Jump to content
Karnage84

A LOOK AT A POST QUINTRICIA LIONS

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

The problem that I have in separating them out is:

- Record under Caldwell was 18-14

- He's really hit on some mid-round guys (A'Shawn, Glasgow, Dahl in '16; Kenny G in '17; Walker, Hand, Crosby in '18; Amani in '19; Jackson and Cephus in '20).

- He's also made some poorer picks in the upper rounds (Davis, Teez, Hock at #8, Tavai). The key to a good GM is getting it right with your top picks as well as hitting on some gems and good depth pieces with your lower end picks. 

- He generally does a really good job at structuring contracts and managing the cap. I looked at the Saints roster yesterday. That is a mess and it'll get worse next year while the Lions are in good shape and can roll some cap space over from this year to help even more

- He's given hefty contracts to former Patriots guys (even if well structured) that aren't playing to the standard of their contract value. I understood why they were brought on (position needs, scheme needs) but it has to work for people to buy in that they were the right moves

The way I see it, he does good in the draft for the most part. I can't emphasize for the most part enough. TE at 8 was not cool.  I think he has made some decent trades...kind of. I think some that he had to get rid of were due to his coach, Diggs and Slay which I believe hurt this team. The trade Tate for Snacks I felt like was a good one, but Patricia turned him off as well.

I think he absolutely sucks in FA.  Yes he does well with the cap, but at the expense of the team. At least that's how I see it. The Saints might have a mess with their cap, but at least they're always in the conversation of playoffs and superbowl. Whereas Detroit is always in the conversation for the top pick.  Give me the Saints cap issues any day.
His coaching hire has sucked. His decision making has sucked. His haircut sucks and Honolulu Blue looks terrible on him. I gave him a chance against my better judgement and now I want him gone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

Any coach that fails in years one and two is likely to be a failure in general.  Of course there are outliers like Kyle Shanahan last year but even he is struggling hard with some key injuries this year.  Good coaches show up in games, even if you don't win.  You see progress, you see them battle, and eventually they get over the hump.  You have to be innovative in the NFL and you have to not shun your stars because of ego (Patricia, Gase, O'Brien, McDaniels) oddly enough all are NE folks or Gase who worked under McDaniels in Denver.  Patricia took a 9-7 team and made us a 6 win team.  then he took us lower without Stafford but also had one of the worst defenses in the history of the league.  Then he ran our best defensive player out of town.  I agree a coach should have three years if they are trending in the right direction but why waste time if they are not.  I hate the Browns but at least they spotted failures early with Kitchens when they gave him a talented team and look where they are now.  We had a pretty talented roster and just needed a couple pieces.  Honestly most NFL rosters are just a couple pieces and a HC away so when you fail for two/three years, you have to move on. 

We've gone over this before but I don't hold Patricia 100% accountable for what happened with Slay. I hold him about 33% accountable with Slay holding the remaining 66% (1/3 being personal and the other 1/3 being financial). Patricia should not have taken the approach that he did and really should  have had a better handle on his locker room. Slay, as a locker room leader, should have talked to his HC and aired out his dirty laundry instead of holding a grudge. Throw in the demand for a new contract and it pushed things over the edge. I don't know what people are talking about when they throw Snacks into this same mix. Snacks played really well for us, got paid and then didn't show up at all. He wasn't playing at a Pro Bowl level and then had a falling out with MP before being let go.

Kitchens and Patricia aren't in the same stratosphere. Kitchens went from QB coach to HC in a year. When a guy like that is elevated too quickly, you can realize that he's in way over his head. With Patricia, he does have a plan and he has structure. Whether he has the capability to execute that plan and maintain that structure is a different story, which we have seen so far not be successful. 

I agree, after enough time (approximately 3 years) you have to move on. The Cardinals went 3-13 in Steve Wilks' first and only year, then hired Kingsbury. He went 5-10-1 in his first year, which is better but not much. The Cardinals are currently sitting at 3-2 with an explosive offense. Kingsbury was a huge risk that is fortunately for them, paying off. I don't know if he would be as successful if he didn't have the #1 overall pick and Kyler Murray, who was very familiar with his offensive scheme, available. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

The way I see it, he does good in the draft for the most part. I can't emphasize for the most part enough. TE at 8 was not cool.  I think he has made some decent trades...kind of. I think some that he had to get rid of were due to his coach, Diggs and Slay which I believe hurt this team. The trade Tate for Snacks I felt like was a good one, but Patricia turned him off as well.

