Why is mentioning the number of missed games by key players labelled as an excuse rather than a reason? An excuse to me is a perjorative, its like saying it was okay to lose because of those injuries when nobody actually said that, or that everything else about the team was fine. Nobody is saying that the only factor that lead to losing games was injuries, or that the GM or HC or coaching wasn’t also a problem. Or that the Lions got screwed by the officiating sometimes. Mostly we’re trying to identify causes with the intent of making fixes, rather than excuses that solve nothing. IMHO, there are no excuses and we should stop using that word.
Good teams find ways to win through all adversity. Injuries, bad calls, bad luck, bad timing…good teams just win. Look at the Steelers. They are on their 4th string QB and they just won a huge game against a divisional opponent who was on a winning streak. They’ve lost several key pro bowl players over the past couple of years and yet they just keep plugging along. I don’t like the injury excuse but it’s a valid reason.
I believe in the old saying “Players win and coaches lose”. Coaches have to put their players in the best situation to succeed. We’ve had a hard time doing that through scheme, game planning, or adjustments.
We should be able to win some football games even with injuries. We aren’t winning ANY games whatsoever. A reason is why we win or lose a few games…not this many. We’ve won ONE game since September.
You make a valid point and think these two sentences I can really get behind and think are the main THEME for everyone. Pro current staff think these things are happening and Anti-current staff do not. I think I am more pro patient then I am staff. To me I have seen a lot of examples where the coaching staff has put players in a situation to win. I think what makes this year different in regards to clear evidence of improvement and coaching are the injuries at vital spots. If this staff didn’t show evidence of growth etc I would be more willing to blow it up.
The defense is getting healthier and still is getting destroyed.
If we were losing rock fights where the defense was keeping us in games or the backup quarterbacks weren’t being successful I’d be open to saying its injuries.
What backup qb are you referring to?
That’s my problem I hate to change coaches, but have a hard time getting behind Patricia with his no rush scam. If I thought it could get better but it’s not the players it’s his philocity. The Washington and bears game were bad QBs still have over 100 passer rating. We have so much more talent then our record shows. Offense is on track. But the defense is the worse I’ve seen . Maybe worse then marnellis.
Exactly. If we need all of our starters to be 100% healthy all year, have an easy schedule and get the benefit of the calls just to be decent, then we aren’t very good.
Before the injury excuse, we played against half of a bad Chargers team and barely won. We played against a mediocre Eagles team that was missing more key players than us and we probably should have lost if they could catch footballs. We played against a Cardinals team with nobody in their secondary and tied them (could have lost with a gifted pick 6 they dropped). We were pretty healthy against KC but lost (not because of calls, but because our QB and RB handed the Chiefs the ball inside their 10 yard line twice). We played against a mediocre Oakland team and crapped the bed twice because of stupid coaching decisions. Bad teams do bad things like that.
Good post but I’d like to point to one thing that gets old to me
Too often, when someone is hammering the Lions (deservedly) they point to an exception as if it’s a rule
The Steelers can do what they’re doing because they’ve had extreme continuity over many years. The Lions have never had that luxury.
Blowing a team up every 2-3 years gets you the Lions
I have no idea if these guys can get this right but blowing it up after two years seems crazy
If next year is more of the same shit there may be no choice
But man, if you believe in your hires, you have to see it through
Excuses / reasons
If your position is to terminate the bums then every argument against is labeled an excuse
If you want to ride it out, you see reasons
But it gets old to point at exceptions and say SEE!!
They are called exceptions for a reason
And trying to get the right perspective is the lottery winner!! We slay thing to what we want to see … if we are being brutally honest, open minded about it all and willing to look at it from outside the box. That is HOW is it done.
Do you see the acronym in there as well!!
Recovery shit applied to football shit!
I don’t think this can be stated enough.
For all the examples given of how X HC turned around Y team in 1 or 2 years:
How many of them have had the history of losing and mismanagement the Lions have had?
How many of those quick turnaround are still fielding competitive playoff teams?
Fair, but devil’s advocate… how many teams extend and sit patiently with guys who perform terribly? Good franchises have a track record of hiring competent people to run their teams. If they mess up, the correct it asap. Here, we give extensions and free passes like it’s the Oprah Winfrey show. Team is regressing? Here’s an extension. Defense sucks? Here’s another year. Players unhappy? Fire the players, keep the cancers.
It’s really hard to compare the Lions to anyone else in the league other than the Browns. Every single other team has a better track record.
I am going to put together some numbers and a summary sheet to help people understand the 2-3 year “rule.” Basically every team in the modern era that has had success with a certain HC has done it within 2 years (and at most 3 years). For teams that weren’t very good for the first 2 years, very few teams got “rewarded” for giving the coach a 3rd season…and basically noone has been rewarded for giving a coach a 4th season after 3 poor seasons. Again, this is modern football research which deals in the free agency era. Not prior to that when you could stockpile and hoard players and build for 5 years.
My question would be what happens with teams that have were bad for the 1st 2 years but fired the coach instead. Or were bad for 3 years and then fired the coach. Would the Lions done better if they had kept Marinelli? Or Mariucci? How long do you roll with poor results?
I think the continuity factor is not inconsequential. If you’re learning a new system on offense or defense, it does take awhile to get to the point where it’s internalized and you don’t think what do I do now, you already know. Fewer miscommunications in coverage or blocking or pass routes and throws. More trust in other words.
So, there’s a cost in constant turnover and turmoil. That has to cost you in terms of FA players signing with the Lions unless they are overpaid. And in keeping your better young players once their rookie contract is up. BUT - again, how long do you go with a GM or HC that isn’t getting it done?
