Lions fire HC Matt Patricia & GM Bob Quinn; Darrell Bevell to be interim HC

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

9 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

Completely lost me at touting the Packers for anything. They have had one of the best QBs in NFL history and have one Super Bowl appearance. They have clearly not given him enough help, so whatever their strategy was for building a team, it was the wrong one.

Shots.

[ET80]

34 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

What?  No, they didn't.  They had Shaun King, Josh McCown and John Navarre in 2004. 
In 2005 they lost Shaun King and added Rohan Davey

McCown was their guy back then, he was the unquestioned starter going into camp that year - so the Cardinals had their guy, should they throw it away or should they try to build around that guy?

They needed to see what they had - why draft another QB when the guy they have could be that guy they wanted?

Next year was Warner - who had a better career as a Cardinal than Rivers had as a Charger, I don't think you can argue otherwise.

34 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

He already had a 1,000 yard rushing season with the Ravens. 

I'm very well aware of that. That's 1,000 behind what Lewis did in that system during his best year and about 700 TYFS less than what Holmes averaged with KC.

In this line of business, we call this a "Win/Win". Lewis was exactly what the Ravens needed to go from "good" to "Champion" and KC was exactly what Holmes needed to go from "good" to "All Pro".

System and positional deployment matter. Derrick Henry can't do what Alvin Kamara does, Kamara can't do what Henry does - but they're both good RBs because they're deployed correctly by their system.

This isn't Madden.

34 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

The Packers excuse is very easily twofold:

1. Poor defensive coordinators
2. Not implementing every avenue of player acquisition

The Packers are currently top 5 in the NFL in defensive spending and have used 4 first round picks on defensive players, 4 second round picks, 3 third round picks, signed two major EDGE free agents, a major safety free agent and have a bottom 5 defense in every single metric.  That's Pettine. 

So, this one year's worth of data is why it's been a decade of no SBs for Green Bay?

Last SB won by GB was in 2010 (I'm pretty sure you know that). Has Mike Pettine been an issue for 10 years? 

34 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Grow up.  I just gave you context.

No. You didn't. You just went down a list of positions and listed where each guy was drafted. No context if a guy is working with Pat Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Justin Herbert. No context if they're in a spread offense, a WCO, a pro set offense. No context if a guy is in a 34, a 43, a Wide 9.

So, you provided ZERO context. Context that has a lot to do with the numbers someone is putting up.

34 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

You don't give a damn what the only aggregate scoring site says, you trust your two games per year. 

The one thing PFF gets right is OL play.  You're acting as absurd as you're saying I am.

Yes, I don't - because they don't know the blocking assignments on any given play they grade (NOBODY does outside of that team). So, how can you grade something when you don't know what the assignment was? 

Explain that to me.

36 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

If you can't see the context you're blind

If you think you're providing context, you're deaf and dumb.

[ET80]

25 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

Completely lost me at touting the Packers for anything. They have had one of the best QBs in NFL history and have one Super Bowl appearance. They have clearly not given him enough help, so whatever their strategy was for building a team, it was the wrong one.

Truth. The Packers are arguably one of the biggest underachievers of this decade if we're not pulling punches.

One Super Bowl appearance 10 years ago doesn't scream "model of consistency".

[Texansfan713]

12 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

TN and Indy are decidedly NOT terrible. 

rivers isnt playing forever and im not sold on the titans especially with tannehill as qb.  texans have the best qb in the division which matters.

[CWood21]

14 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Truth. The Packers are arguably one of the biggest underachievers of this decade if we're not pulling punches.

One Super Bowl appearance 10 years ago doesn't scream "model of consistency".

Pretty sure the Packers have the 3rd best winning percentage since Rodgers was named the starting QB, or something like that.  Pretty sure the Patriots are the only team to win multiple championships during that period.

[Shanedorf]

.

"That deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball..."

 

2 minutes ago, ET80 said:

One Super Bowl appearance 10 years ago doesn't scream "model of consistency".

au contraire mon frer - they have been consistently very good, one of the winningest teams of the last decade. Its true, you can look it up

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/

The lack of SBs is certainly disappointing - but I'd guess there are about 24 franchises who would gladly trade places with the Packers over the last 10 seasons -  including the team that this thread is about - the Lions. Houston as well, if we're being honest, punch puller. If your next HC starts out his career at 20- 6 as MLF has,  I suspect "underachieving" won't be one of the adjectives used to describe the Texans.