I think he absolutely sucks in FA.  Yes he does well with the cap, but at the expense of the team. At least that's how I see it. The Saints might have a mess with their cap, but at least they're always in the conversation of playoffs and superbowl. Whereas Detroit is always in the conversation for the top pick.  Give me the Saints cap issues any day.
His coaching hire has sucked. His decision making has sucked. His haircut sucks and Honolulu Blue looks terrible on him. I gave him a chance against my better judgement and now I want him gone.

TJ Hockenson might wind up as the next HOF TE... I still believe that we should have taken that Pittsburgh trade (assuming it was available to us). 

Diggs was definitely a personality clash but he also struggled on the field as well. His PFF score with us in 2019 was 58.7. If you're not bringing much to the table and you're a pain off the field, you aren't going to be sticking around for too long. With the Seahawks, Diggs had a PFF score of 87.8 in 2019 and currently has a PFF score of 52.2. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

I mostly agree with you here. There should be indicators in year two which we didn't have, buuuutttt losing Stafford makes it really hard to know what you have and evaluate accordingly.  Also, the drop off in play with Snacks last year didn't help matters either for the defense.  MP did show when he had the right pieces in place he could get a top 10 defense.  I think not enough is being made about this.  Does this overshadow the locker room issues? I don't think it does. I think MP is not a good coach and is made to look worse due to the roster BQ has given him. I also think MP isn't helping  BQ at all with running players off.

I don't think he ever had a top 10 D.  I know Snacks came late in the year but we finished 16th in the league that year.  Yes we had good games against Arizona, Buffalo, and GB but AZ and Buf had nothing on offense and GB sat everyone because they were in the playoffs and Kizer was the QB.  The Rams, Bears x2, Vikings, and Seahawks all whooped us and put up big numbers.  

Aside from that, if you do think he can coach with the right pieces, why did he not replace Snacks?  Why run your best CB out of town instead of swallowing pride and coming to an understanding with him?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

TJ Hockenson might wind up as the next HOF TE... I still believe that we should have taken that Pittsburgh trade (assuming it was available to us). 

Diggs was definitely a personality clash but he also struggled on the field as well. His PFF score with us in 2019 was 58.7. If you're not bringing much to the table and you're a pain off the field, you aren't going to be sticking around for too long. With the Seahawks, Diggs had a PFF score of 87.8 in 2019 and currently has a PFF score of 52.2. 

 

I still don't want Hock at 8. Sorry, I just don't value any TE there. Give me a big ugly, or give me qb at that spot.

Diggs wasn't performing, but he had control and respect of the locker room as a team captain.  There is no pff score that can measure this.  You can argue he needed to go because HE was the pain, but I don't think that's the case. Also in your post above mentioning Snacks, you're right, he had a bad year after he got paid. He deserved to be released. His off year has cost the defense any sort of legitimacy.  I've referenced this in Patricia's defense. However, Snacks had a bad year, so did Diggs, until he went to a different coach and then his pff score skyrocketed. Several other players had off years.  It is starting to become a pattern. Could it be possible not enjoying playing for Patricia made them not put forth as much of an effort? Could it also be possible the game planning didn't put in a position to succeed?  If we just isolate Snacks, Quinn, or Slay, then yes it is an individual player issue more than likely.  However, it appears to be a pattern with a lot of the players. I know I've worked with leaders who I'd do anything for. Then I've worked with guys  who will take all the credit and are complete jack *****. I'm not going to do anything for them. Does Patricia take all the credit? Well he did come up with a goal line stop in the super bowl.

Edited by LionArkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

I don't think he ever had a top 10 D.  I know Snacks came late in the year but we finished 16th in the league that year.  Yes we had good games against Arizona, Buffalo, and GB but AZ and Buf had nothing on offense and GB sat everyone because they were in the playoffs and Kizer was the QB.  The Rams, Bears x2, Vikings, and Seahawks all whooped us and put up big numbers.  

Aside from that, if you do think he can coach with the right pieces, why did he not replace Snacks?  Why run your best CB out of town instead of swallowing pride and coming to an understanding with him?  

We finished 16th, but I thought from the time Snacks got here it was a top 10. I could be wrong and frankly, I'm too lazy to look it up.
As far as the last statement, if the "you" is directed at me, I don't know if he can coach with the right pieces.  In fact, I don't think he is anything more than a 5-7 win coach.  I just think BQ is a sucky GM who didn't get him the right pieces. MP looks much better when he has a functioning Dline.

If the "you" is referring to BQ then as I stated, this is one of the reasons I believe BQ sucks.

Edited by LionArkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

We've gone over this before but I don't hold Patricia 100% accountable for what happened with Slay. I hold him about 33% accountable with Slay holding the remaining 66% (1/3 being personal and the other 1/3 being financial). Patricia should not have taken the approach that he did and really should  have had a better handle on his locker room. Slay, as a locker room leader, should have talked to his HC and aired out his dirty laundry instead of holding a grudge. Throw in the demand for a new contract and it pushed things over the edge. I don't know what people are talking about when they throw Snacks into this same mix. Snacks played really well for us, got paid and then didn't show up at all. He wasn't playing at a Pro Bowl level and then had a falling out with MP before being let go.