The most you give is 3 years, and in a majority of cases 2 is enough. That’s what the data is telling me.
I think continuity is a very small factor. Not inconsequential, but WAY down the line of priority and importance.
This is the NFL, this isn’t college where you get 20 hours a week of practice to learn an entirely new game. These players are professionals and work full time at their trade. No damn way it takes 3 years to learn schemes.
The reason it only takes some teams 2 or 3 years to rebuild is because the Owner down to the coaching staff are on the same page and work off one another. Here, it’s complete chaos and a free for all. People throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.
We HAD to retain Cooter, till he became a scapegoat.
We HAD to get rid of KVN because he wasn’t a fit, but is a perfect fit in New England?
We HAD to extend Diggs, only to cut him 5 minutes later.
We HAD to reach on all but 33 of 34 draft picks because they need to “fit our system”.
Meanwhile, in every other NFL town that wins, they try to procure the best talent and adjust their “system” to said talent. Drafting lesser talented players in order to fit your scheme (which might become obsolete tomorrow) is a backwards mentality.
sleats i take a different angle really. you think people deserve 3 years but i look at it like why was a guy that had success for 4 years that the new guy hasn’t come close to thrown out the door? if you want to look at caldwell’s situation, truthfully, he was here for only two years when BQ came in here. BQ cleaned house but he managed to keep caldwell here imho only to get his own training wheels on here to bring in his own guy. which begs the point, how committed was BQ to caldwell and how much support did he actually give him. were those drafts tailored to caldwell or for the next guy coming in? you know damn well caldwell probably had a hard time getting comfortable in that situation knowing his ass was going to be thrown out the door unless he won a SB.
hence why BQ made the dumbass 9-7 statement and completely overestimated his own and MP’s abilities. they look like amateurs even more after the debacle that is this year and complete overhaul of a good portion of the roster that has done nothing.
caldwell ain’t coming back and the past is the past but i wish people would see that perhaps had caldwell still been here there actually would have been the kind of continuity everybody is claiming we need now but were ready to rip it out b/c they believed 9-7 wasn’t good enough and that the patriot hype from a bunch of conmen was a slam dunk.
averaging 9-7 sure looks good now vs hoping we might maybe get there if x, if y, if z, if… i also wonder what caldwell could’ve done with 2 more years if BQ hadn’t already decided on shipping him out the minute he got here.
i personally thought this move from the beginning early on was going to set this team back in ways it took us a long time to overcome again and that’s how it’s turning out.
anyway you can’t really claim continuity as being a priority when the current situation is based on the fact BQ and certain lion fans basically were complicit in ripping out the only successful continuity the lions had in probably 20 years.
Going 9-7 still doesn’t look good to me, mainly based on how Caldwell did it. He just pieced together wins vs a bunch of inferior opponents. Every time we had a meaningful game or against a decent opponent, we didn’t stand a chance in hell. Even if we lost to some of those “lesser” opponents and beat some good teams and ended up at 9-7 I’d feel a little better about it. The playoffs are about good teams, and at least I’d feel we had an outside chance of actually winning a playoff game in that scenario.
interesting if it’s true.
i’ve watched a lot of football and i watch it perhaps a bit differently than others. i’m into the psychology of winning and losing and the lions are a great model if you’re watching closely. over time you become less a lions homer and more a connoisseur of the game - ake more objective.
for me, this team has all the signs of a train wreck. i rarely go out on a limb and try to predict the future but i feel pretty confident this team is completely fkd in ways that take you back to the worst garbage here of the last 20 years. they’re bad and it all started from top down.
don’t be fooled by some cheesy article you read online about how the players are behind this team behind the scenes. you’ve all worked in environments where you’re lucky you have an emotional guy like slay in the office who knows it’s a train wreck and says out loud what you’re feeling but can’t or won’t for a variety of reasons. everybody else shuts up b/c they got a family to feed or some aren’t talented enough to get another job. but the truth is most everybody in the office is thinking and feeling the exact same thing as the guy who speaks out. translation: if you can you’re getting the resume ready to get out the door ASAP
that’s the lions in a nutshell right now imho. mark it.
the only guys rallying are the guys that MP / BQ paid to be here because they have to and well they just got a nice bank roll.
which is to say your stats may confirm what i just see from a different angle.
i get that. what i don’t get is that people think it made sense to dump 9-7 to get the garbage we have now and then fumble around with narratives to try and come up with an excuse for the change. the latest is continuity. i say think before you act and be careful what you wish for.
as i said to sleats, how much continuity did caldwell actually have under BQ for those last 2 years? yeah he got 2 more years so you can claim continuity but you all may have worked somewhere where a new top person came in who was just jerking / playing around with the resources and waiting to get their own guy in “the seat”.
i don’t know about you but i would take 9-7 and the established winning continuity that comes with it plus 2 more drafts / free agencies AND a GM who was actually interested in forming a long-term relationship with his HC vs change without much guarantee of upside except “hope”.
to put it another way, if you had all your dough invested with someone who was giving you a steady and solid return that had upside but some clown came knocking on your door and said i’ll guarantee you 30% without any real evidence or experience in the role, would you give them all your money? then the minute your retirement fund was actually lower than then when you started after year 1 and then year 2 would you still keep it there?
what’s pretty clear is that nobody is going to want to play for this team once again unless you pay them a lot of money. that’s not a great position from which to build a winning “anything”. we’ve been there. we’re there once again. all people can talk about is continuity. lolz.