Jump to content

Hard Knocks 2022 - Detroit Lions Edition


Sllim Pickens

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Nnivolcm said:

I always thought it would take three years to bounce back from the mess Quintricia left us. It's one of the reasons I didn't them to have the last year as it was just an opportunity for them to dig a deeper hole. 

You can only do so much in any given off season and I think the talent and potential of Lions is so far ahead of where they were when MCDC and Holmes took over. I would be very skeptical of anyone who started to call for their jobs after two years of continued improvements. 

Would you give them all of year 3 or need to see how things go during that season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Karnage84 said:

Would you give them all of year 3 or need to see how things go during that season?

It would have to be a massive and specific type of dumpster fire for me to start calling for anyone's job in season. The only scenario I would start to consider would be if MCDC was completely blowing games and we wanted to get a shot at seeing AG or Ben Johnson as interim head coach before the off season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nnivolcm said:

I always thought it would take three years to bounce back from the mess Quintricia left us. It's one of the reasons I didn't them to have the last year as it was just an opportunity for them to dig a deeper hole. 

You can only do so much in any given off season and I think the talent and potential of Lions is so far ahead of where they were when MCDC and Holmes took over. I would be very skeptical of anyone who started to call for their jobs after two years of continued improvements. 

With how quick players turnover in this league, three years is about an 80% change in players.  If we are still struggling to win 7 or 8 games next year, that means something is not right with either player selections or coaching development and schemes.  Its not Super Bowl or bust at this point but there has to be real progress and sustained success on the horizon.  A good coach and scheme seems to work with various players.  Some don't work no matter the players.  Some seem to be a flash in the pan vs sustained. So if DC and staff are what we think they are, they should have us winning, at least being average from here on with upgraded talent.  We are short talent to win super bowls, but have enough to win 7-9 games if the coaching is legit. 

Would you be happy to be the Bears from 2018-2021?  They went 12-4 and then 8-8 and 8-8 and finally 6-11 last year.  The Nagy first year obviously wasn't real and making the playoffs at 8-8 wasn't good enough for them.  Or what about the Vikings who fluctuated between 12-4 and 5-11 every other year for the last 10 years and made the playoffs half the time? 

The Steelers the last 10 years have been a fringe playoff team with no real chance to to damage in the playoffs but at least getting there and getting a win here and there.  Their team turns over a lot, they draft well, they develop players etc.  I would take the Steelers situation in hopes a better QB would take them over the hump given the way they develop everything else around them.  So thats the type of sustained success I am hoping to have here, and if we dont get close to that point by next year, I am not sure it will happen based on history and the fact it doesn't happen very often.  That being said I am confident in this staff still.  I love them and truly hope they can get to that point but yesterday hurt a little.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sllim Pickens said:

With how quick players turnover in this league, three years is about an 80% change in players.  If we are still struggling to win 7 or 8 games next year, that means something is not right with either player selections or coaching development and schemes.  Its not Super Bowl or bust at this point but there has to be real progress and sustained success on the horizon.  A good coach and scheme seems to work with various players.  Some don't work no matter the players.  Some seem to be a flash in the pan vs sustained. So if DC and staff are what we think they are, they should have us winning, at least being average from here on with upgraded talent.  We are short talent to win super bowls, but have enough to win 7-9 games if the coaching is legit. 

Would you be happy to be the Bears from 2018-2021?  They went 12-4 and then 8-8 and 8-8 and finally 6-11 last year.  The Nagy first year obviously wasn't real and making the playoffs at 8-8 wasn't good enough for them.  Or what about the Vikings who fluctuated between 12-4 and 5-11 every other year for the last 10 years and made the playoffs half the time? 

The Steelers the last 10 years have been a fringe playoff team with no real chance to to damage in the playoffs but at least getting there and getting a win here and there.  Their team turns over a lot, they draft well, they develop players etc.  I would take the Steelers situation in hopes a better QB would take them over the hump given the way they develop everything else around them.  So thats the type of sustained success I am hoping to have here, and if we dont get close to that point by next year, I am not sure it will happen based on history and the fact it doesn't happen very often.  That being said I am confident in this staff still.  I love them and truly hope they can get to that point but yesterday hurt a little.  