Kitchens and Patricia aren't in the same stratosphere. Kitchens went from QB coach to HC in a year. When a guy like that is elevated too quickly, you can realize that he's in way over his head. With Patricia, he does have a plan and he has structure. Whether he has the capability to execute that plan and maintain that structure is a different story, which we have seen so far not be successful. 

I agree, after enough time (approximately 3 years) you have to move on. The Cardinals went 3-13 in Steve Wilks' first and only year, then hired Kingsbury. He went 5-10-1 in his first year, which is better but not much. The Cardinals are currently sitting at 3-2 with an explosive offense. Kingsbury was a huge risk that is fortunately for them, paying off. I don't know if he would be as successful if he didn't have the #1 overall pick and Kyler Murray, who was very familiar with his offensive scheme, available. 

Blame whoever you want for Slay, but Patricia started it with his ego and having to show he was the big guy in town.  Respect is earned, especially from an established player, and he went about it wrong, similarly to how all of those guys I mentioned have done and they ended up moving their star players and not shockingly being a worse team and then being fired for failing.  Patricia needed his stars to buy in and he went about it all wrong.  

In year one there was talks of Patricia running late for meetings, not being mature in his position, and having issues with players.  He seemed about as over his head as Kitchens was and the records showed that.  I think he had about as much of a plan as Kitchens as now the plan is fill in guys that he worked with before and hope for the best.  He isnt adapting to his team/players, he hasn't brought a new shiny system he developed like McVay, he is trying to re-create NE and that plan does not work anywhere.  

The Cardinals took a risk and they are still questionable, as they did lose to us.  But at least Kingsbury is showing progress and that team is improving.  Good coaches show progress, not regression.  No coach has regressed three years in a row and turned into a star head coach.  Each year is too valuable in the NFL, careers are short for players so you can't mess around wasting years with bad coaches. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

We finished 16th, but I thought from the time Snacks got here it was a top 10. I could be wrong and frankly, I'm too lazy to look it up.
As far as the last statement, if the "you" is directed at me, I don't know if he can coach with the right pieces.  In fact, I don't think he is anything more than a 5-7 win coach.  I just think BQ is a sucky GM who didn't get him the right pieces. MP looks much better when he has a functioning Dline.

If the "you" is referring to BQ, then as I stated, this is one of the reasons I believe BQ sucks.

They may have been top 10 the last 8 weeks of 18 but they played Josh Rosen (301 yards, 3 points), Deshaun Kizer (204 total yards, 0 points), and a rookie Josh Allen(321 yards, 14 points).  Minny put up 27 points, Rams 30, Bears with Trubisky put up 34, Bears with Chase Daniel put up 23, and the Seahawks put up 28.  They did keep the Panthers to 19.  Pre-snacks they did give up 48 to Darnold and the Jets and 30 to a bad 49ers team.  No D even without Snacks should allow 48 points from Sam Darnold.  But if you take away those three games against bad QBs and RBs, we are right at the bottom of the league in yards allowed and scoring D. 

The point is a GM and head coach can't be separate entities. They are working for the same goal and need to work together.  So if they are as good of friends as expected given he fired a winning coach and brought his buddy in, they should be able to communicate what Patricia thinks the needs are.  If they can't determine that and/or communicate it between them, they need to both go and I won't put it on one or the other separately.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This week will be a quality showing if Coach Matt Patricia is a good or bad coach. He's had 2 weeks to prepare for an extremely average team. The defense is not good. The offense is average with only a couple play makers and the QB doesn't have a strong arm. 

It is away, but that's hardly an excuse right now.

Game plan should be stop the run, man up, blitz the line. 

Offensively it'd be the game to air it out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sllim Pickens said:

They may have been top 10 the last 8 weeks of 18 but they played Josh Rosen (301 yards, 3 points), Deshaun Kizer (204 total yards, 0 points), and a rookie Josh Allen(321 yards, 14 points).  Minny put up 27 points, Rams 30, Bears with Trubisky put up 34, Bears with Chase Daniel put up 23, and the Seahawks put up 28.  They did keep the Panthers to 19.  Pre-snacks they did give up 48 to Darnold and the Jets and 30 to a bad 49ers team.  No D even without Snacks should allow 48 points from Sam Darnold.  But if you take away those three games against bad QBs and RBs, we are right at the bottom of the league in yards allowed and scoring D. 

