Packers and Bears will both

If he’s who you think he is, then it doesn’t matter, they’ll never get to 9 wins.

The Lions will have to win at least 9 games and show a lot of progress to even consider keeping people. My guess is the only thing that will allow Patricia to get another year is making the playoffs. The Bears are not that good (neither are the Packers) and they will come back to the middle. The Lions just have to win 10 games, get in the playoff and see what happens. For that to happen the defense needs to continue to improve as Jax was not a top offense at all. The Lions have to win this week for Patricia to be guaranteed another game.

I don’t like the idea of keeping him after 9 wins, because it is rewarding him for sucking. Its saying that because he destroyed this team in his first 2 years, he gets to keep his job after year 3 because he finally built it back up to be the team that he took over. We cut Caldwell because he went 9-7 in back to back years, but we would reward the guy who took 3 seasons to get back to where the guy who got fired had the team?

But I’m biased I guess, because Patricia lost me when he didn’t win a single game in the last 9 of last season. And it wasn’t like we faced a bunch of good teams. We literally faced some of the worst teams in the entire league, and couldn’t beat them. For that to happen in year 2 of a guys coaching career, tells me he isn’t the guy.

I would agree with a lot of that but i don’t think you can make the call that if he wins 9 games he should go in a vacuum either as all wins and losses are not created equally. He needs to be judged on the merits of the performances between now and the end of the season. For arguments sake, if we are blown out 2 or 3 more times by the likes of the Packers, Titans and Bucs in December like we were by the Packers and Saints in September then he absolutely has to go.

But if the defense stiffens and plays consistently solid D between now and week 17 and get 9 wins and play hard in those December games against the Bears, Packers, Bucs and Titans and there is clear signs of progress I think there is absolutely an argument for him getting another year.

But I do think that our defense is too limited by both scheme and personnel to get to league average and we will struggle to get a winning record over the next 6 weeks let alone when the schedule gets tougher in Decmeber.

Caldwell had made the playoffs 2 out of 3 seasons in a row. He had us within a game (twice) of the division title. He had not done enough in BQ’s eyes to warrant bringing back. He wasn’t given the opportunity to build on that because BQ felt he had not done enough.

Anything shy of what Caldwell accomplished is a failure in year one let alone year 3. If in 3 seasons he hasn’t been able to one up Caldwell (who hasn’t done enough) than how can anything shy of a Divisional title or play l-off win be enough?

BQ set the standard that both him and MP must meet.

1 Like

That is a fair point and i don’t disagree with you. But…

…Like I said If (and it is a big if) we do round a corner and the defense actually looks like it is trending in the right direction and they show they can hang with the better sides in the league and beat the teams they need to beat I think the decision to retain becomes far tougher. You are blowing it up after the team finally looks to be turning a corner after 3 seasons and given how niche our defense is you are looking at a fairly big rebuild that side of the ball under a new HC with what is most likely a first round pick in the late teens.

I think that it is more likely that Patricia is sacked before week 17 than it is that we realistically in the play off hunt in mid December but if we are in the play off hunt in mid December I would fully expect for ownership to bring him and Quinn back.

2 Likes

2 of 4 if you count his last year but meh splitting hairs. I will give Patricia some slack for not winning games after Stafford went out but to still be struggling as much as they are, especially defensively, should be the nail in the coffin if he doesn’t have what amounts to an 8+ more wins to close the year.

I give him slack for not winning a bunch of those games. But to not win a single one of them? That was the nail in the coffin for me. Again, it was a bunch of games and some of those were against some of the worst teams in the league.

Yeah I forgot Caldwell missed the playoffs at 9-7.

Ya know. I think that if by some chance we can squeak out a playoff spot that MP has a very good chance at winning a playoff game if we’re paired up against the NFCE divisional winner.

MotownExpress,

Going by your post history it looks like you’ve taken a little time away from the board. Right now we are not allowing political talk on the board. We’ll let you know if and when that changes.

1 Like

still not over the swift drop vs the bears.

I agree that Patricia hasn’t shown the ability to coach at the level we want. I would say that we remade the entire OL, which was a complete disaster. Teams can play great and still not get in the playoffs. It has more to do with building a team and playing at the level of a top team.