After Quintricia the Lions were in the rare situation of having a roster void of talent, several bad contracts, and a poor cap situation. 20% of the roster Quintricia left is 11 players. I can't think of 11 players from that roster who should be here three years after Quintricia was canned.

I'm not sure what the Bears, Vikings, or Steelers situation have to do with the hypothetical situation this discussion has been about and I won't pretend I follow any of the three teams closely like I do the Lions. At face value, the Bears steady decline from 12-4 to 6-11 is not a good sign. It's pretty similar to Patricia's performance (except with a higher ceiling and floor) as the roster was clearly was capable when he took over but driven into the ground. I think my thoughts on Patricia's time here is well documented. 

As for the Vikings, how I'd feel about the fluctuating regular season success would be impacted by several factors. Were the down years severely impacted by key injuries? Has the coach lost the locker room? Is the foundation of the roster sustainable? Is there an impending cap hell? Was there a series of blatant coaching blunders that directly cost wins? From what I know of the Vikings/Zimmer situation Zimmer lost several games with boneheaded decisions and had publically lost the locker room. It was probably time to move on as things probably weren't going to improve under those circumstances. 

Yeah, I'd love to have the Steeler's history too. They have never once, in my lifetime anyway, been in a situation anywhere near like what MCDC and Holmes inherited. 

A 5-12 record in year two of this recovery from Quintricia wasn't unexpected when MCDC and Holmes took over for me. It would be foolish to consider moving on from them when they're improving at a reasonable rate and meeting reasonable expectations. If things stagnate or decline in the future it would be time to reevaluate. 

Edited by Nnivolcm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

After Quintricia the Lions were in the rare situation of having a roster void of talent, several bad contracts, and a poor cap situation. 20% of the roster Quintricia left is 11 players. I can't think of 11 players from that roster who should be here three years after Quintricia was canned.

I'm not sure what the Bears, Vikings, or Steelers situation have to do with the hypothetical situation this discussion has been about and I won't pretend I follow any of the three teams closely like I do the Lions. At face value, the Bears steady decline from 12-4 to 6-11 is not a good sign. It's pretty similar to Patricia's performance (except with a higher ceiling and floor) as the roster was clearly was capable when he took over but driven into the ground. I think my thoughts on Patricia's time here is well documented. 

As for the Vikings, how I'd feel about the fluctuating regular season success would be impacted by several factors. Were the down years severely impacted by key injuries? Has the coach lost the locker room? Is the foundation of the roster sustainable? Is there an impending cap hell? Was there a series of blatant coaching blunders that directly cost wins? From what I know of the Vikings/Zimmer situation Zimmer lost several games with boneheaded decisions and had publically lost the locker room. It was probably time to move on as things probably weren't going to improve under those circumstances. 

Yeah, I'd love to have the Steeler's history too. They have never once, in my lifetime anyway, been in a situation anywhere near like what MCDC and Holmes inherited. 

A 5-12 record in year two of this recovery from Quintricia wasn't unexpected when MCDC and Holmes took over for me. It would be foolish to consider moving on from them when they're improving at a reasonable rate and meeting reasonable expectations. If things stagnate or decline in the future it would be time to reevaluate. 

So would you give the full 3 years (or even more) before deciding on how to move forward or on from MCDC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Karnage84 said:

So would you give the full 3 years (or even more) before deciding on how to move forward or on from MCDC?

I feel like that's already been asked and answered, but to summarize what I've already stated. Yes, barring some catastrophic developments, I think it would be foolish to move on from MCDC before he's had three years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nnivolcm said:

After Quintricia the Lions were in the rare situation of having a roster void of talent, several bad contracts, and a poor cap situation. 20% of the roster Quintricia left is 11 players. I can't think of 11 players from that roster who should be here three years after Quintricia was canned.

I'm not sure what the Bears, Vikings, or Steelers situation have to do with the hypothetical situation this discussion has been about and I won't pretend I follow any of the three teams closely like I do the Lions. At face value, the Bears steady decline from 12-4 to 6-11 is not a good sign. It's pretty similar to Patricia's performance (except with a higher ceiling and floor) as the roster was clearly was capable when he took over but driven into the ground. I think my thoughts on Patricia's time here is well documented. 