Its hard to win a Super Bowl and even harder when you're paying a HOF QB. You draft late every year and don't get many shots at the defensive difference makers. More SB wins would be surely be better, but that's not the only measure of success in the NFL.
Matt Patrica won 13 games in 3 NFL seasons. Matt LaFleur won 13 games in his rookie campaign. Underachieve my ***.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, Shanedorf said:

.

"That deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball..."

 

au contraire mon frer - they have been consistently very good, one of the winningest teams of the last decade. Its true, you can look it up

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/

The lack of SBs is certainly disappointing - but I'd guess there are about 24 franchises who would gladly trade places with the Packers over the last 10 seasons -  including the team that this thread is about - the Lions. Houston as well, if we're being honest, punch puller. If your next HC starts out his career at 20- 6 as MLF has,  I suspect "underachieving" won't be one of the adjectives used to describe the Texans.

Its hard to win a Super Bowl and even harder when you're paying a HOF QB. You draft late every year and don't get many shots at the defensive difference makers. More SB wins would be surely be better, but that's not the only measure of success in the NFL.
Matt Patrica won 13 games in 3 NFL seasons. Matt LaFleur won 13 games in his rookie campaign. Underachieve my ***.

Well, first of all, this conversation wasn't comparing LaFleur to Patricia.

The argument that Outpost31 was making - at least initially - was based on draft trends and Super Bowl wins.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Now that Packers' fans have joined the conversation (@Shanedorf @CWood21), I'll ask this: in terms of building their roster around one of the best QBs in NFL history, do you think the organization has done enough to compete for Super Bowls?

[Scoundrel]

The sensitives are out 

[NudeTayne]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Lol.  Did the Cardinals have a HOF QB?  Lol.  You've effectively eliminated one position.  So yeah, if you have an above average QB, two good EDGE rushers, two good tackles, two good DL, four good defensive backs... Sure, you take a receiver then. 

No it's not.  The Ravens had Priest Holmes on their roster.  He went on to do a few things with a different team the very next year and you're out of your mind if you think he wouldn't have that year.  They already had a running back and they got another one. 

With receivers as with running backs, it's not 1999 anymore. 

76th overall
27th overall (which I've granted is the area where positional value isn't as important)
146th overall
21st overall
64th overall
4th overall
22nd overall
53rd overall
76th overall
undrafted
61st overall
165th overall
24th overall
69th overall

Those are the top 15 receiving leaders in the NFL right now. 
Not a single one of the teams who used a 1st round pick on a receiver is in playoff contention.

And running backs? 

45th
41st
Undrafted
24th
38
4
32
105
66
86
73
10
53
35
182

You're talking about the WR and the RB positions here in the year 2020.  When it's twice as easy to play offense and four times as difficult to defend. 
 

Don't you find it odd that those teams have drafted receivers in the first round at a slower rate than any other teams? 

Patriots, in spite of constantly picking low in the draft or not having first round picks, have taken three non-premium positions in the first round three times since 2007.  Only one of them, Jared Mayo, was inside the top 24.

The Steelers are actually an embarrassment to me because of how often they do it.  Guards, inside linebackers, centers... It's embarrassing.  Whoever took control of that once proud franchise ought to be ashamed of their draft habits.  They haven't been to the playoffs in like three years I think in spite of having Roethlisberger?  Isn't that right?  And they're pretenders this year, too.  Haven't won a Super Bowl in over a decade in spite of having a franchise QB for that whole decade.

The Packers, though, in spite of everyone and their QB screaming at them to go WR (which would have been alright at 26) took a QB.

QB, EDGE, DB, DB (33RD OVERALL), DL, DB, DB, EDGE/DL, EDGE, OT, OT, DL, EDGE, DL.

Not a single non-premium position since 2007.  If you think that's just coincidence you're wrong.  Packers GMs have talked at length about value (positional value) in the draft.  It's not just the musings of me on an internet forum, you bet your butt GMs know about it and the good ones don't ignore it. 

No, you trade out of that spot and continue your dominance of having good players on your roster.  That, or you draft a QB and hold them as trade bait. 

If you draft a kicker in the first round under any circumstances you're dumb. 

Colts would have been a lot better off if they drafted Josh Allen.  Luck had just missed the season.  But sure keep telling yourself Nelson was the best pick.

He's a ****ing guard. 

And Ryan Kelly? 

Kelly is an average center taken 18th overall. 

