Jump to content
diehardlionfan

Lions @ Falcons

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

I've never understood why you think some context should be relevant and other context shouldn't be.

The team has changed quite a bit in the last two and a half seasons, but Quintricia has remained the same and we're still seeing the same issues in 2020 we've seen since Quintricia was spawned. 

I tend to think that context should be relevant. If it isn't, I'm not sure how much it matters, or why it's worth bringing up.

"It took us a last minute FG to beat Arizona." The posts that follow: "With this regime, collapse is seemingly built into their game plan. That will never change until Quinn and Patricia are gone, regardless of how much the roster changes and how many close games we win."

It's hard to win in the NFL. Losing close games happens. Losing close games with below average QBs happens more often. Referencing 2019 as "context" seems like a poor argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

Doesn’t that same logic apply to the apologist ? Your optimistic approach all offseason seemed centered on close loses to KC and GB early last season.   
 

The lions won the game yesterday,  good for them.  The coaches had arguably there best game of the season ,  good for them.  In a vacuum this would be great.  When your a contender with championship aspersions a win is a win because you know you have a good team.  This team is not very good and are in no way competing for there own division let alone something larger.  So I’m more concerned with how they actually play than whether or not the other team went off and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  The difference between a few bounces making this a 8-8 vs 6-10 team is pretty irrelevant big picture 

Well, really, I referenced the close games against GB and KC to show how everyone else was in full support of Patricia. The close losses with Blough/Driskel instilled more faith in me with Quinn/Patricia than those games against GB and KC.

Those few bounces between 8-8 and 6-10 will likely be the difference between this regime keeping their jobs and a new regime taking over. I'd say they're extremely relevant from a big picture perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

At what point does the 2018 season (and, really, the majority of the 2019 season) stop being relevant? (Serious question. Is there a point in time when that happens?)

I know you didn’t ask me but I think its a really relevant question.

In my opinion, from my perspective the past becomes irrelevant when the goals and objectives are met.

In the case of Quinn and Patricia it’s to attain the next level. So the past is relevant in their regard when the Lions win the NFC North and a playoff game. Barring a definition from Quinn about next level I have to determine what that might look like by my own devices.

As for the team I guess relevance would be changed by becoming an organization that has an on field identity and prolonged on field success. It’s hard to erase decades with a season. Of course a Super Bowl win would offer a reset. 

Its a tough question made tougher by the Lions history. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I know you didn’t ask me but I think its a really relevant question.

In my opinion, from my perspective the past becomes irrelevant when the goals and objectives are met.

In the case of Quinn and Patricia it’s to attain the next level. So the past is relevant in their regard when the Lions win the NFC North and a playoff game. Barring a definition from Quinn about next level I have to determine what that might look like by my own devices.

As for the team I guess relevance would be changed by becoming an organization that has an on field identity and prolonged on field success. It’s hard to erase decades with a season. Of course a Super Bowl win would offer a reset. 

Its a tough question made tougher by the Lions history. 

Very reasonable perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

 

Those few bounces between 8-8 and 6-10 will likely be the difference between this regime keeping their jobs and a new regime taking over. I'd say they're extremely relevant from a big picture perspective.

Unfortunately your probably right,  only because this organization is so god awful. ( my reference was only that it doesn’t actually mean the teams any better or worse )  Maybe if they had someone with at least some monicker of football background to lean on at president instead of Rod Wood they would have fired these clowns already.   What do you do when the only people you can turn to for football advice are the ones your supposed to be judging yourself?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I tend to think that context should be relevant. If it isn't, I'm not sure how much it matters, or why it's worth bringing up.

"It took us a last minute FG to beat Arizona." The posts that follow: "With this regime, collapse is seemingly built into their game plan. That will never change until Quinn and Patricia are gone, regardless of how much the roster changes and how many close games we win."

It's hard to win in the NFL. Losing close games happens. Losing close games with below average QBs happens more often. Referencing 2019 as "context" seems like a poor argument.

So, whenever the context fits your agenda, it's relevant, but whenever it doesn't fit your agenda, it's irrelevant? 

You're miss using quotation marks. I know you're trying to put words in my mouth but I've never said that about Quinn and Patricia. I've said repeatedly I'd love for them to prove me wrong, I just doubt they have the ability to. 

The players change, but the behavior has remained the same. It seems like it would be ignoring a lot of relevant context to repeatedly blame all the players (who were brought in by BQ and told what to do by MP) and expect different results when the common denominator remains the same. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

Unfortunately your probably right,  only because this organization is so god awful. ( my reference was only that it doesn’t actually mean the teams any better or worse )  Maybe if they had someone with at least some monicker of football background to lean on at president instead of Rod Wood they would have fired these clowns already.   What do you do when the only people you can turn to for football advice are the ones your supposed to be judging yourself?  

It's a good question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

So, whenever the context fits your agenda, it's relevant, but whenever it doesn't fit your agenda, it's irrelevant? 

You're miss using quotation marks. I know you're trying to put words in my mouth but I've never said that about Quinn and Patricia. I've said repeatedly I'd love for them to prove me wrong, I just doubt they have the ability to. 

The players change, but the behavior has remained the same. It seems like it would be ignoring a lot of relevant context to repeatedly blame all the players (who were brought in by BQ and told what to do by MP) and expect different results when the common denominator remains the same. 

I don't think I'm doing that. Part of discussion is discerning which information is relevant and which is not. It's my opinion that the team has changed drastically from 2018, and that having Stafford on the field makes this team vastly different than an offense without him. Relying on stats from 2018 and half of 2019 to make a point seems like the point made wouldn't be relevant to this roster.