Caldwell never showed he could develop a running game at any level. I would have to say that he was a better coach. He had the team prepared for late game scenarios, which fits Stafford’s unique ability.

Firing MP for a 9-7 season is equivalent to firing Caldwell after a 9-7 season. There’s two trends in thought here. Most fans, I’ll say liberally, thought that firing Caldwell after two 9-7 seasons was unwise, impetuous. I did. FO thought that 9-7 marked the ceiling that a Caldwell team could not break through. Gun blazers from NE gonna take over.
The majority of you that argue for the firing of a 9-7 MP are now taking up the side of the gunslingers. So - if we go 9-7 this year, after giving MP one more year for improvement, you would rather haggle at the level of improvement. 9-7 is 9-7. If it wasn’t defensible to fire Caldwell at 9-7, it isn’t for MP either.
IF 9-7 IS the case for MP, the third year head coach is trending in the right direction, finally - and then you fire him.? For another out-and-out rebuild? What’s the motive there? To make a point? An equivalency. ‘9-7 wasn’t good enough for Caldwell, why should it be good enough for MP.’
But we all (most) agree that it was wrong to fire Caldwell at that stage. Why is it right to fire MP at the same stage? Do it, point made, our team comes in at 4-6 wins the next year with a new coach, new system. Point made, yes. Team better, no. Same thing Quinn did. Point made: “9-7 is not good enough! We’re gunslingers!” Team better: no.
We’ve gone though the growing pains of his bravado decision to pull Caldwell. At the moment we reach the potential of that decision, we should pull the plug?
I know the Fords set playoffs as the ultimatum. I get it. At 9-7, if that misses the playoffs, I still see the narrative of a trending coach, and I gotta give him that shot.
Not an MP fan. A first time HC that finally starts trending - would be hard for me to pull the plug on that.

Please rethink this statement.

I had zero problem with them firing Caldwell. You can’t be successful if you don’t strive for perfection. I liked them bringing in Patricia. I also think if the Lions aren’t in the Playoffs he should probably be moved down the road. I am hoping with the DC in place the defense will be a force. But again, I am a Lions fan so Kool aid is my favorite drink.

1 Like

JC was 36-28 as a Lions HC. He won 78% of his games. He also finished 2nd in the division 3 out of 4 years.

If MP goes 9-7 he would be 18-29 and have won just 38% of his games. His best finish so far is dead last in the division. 9-7 would probably get him 3rd in the division this year.

Explain how the two would be equivalent?

Pragmatically. When you’ve reached 9-7 after promises to build the right team for your system, MP’s sordid history becomes water under the bridge. I’m not pleased about his record here either. Pedigree aside, it’s why I didn’t want a brand new HC in the first place. Its my opinion I guess that 9-7 in a prove-it year is about enough to meet the standards of the alleged promise of the scheme, with the right fits. Its a matter of NFL-voodoo whether 9-7 is enough to make the playoffs, once the records, division-leads and wild cards shake out. The voodoo land of the playoff dice, I won’t haggle over. If 9-7 doesn’t merit a firing in Caldwell’s case, it shouldn’t in MP’s. Was Quinn wrong in firing JC? I believe so. I’d rather not make the same mistake twice.

That’s just it. We weren’t told the team needed to be rebuilt. We were told the team wasn’t performing up to its talent and beating the teams it should. That a coaching change was needed to get us over that hunk. Problem was that our HC had personality conflicts with several players and that forced them to move out some talent.

I agree that the prove-it year was year one. And failing that, the prove-it year was year two. As fate would have it, year three is upon us. The judgment that may easily have been levied last year was suspended until this year. That’s what we’re stuck with. I understand that basically reaching the point that Caldwell was at, after three years, is underwhelming. But, I also think that the point that Caldwell was at before he was fired was good, generally. I’d rather not be a team that was desperate to stay in the tank because they have to ‘prove something’ by firing coaches that are achieving something positive - but not positive ‘enough’.
That said - if he doesn’t reach 9-7, at minimum this year, fire the MFer. Each here are drawing a line. Mine just isn’t quite as severe as some other’s. That’s totally fine. Impatience is to be expected from a Lion’s fanbase. I just wouldn’t want impatience to toss the baby out with the bathwater.