Everybody wants to bring up Nelson.  Nelson is not some elite, HOF guard.  He's not.  He is Richie Incognito.  A good guard with a mean streak and a lot of dog in him.  That's his career.  His career is Richie Incognito. 

The Colts drafted Braden Smith in the second round of that same draft.  He's as good if not better than Nelson and he plays not only guard, but tackle as well.  He is increasingly more valuable in today's NFL than someone who can play guard and that's it. 

Literally every single year you see an IOL drafted in the first round you can find a better one in the second round.  The Packers make jokes out of teams who draft IOL in the first round.  They've had a top 5 offensive line in this league in each of the past 15 seasons with maybe one exception, and you know how they get their IOL?  They draft college tackles who project to play guard in the NFL.  They do this and they try them first at tackle (because it's more valuable) and then if they don't work there they move them to guard. 

Chris Lindstrom?  Garret Bradbury?  No, Elgton Jenkins. 

Take a guess at how many good IOL teams find in later picks.
Take a guess at how many good TE teams find in later picks.
Take a guess at how many good WRs teams find with later picks.
Take a guess at how many good ILB teams find with later picks.

Why does that happen?  Because in today's NFL, those positions are easier than any other positions.

And because those positions rely on other positions more than any other positions.  You can literally make those positions easier.  Find me an elite ILB with a terrible defensive line.  You won't.  Ray Lewis literally whined about this.  The Ravens draft Ngata, boom, Super Bowl win. 

Best tight ends in the NFL:
63RD
146th
204th
20th
86th
8th
49th
35th
157th
42nd

So with the three measurable traits at the skill positions:

WR: 77th overall
RB: 71st overall average
TE: 81st overall average

Let's look at sacks now.  Specifically at EDGE first.

EDGE Sack leaders draft position:
103
1
30
22
32
122
15
13
9
5

IDL sack leaders draft position:
13
46
37
6
163
120
12
50
2
54

Averages for sacks:

EDGE: 35th
IDL: 50th

And guess what... If you were to do this for the highest-rated IOL, ILB, QB, OT... Every position group?  You'd find the same thing.

It would rank nearly perfectly in line with what actual Super Bowl winning teams have. 

You'd have EDGE, OT, QB in the first tier.

It is nearly impossible to find good EDGE talent later in the draft.  Nearly impossible.  There are maybe two or three outliers at EDGE each year.  This is not limited to 2020, it's been this way going on ten years now.  You can literally track it.  Going back to say 2000, ALL of the leading receivers were first round draft picks. 

Go back to 1999 and the top ten receivers in the league had an average draft position of 44th overall.

You can literally track this fall starting in 2005 or 2006, whichever year Bill Polian complained about the Patriots defensive backs.

Since that illegal contact rule was added, receivers have lost a TON of value, defensive backs and pass rushers have gained a ton of value.

Even QB to a lesser extent.  You've got guys like Gardner Minshew, who aren't altogether good, playing like they're good. 

The bust rate for quarterbacks is significantly lower now than in the 80's-late 90's. 

Yes, I take a hardline stance on this.  I take a 24th overall hardline stance on positional value. 

Will you doom your team if you break that 24th overall barrier?  Probably not.  But at the same time I can almost guarantee there'll be more importance and value at a different position if you do. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Yep, I've granted the Steelers do this quite a bit lately and I'm not a fan of it.  They're an exception, you're right. 

They also went 2/3 on Super Bowls in a 6 year span.

Want to go over the top 23 positions they drafted to get there? 

From 2001 through 2006 these are their first round picks above 24th overall: 
DL (Hampton)
DB (Polomalu)
QB (Roethlisberger)

That right there is the foundation upon which they won two Super Bowls and went to another. 

Since 2010 they've drafted a center (18th), a guard (24th), an inside linebacker (15th) and another inside linbacker (10th). 

Since they started doing this they have won 3 total postseason games.

But you won't acknowledge that. 

The Saints? 

Sorry, but Andrus Peat was drafted as a tackle.  Didn't work as a tackle, moved to guard.  Doesn't fit your argument.
Ruiz?  24th overall, which is exactly the point I accept non premium positions, and have said that since the start of this argument.  It doesn't apply. 

You're using moves the Browns are making?  You sure that's a good idea?  The Browns got better after Beckham got hurt and Njoku has 8 receptions on the year.  He's also 29th overall.  Which... How many times do I have to say post 23rd overall it becomes acceptable? 

The Colts have 7 postseason wins this decade and two of them came with Peyton Manning. 