As for the Vikings, how I'd feel about the fluctuating regular season success would be impacted by several factors. Were the down years severely impacted by key injuries? Has the coach lost the locker room? Is the foundation of the roster sustainable? Is there an impending cap hell? Was there a series of blatant coaching blunders that directly cost wins? From what I know of the Vikings/Zimmer situation Zimmer lost several games with boneheaded decisions and had publically lost the locker room. It was probably time to move on as things probably weren't going to improve under those circumstances. 

Yeah, I'd love to have the Steeler's history too. They have never once, in my lifetime anyway, been in a situation anywhere near like what MCDC and Holmes inherited. 

A 5-12 record in year two of this recovery from Quintricia wasn't unexpected when MCDC and Holmes took over for me. It would be foolish to consider moving on from them when they're improving at a reasonable rate and meeting reasonable expectations. If things stagnate or decline in the future it would be time to reevaluate. 

My point about roster turnover is the fact that currently we have 15 players on our roster that were here two years ago under Patricia and the majority of them (7), were drafted their last year here and are under rookie contracts.  Decker, Ragnow, Raymond and Walker are the only players from Patricia's era that are not on rookie contracts still.  Next year we likely will see cuts of half of those guys in Cephus, J Okwara, Raymond and maybe Bryant if they don't show something this year which would leave about 10 guys from that era still here 3 years later.  Yes we still are dealing with a little cap issues but next year we have none of that.  Flowers and Collins are off the books,  Goff can be cut post June 1 with only a $5M cap hit or before for a $10M hit if he isnt the one. Okwara is the only bad contract if he doesn't come back from the Achilles injury.  Next year this roster is all DCs and Holmes.  No excuses, completely rebuilt roster and time to show out.  

My point comparing to other teams, is that with the amount of turnover they have, they fluctuate year to year on being good/average/bad.  Its a quick turnaround so waiting 4 or 5 years for a turnaround is likely not going to happen as that staff has had likely 2 years of their own team without blaming it on the previous regime.  Zimmer was a decent coach, he had up and down years based on certain players/coaches.  Tomlin/Belicheck/Reid/McVay/Harbaugh/Vrabel/Payton etc all have been good every year with changing players and assistants.  If DC is a great coach, he will have enough talent next year to make a playoff run if Holmes is also good at his job.  If he is a decent coach, we will likely have up and down years like the Vikings based on roster turnover and have to settle for a Zimmer'esque staff.  If we still suck next year it likely means one or both would need to be changed.  Again, I think it will happen where we are at least what the Viking have been. I think as of now, that we will be competing for a wild card next year.  But if not, and not due to half the team being hurt, then I would likely be out on DC.  Thats just how NFL coaching successes work. 

I am always on a three year cycle with coaches in the NFL.  If they are obviously trending down after two years, then two is plenty (I was all about firing Patricia after year 2).  Waiting for a 4/5 year plan is just delaying the inevitable in the NFL as nobody has been a good coach that had 3 bad years to start their position.  You don't see good coaches have 3 below .500 years in a row to start their careers.  Andy Reid was 5-11 his first year and 11-5 his second and has 3 sub .500 years in 24 seasons including that first year.  Jimmy Johnson started out 1-15 then 7-9 and then 11-5 and then back to back super bowls.  Sean McDermott had a decent year, bad year and then consistently good. if thats the trajectory we are on, then great.  But if not, we won't be good with this regime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Sllim Pickens said:

My point about roster turnover is the fact that currently we have 15 players on our roster that were here two years ago under Patricia and the majority of them (7), were drafted their last year here and are under rookie contracts.  Decker, Ragnow, Raymond and Walker are the only players from Patricia's era that are not on rookie contracts still.  Next year we likely will see cuts of half of those guys in Cephus, J Okwara, Raymond and maybe Bryant if they don't show something this year which would leave about 10 guys from that era still here 3 years later.  Yes we still are dealing with a little cap issues but next year we have none of that.  Flowers and Collins are off the books,  Goff can be cut post June 1 with only a $5M cap hit or before for a $10M hit if he isnt the one. Okwara is the only bad contract if he doesn't come back from the Achilles injury.  Next year this roster is all DCs and Holmes.  No excuses, completely rebuilt roster and time to show out.  

