own. Don't say "read past posts". Lay it out in a clear and straightforward manner based on pure facts. 

 

I mean it's a made up argument. I think what the people are saying is the Lions might of just been better off rolling with Caldwell for these last 3 years vs essentially hitting the reset button on the team with Stafford in his prime. 

Caldwell/Quinn seem to have better drafts/signings than Quinntricia. 

For the record I wanted to move on from Caldwell too, cause I wanted playoffs wins/super bowl and the Lions publicly sold that idea to the fans. Logical to think they'd of went after a clear upgrade in coaching but they rolled the dice on a first timer! I expected a move like the Pistons/Red Wings made to get Brown/Bowman/Babcock. A clear upgrade, cause Caldwell's in game management was honestly really bad. His players played though, and they had good game plans most of the time, though they never adjusted in time. Those teams did beat who they were suppose to beat though. 

 

This next rebuild I think will be a little more exciting and I'm not sure it'll be a 4 year process like people are suggesting. Couple right signings, a good draft, and the teams gonna get competitive year 1. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by SimbaWho

[BigC421/]

13 hours ago, Nnivolcm said:

Yes.

Indy's roster was carried by Manning. When he got hurt he was replaced by Curtis Painter, who is a poor back up QB and terrible starting QB imo, the team was doomed to fail.  

Indy’s roster was way more talented than people want to give it credit for, frankly they were loaded all over the field.  Everything about the team however was specifically built for Manning  and furthermore it was designed to be complex, because Manning could handle it, they weren’t interested in a back up plan it was super bowl or bust every year.  If u throw some dolt behind a super computer and he can’t figure out how to use it, that doesn’t mean the computer doesn’t work. 

[Nnivolcm]

9 hours ago, LionArkie said:

Agreed. Which was exactly what happened to Detroit last year. If it is not an excuse for Patricia, then it cannot be one for Caldwell.

Stafford is not Peyton Manning. Patricia has a losing record with Stafford. Caldwell had a winning record with Manning.

I think Patricia is a bad head coach and should be fired, but BQ is a worse GM and also needs to be let go. 

[Nnivolcm]

6 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

Then clear it up for me. Show me in a post below here, how exactly Caldwell would have been more successful with a GM of his own. Don't say "read past posts". Lay it out in a clear and straightforward manner based on pure facts. 

Why focus on imaginary hypotheticals when we have actual reality to look at? Caldwell has been the HC with 3 difference GMs and has been more successful with each of them than Patricia has been with the guy he was hand picked to work with because they know each other so well. 

You've repeatedly stated we need more than 2 years of Quintricia to pass judgement on them, but are so certain Caldwell and BQ had peaked after the same two year time span?

BQ had a goal of firing Caldwell and hiring his buddy. He sold you the story Caldwell had peaked, without any evidence supporting it. You bought the story hook line and sinker. Hindsight has effectively proven Caldwell wasn't the one holding the organization back. 

As for a post here showing Caldwell is more effective look at your post where you try to say winning close games is a bad thing. I know you've been Quintricia'd but winning close games is preferable to losing them. 

[Karnage84]

1 minute ago, Nnivolcm said:

Why focus on imaginary hypotheticals when we have actual reality to look at? 1) Caldwell has been the HC with 3 difference GMs and has been more successful with each of them than Patricia has been with the guy he was hand picked to work with because they know each other so well. 

2) You've repeatedly stated we need more than 2 years of Quintricia to pass judgement on them, but are so certain Caldwell and BQ had peaked after the same two year time span?

BQ had a goal of firing Caldwell and hiring his buddy. 3) He sold you the story Caldwell had peaked, without any evidence supporting it. You bought the story hook line and sinker. Hindsight has effectively proven Caldwell wasn't the one holding the organization back. 

As for a post here showing Caldwell is more effective look at your post where you try to say winning close games is a bad thing. I know you've been Quintricia'd but winning close games is preferable to losing them. 

1) We aren't comparing Caldwell to Patricia. Make the case for Caldwell as a stand alone coach and how much better off we/he would be now, under a different GM. Demonstrate with evidence on whether, going into 2021 we would/wouldn't be looking to hire a new HC and/or GM if Jim Caldwell was our current HC. 

2) Caldwell had 4 years while Patricia has had 2+. My position is that Patricia should be given 3 years to fulfill his vision for the team. Patricia has had 3 off-seasons and the expectation (mine anyway) is that we should be seeing progress now in year 3. Since that has not been the case, it is why I have moved from "be patient" to "this isn't working" and willing to move on. 

3) Without a HOF QB, Caldwell has been 2-14, 11-5, 7-9. 9-7, 9-7. Never won the division and eliminated as a Wild Card twice. He struggled to provide a complimentary rushing game and defense, which forced the team to win on Stafford's arm. I'm not saying that he isn't a good coach. I believe that he brought the team as far as he could and was going to. 

4) Winning is always better than losing, however that pendulum can easily swing the other way when you don't have complimentary pieces. Without a balanced offense and a complimentary defense, which has been Caldwells MO during his tenure, pinning our hopes on winning close games by coming back in the 4th quarter is going to backfire. 

 

Again - lay out the evidence that Jim Caldwell for the years of 2018, 2019 and 2020 would have the Detroit Lions in a different position where a) we are competing for a division title, b) competing for the playoffs and c) having an improved roster under a different GM. 

[LionArkie]

48 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

Stafford is not Peyton Manning. Patricia has a losing record with Stafford. Caldwell had a winning record with Manning.

I think Patricia is a bad head coach and should be fired, but BQ is a worse GM and also needs to be let go. 

My argument is not if Patricia is a bad coach as I believe he is.  Nor is my argument BQ is a good GM, I believe he isn't.  I agree with everything you are saying above and think you make a good point that Caldwell is better with Manning than Stafford is with Patricia. Although as you stated Stafford is no Peyton Manning, doesn't that mean Caldwell should have the better record with Manning than MP does with Stafford? Wouldn't that speak more about Manning than it would Caldwell?
My statement has been this: If Caldwell was here in Detroit with the exact same roster as Patricia (never mind Patricia running players off for this example), would Caldwell have a better record? I don't think he would.
In the end, we will never know.

Edited October 15, 2020 by LionArkie