The point is a GM and head coach can't be separate entities. They are working for the same goal and need to work together.  So if they are as good of friends as expected given he fired a winning coach and brought his buddy in, they should be able to communicate what Patricia thinks the needs are.  If they can't determine that and/or communicate it between them, they need to both go and I won't put it on one or the other separately.  

I definitely don't disagree with you so I hope it's not coming out as I am.  I'm not for separating them out either. I want both of them gone.  If I was the Lions owner, I'd have had MP fired at the bye week regardless if I thought BQ gave MP the pieces or not.  It would allow me to ensure BQ was in fact the cause of the issue and not MP. So if miraculously the interim coach had a turn around season and some how made the playoffs, I'd have to look a little closer at the situation.  In the end unless we had a playoff win, all parties would be terminated. That is where I am approaching any sort of separation from.  However, I would have been perfectly fine with firing everyone at the bye as well.

In terms of my weak defense of MP, all I'm saying is MP truly Marinelli bad? I'm not sure he's that bad of a coach, as I feel BQ did more to fail him with the needed pieces. He also didn't do himself any favors either. I still want this clown gone though.  I'm just more of a centrist when I consider things and put it out there for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SimbaWho said:

This week will be a quality showing if Coach Matt Patricia is a good or bad coach. He's had 2 weeks to prepare for an extremely average team. The defense is not good. The offense is average with only a couple play makers and the QB doesn't have a strong arm. 

It is away, but that's hardly an excuse right now.

Game plan should be stop the run, man up, blitz the line. 

Offensively it'd be the game to air it out. 

I fully expect the Lions to win this week. If memory serves me correct, MP hasn't lost a game after the bye week.
If they lose, I hope he is fired. I mean I hope he is fired anyways, but I hope it speeds up that process.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

I definitely don't disagree with you so I hope it's not coming out as I am.  I'm not for separating them out either. I want both of them gone.  If I was the Lions owner, I'd have had MP fired at the bye week regardless if I thought BQ gave MP the pieces or not.  It would allow me to ensure BQ was in fact the cause of the issue and not MP. So if miraculously the interim coach had a turn around season and some how made the playoffs, I'd have to look a little closer at the situation.  In the end unless we had a playoff win, all parties would be terminated. That is where I am approaching any sort of separation from.  However, I would have been perfectly fine with firing everyone at the bye as well.

In terms of my weak defense of MP, all I'm saying is MP truly Marinelli bad? I'm not sure he's that bad of a coach, as I feel BQ did more to fail him with the needed pieces. He also didn't do himself any favors either. I still want this clown gone though.  I'm just more of a centrist when I consider things and put it out there for discussion.

I feel that he should have been fired this week but they might be looking at the next several weeks and expect that he can turn this thing around. If he does lose against the Jaguars, he should be fired immediately. Patricia has a major uphill battle IMO to keep his job. 

Whether it was right or wrong, Caldwell went 1-7 and the Lions kept him. He then finished off the year 6-2 to go 7-9. He then rattled off back to back 9-7 years. 

Edited by Karnage84
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Lions fans.  I was wondering about Shelton.  He had that great season in New England and it doesn't look like you are paying him all that much.  Do you see getting rid of him, and if so, how come?  He seems like he would be a pretty good deal for what you're paying him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 6:58 PM, Karnage84 said:

I don't make excuses. My positions are pretty clear.

- Jim Caldwell is an average coach. He is "Lions good" which isn't and wasn't going to get it done. It was the right thing to move on from him and had we kept him, we would not be in much of a different position

- Any coach should be given 3 off-seasons to fulfill their vision for their team unless there's a complete meltdown and they go 0-16. With forward progress, year 5 is another benchmark on whether they are now a playoff and/or SB contender. If not, it's likely time to find someone else

Ultimately, I have practiced patience and allowed the process to unfold. Now that it has, the clear direction is that Patricia and possibly Quinn aren't the guys to get it done. They are linked but I would still want to look at both guys individually. Just because I didn't want to fire Matt Patricia on the first day of his hiring doesn't mean that I'm making excuses. 

Dude. This. 100% my perspective from the beginning.

And, if the Lions were to somehow make the playoffs this year, or if Patricia became a successful coach in DET, I wouldn't pretend that I was "right" about anything. I never said that he would be. I argued that it was simply too early to tell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 8:35 AM, Sllim Pickens said:

Any coach that fails in years one and two is likely to be a failure in general.

I agree, but I still don't pull the plug.

I don't hold last year against Patricia and Quinn. I wanted them to lose without Stafford, and they lost without Stafford. If Okudah ends up being an elite, franchise CB, he was only available because they chose to lose when they knew they wouldn't be able to win enough for it to matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...