Larry Fitzgerald is a top 10 at his position all-time.  Would you disagree?  He has been in this league since 2004.  He has been to the playoffs 4 times and he has won 5 playoff games. 

Henry Ruggs was the first receiver taken and the worst receiver taken in the first round this year. 
The Raiders are not a team to be citing for smart decisions in the draft.

Would it make you feel better if I told you that the more complete a team is, the more acceptable it becomes?  Because I can grant that.  But if you're the Lions?  If you're the Lions or a team that's rebuilding, or trying to build a foundation, make yourself not a joke to the rest of the NFL?  You better start drafting premium positions with those high picks. 

If you're the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs, Ravens... If you're a team with a successful system, a team that has been to the playoffs more often than not over the past 10 years, you sometimes have to take risks and go for need stuff like that.

But the very logic behind being a top 10 drafting team suggests your team isn't talented and you've got a foundation issue. 

 

I miss @Mind Character

[NudeTayne]

Also, @ET80, don't be stupid.

[MacReady]

1 hour ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

@Outpost31: a question unrelated to the topic at hand. Do you believe in "tanking" as a viable strategy to build a team? Second question: if a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, is it better to finish 4-12 than it is 7-9?

No.  Losing breeds losing.

Obviously it’s better to have a better pick, but if there was ever a GM/Coach alright with losing they wouldn’t be a good GM/coach.

If my team was 0-15 playing another 0-15 team and Rocket Laser Arm QB was in the draft, I still tell my team to try to win.

And no, I’m not changing the argument.  My thoughts on this are very straightforward.  I’ve acknowledged for a long time on record that 24th is the cutoff point.

I’ve acknowledged for a long time if you’re set at other positions it becomes okay.

It’s the plank in the eye before the sliver in another’s argument.

You give the edge to more important positions.  I’ve said that for a very long time.  If you’ve got a scale of 1-100 with 100 being the best and 1 being the worst and you’re picking top 10, there better be a wide ****ing gap of at least 30 points between a luxury position (WR TE IOL ILB) and premium positions.

Because if you ask any GM worth his weight if he would rather have the same talent at EDGE QB OT DL CB or WR TE IOL ILB, every single one of them will tell you the former rather than the latter.  Every single one of them.

It’s like investing.  Sometimes you get lucky and win 70 dollars on a 10 dollar scratcher.  Still, it’s much better to put that 10 dollars into a ROTH IRA than it is a scratcher ticket.

I’m not the crazy one in this argument, I just take a harder stance than most.  All of the bad teams do it your way.  It’s why the Lions are the Lions right now and the Packers are the Packers.  You can point directly to draft strategy for this.  

[MacReady]

1 hour ago, FrantikRam said:

Completely lost me at touting the Packers for anything. They have had one of the best QBs in NFL history and have one Super Bowl appearance. They have clearly not given him enough help, so whatever their strategy was for building a team, it was the wrong one.

I’ve already explained the reason behind it.

Defensive coordinators and all avenues of player acquisition are the reason the Packers have failed Rodgers.  Not draft strategy.  They have the best interior offensive line in the NFL, the best WR in the NFL, a top 5 running back and a budding star at TE without one of them being a first round pick.  

[Nazgul]

No one gives a damn about the Packers.

Death. Taxes. And the Lions being terrible. 'MERICA!

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

No.  Losing breeds losing.

Obviously it’s better to have a better pick, but if there was ever a GM/Coach alright with losing they wouldn’t be a good GM/coach.

If my team was 0-15 playing another 0-15 team and Rocket Laser Arm QB was in the draft, I still tell my team to try to win.

I’m not the crazy one in this argument, I just take a harder stance than most.  All of the bad teams do it your way.  It’s why the Lions are the Lions right now and the Packers are the Packers.  You can point directly to draft strategy for this.  

Interesting. I really thought you'd be fine with tanking, based on this:

"Each team has limited resources.  Those limited resources are CAP SPACE and DRAFT CAPITAL.

Those two resources make the NFL world go round."

You'd think if DRAFT CAPITAL was one of the two resources that made the "NFL world go round", you'd support a strategy that traded irrelevant wins for significantly more DRAFT CAPITAL.

Also, the part in bold is where your argument has shifted: you went from arguing that "all of the bad teams" consider drafting IOLs, WRs, RBs and TEs before pick #24, then argued that "successful teams" often use this strategy. Which is it? Bad teams do it, therefore it's bad, or successful teams do it, therefore it's not?