If you'd love for them to prove you wrong, why do you seem to always discount their successes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Very reasonable perspective.

It was a good question and one I hope everyone thinks about. I’ve been verbal about my dissatisfaction with Quinn and Patricia. I don’t think they’ve done a very good job to date. That said they’ve brought the team to .500 without trades. They’ve just beaten two teams that I don’t perceive as very good. But those are still wins against NFL teams and count in the standings. Odd plays, bad calls are all part of the game. Sometimes they go against you and sometimes they help so I don’t  view them as material in my assessment. A game offers numerous opportunities to win or lose. Atlanta didn’t lose because of one play nor did Detroit win as a result. Detroit was given the last opportunity to win, and they did. 

So I’m paying attention. While one can consider competition level the team can only beat the team in front of them and the defence has played much better. Okwara had a game as did Flowers, Shelton and Penisini. I’m looking forward to next weeks game. They play a more successful team and we shall see if there is continued improvement. Can they re establish the running game. Will Patricia continue with zone coverages and the commitment to stopping the run? How much of the improvement, if any, is a mirage? 

I’ve mentioned it before but I’m going to repeat myself. I’ve been a Lions fan since Alex Karras and the original fearsome foursome created havoc. I remember how many times it was, better luck next year. I always thought they would win a championship. I no longer expect that but I sure would like to see a playoff win or two, and an appearance in the NFC championship. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was nice to be the team that actually got lucky for once. But let's be honest - we had to get lucky with Gurley going in for us to win that game. 

It was mostly a better effort from the team and coaching staff overall. I'm really getting tired of seeing Peterson in there though - it's just too predictable and he has way too may short gains on first and second down. He's not the same guy anymore. He's better than Blount was a couple of years ago, but he's not a 15 carry guy anymore. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lions017 said:

It was nice to be the team that actually got lucky for once. But let's be honest - we had to get lucky with Gurley going in for us to win that game. 

It was mostly a better effort from the team and coaching staff overall. I'm really getting tired of seeing Peterson in there though - it's just too predictable and he has way too may short gains on first and second down. He's not the same guy anymore. He's better than Blount was a couple of years ago, but he's not a 15 carry guy anymore. 

No doubt. But, man... that drive was pretty amazing. Stafford had to every yard on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lions017 said:

It was nice to be the team that actually got lucky for once. But let's be honest - we had to get lucky with Gurley going in for us to win that game. 

It was mostly a better effort from the team and coaching staff overall. I'm really getting tired of seeing Peterson in there though - it's just too predictable and he has way too may short gains on first and second down. He's not the same guy anymore. He's better than Blount was a couple of years ago, but he's not a 15 carry guy anymore. 

Agree, I’ve been an AD fan since watching him in the high school AA game.  I felt pretty quickly he was the best rb prospect I’d ever seen.  He’s still even at this age a fairly effective runner, however predictable and that’s really been a problem for him ever since the modern evolution of the game ramped up.  It looks to me like Swift not only deserves more touches but he really needs to be one of the overall focal parts of the offense.  Everything just seems to open up a little more when he’s out there and to me at least it seems like he gets open just about every time he goes out into a route.  He just needs to learn that sometimes you just gotta hit the burner and go, can’t pull off the sweet madden move every time 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I don't think I'm doing that. Part of discussion is discerning which information is relevant and which is not. It's my opinion that the team has changed drastically from 2018, and that having Stafford on the field makes this team vastly different than an offense without him. Relying on stats from 2018 and half of 2019 to make a point seems like the point made wouldn't be relevant to this roster.

If you'd love for them to prove you wrong, why do you seem to always discount their successes?

The problems plaguing this team (collapsing) have plagued this team from the start of Patricia, and have been continuous throughout his tenure. I don't have all 32 teams medical reports in front of me, but it seems like we're one of the healthier teams in the NFL right now. The Lions have collapsed at full strength, at half strength, with Stafford and without Stafford. They've shown the tendency to fold with Patricia's 1st batch of coaching buddies and with his second batch of coaching pals, with one off season to sign NE castoffs and with all the NE castoffs they could get signed in three off seasons.

The one constant is Quintricia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nnivolcm said:

The problems plaguing this team (collapsing) have plagued this team from the start of Patricia, and have been continuous throughout his tenure. I don't have all 32 teams medical reports in front of me, but it seems like we're one of the healthier teams in the NFL right now. The Lions have collapsed at full strength, at half strength, with Stafford and without Stafford. They've shown the tendency to fold with Patricia's 1st batch of coaching buddies and with his second batch of coaching pals, with one off season to sign NE castoffs and with all the NE castoffs they could get signed in three off seasons.

The one constant is Quintricia. 

Sure, collapses have happened. I'm not denying that.

I am suggesting that collapses that happened without Stafford are close to irrelevant as to how this team can/should close out games with him.

It seems like we can just agree to disagree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Sure, collapses have happened. I'm not denying that.

I am suggesting that collapses that happened without Stafford are close to irrelevant as to how this team can/should close out games with him.

It seems like we can just agree to disagree.

Closing out a game with a lead is on the defense.  So its both ways. Our defenses have allowed the other teams back in with bad coaching choices and not putting players in a spot to succeed.  I get that its somewhat different with Stafford as he helps a little on offense to keep the ball (or should but doesnt seem to always be the case) and therefore its ok to use that defensive data in analyzing Patricia.  The majority of the leads lost, have come with us trying t sit back and let them pick us apart with no pressure.  Its a form of the prevent defense that only prevents you from winning, and that has little to do with Stafford. 

  • Like 1

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...