My point comparing to other teams, is that with the amount of turnover they have, they fluctuate year to year on being good/average/bad.  Its a quick turnaround so waiting 4 or 5 years for a turnaround is likely not going to happen as that staff has had likely 2 years of their own team without blaming it on the previous regime.  Zimmer was a decent coach, he had up and down years based on certain players/coaches.  Tomlin/Belicheck/Reid/McVay/Harbaugh/Vrabel/Payton etc all have been good every year with changing players and assistants.  If DC is a great coach, he will have enough talent next year to make a playoff run if Holmes is also good at his job.  If he is a decent coach, we will likely have up and down years like the Vikings based on roster turnover and have to settle for a Zimmer'esque staff.  If we still suck next year it likely means one or both would need to be changed.  Again, I think it will happen where we are at least what the Viking have been. I think as of now, that we will be competing for a wild card next year.  But if not, and not due to half the team being hurt, then I would likely be out on DC.  Thats just how NFL coaching successes work. 

I am always on a three year cycle with coaches in the NFL.  If they are obviously trending down after two years, then two is plenty (I was all about firing Patricia after year 2).  Waiting for a 4/5 year plan is just delaying the inevitable in the NFL as nobody has been a good coach that had 3 bad years to start their position.  You don't see good coaches have 3 below .500 years in a row to start their careers.  Andy Reid was 5-11 his first year and 11-5 his second and has 3 sub .500 years in 24 seasons including that first year.  Jimmy Johnson started out 1-15 then 7-9 and then 11-5 and then back to back super bowls.  Sean McDermott had a decent year, bad year and then consistently good. if thats the trajectory we are on, then great.  But if not, we won't be good with this regime. 

I think we're saying the same thing, you're just putting it in essay form more than I am. 😄

The conversation was about looking to move on if they finish year two 5-12. Seems like we're both in agreement year three is when evaluations must be made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

I think we're saying the same thing, you're just putting it in essay form more than I am. 😄

The conversation was about looking to move on if they finish year two 5-12. Seems like we're both in agreement year three is when evaluations must be made. 

I think the question changed in the middle, or an additional question thrown in.  And the response of it being a 5 year plan also changed my response.  We do agree a third year is definite unless a total dumpster fire.  5-12 IMO is pretty close to dumpster fire though and it would really change my feelings towards this staff going into year 3 comfortably vs on the hot seat, again due to the fact I dont believe in a 4/5 year plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Nnivolcm said:

I think we're saying the same thing, you're just putting it in essay form more than I am. 😄

The conversation was about looking to move on if they finish year two 5-12. Seems like we're both in agreement year three is when evaluations must be made. 

I think what I was asking is - does this group get the FULL 3rd year or would we be looking at changes part of the way through year 3 (IF we had marginal improvement in year 2 and were off to a slow start in year 3). 

Is the roster so far gone from the Quintricia years that we need to give the new regime some extra time to compete or (as Sllim has said) teams can turn things around quickly in the right environment and we shouldn't be in a position where we have to provide an extra season to see what they can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Karnage84 said:

I think what I was asking is - does this group get the FULL 3rd year or would we be looking at changes part of the way through year 3 (IF we had marginal improvement in year 2 and were off to a slow start in year 3). 

Is the roster so far gone from the Quintricia years that we need to give the new regime some extra time to compete or (as Sllim has said) teams can turn things around quickly in the right environment and we shouldn't be in a position where we have to provide an extra season to see what they can do. 

Changing mid year is not usually a good thing to do.  The only reason to would be to get a look at assistants who could be head coach and honestly I wouldn't want to keep any of the assistants if that's what they lead us to.  It would have to finish bad this and next year to get to a mid year firing and based on what I think will happen, that definitely will not. 

The roster is turned over.  Next year especially.  We will have 10 or less players from the Quintricia era and no cap issues from them.  Next year is zero excuses. 

Link to comment
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...