RedRamage

That's one of those very weird things... you want the coordinators to be good enough that other teams look at them and want them... but you also don't want them to leave it they are being successful here.

I read a new story about how Campbell's hire highlights the double standard for black coaches. He basically said that no African American coach could say stuff like that and still get hired. While I don't disagree that there are barriers for minority coaches, I don't think this is one of them. I suspect that if Caldwell has said similar stuff at his press conference most of us would feel the same way: Fired up. Maybe it's a Detroit/Michigan thing, I dunno. But one of the knocks on Caldwell was that he was too reserved and laid back so I think most fans would have welcomed a bit of language like that. Of course, to be fair... if Caldwell said this and still failed many fans/media types would point out his immaturity with the comments and how he wasn't fit to be a HC because modern society just doesn't speak like that. Buuuutt... If Campbell fails I'm quite certain that plenty of people will point to this and says that he wasn't mature enough to seasoned enough to be a HC because just look at what he said.

Ya know, that's actually a good point and given Holmes previous job title it might be the area where Holmes needs some support. That said, I dunno it there's anyway you can bring a guy back to the same organization is a lesser role than what he had before.

10:50 in the press conference Campbell is talking about Holms. He said: "I've been in contact with him... for a while." There was a very long pause there. I feel like he was about to say something like: "We've been in contact for weeks now." This would not be shocking to me in the least. I think we all long suspected that there are lots of back channel talks before things can be made official due to NFL rules. This just sorta confirms it, but I'm super glad he caught himself before saying the wrong thing. The NFL might know that these things happen and turn a blind eye to it, but if he stated it outright it would be pretty hard for the league to ignore it.

Is Mayhew the first ever former Lions GM who's landed another GM job?

I think the sample size is just too small to get worried about this. I mean, right now 33% of current NFL coaches who've never had play calling experience have won a super bowl in the last decade. What percentage of coaches who have had play calling experience can say the same?

Meh... I'd say he started with low credibility, but I'm being nitpicky here. Honestly, one thing I'm cautiously optimistic (the mantra of a Lions fan) about with Campbell is that he has some HC experience (granted, as an intern guy) and he was hired in NO as an assistant HC. I think too often OCs and DCs are just assumed to also be good HCs, but it's a very different animal. 'Weg and Schwartz being good examples of this. They both did very well as coordinators, but seemed to lack the ability to be a HC. Obviously I have zero experience in an actual NFL coach staff, but it just seems like it's a different job to lead a full team than it is to coordinate one side. Now, pure speculation on my part here, but one might conclude that Belichick does allow his coordinators to assist much in the HC role. He might not be a good teacher, or maybe just very jealous of his roll there, I dunno. But this might explain why so, so, so many Coordinators from New England have failed to be good HCs. They just don't get that experience or training or whatever that others might be getting in other teams. If this is the case than one might conclude that Campbell has been getting that training and might succeed at many of the areas where Patricia failed. The downside of course is that he hasn't had really any experience with implementing a scheme or calling plays, and so he can't mentor someone in that role as well as a person who has done that job. That makes his hires for OC and DC very critical. Ideally I'd love to see someone with past experience in both of those hires, but that's not always possible.

What you need is a team that feels like it's right there... that it's on the very cusp of greatness and it just need a good QB to put it all together. Let's say the Lions where in that position... they had a great defense, they had multiple piece on the offense, but had a questionable QB. If that was the case, would you trade a first round pick for a QB like Matt Ryan, for example. A good, QB, but one who's aging... would you pull the trigger for a 1st round pick? Maybe. Would you spend more than a first round pick? I don't think I would. I think the problem is that I just don't know of too many teams that are in that situation where they feel they're just one good QB away from doing it all.

I'd be interested in seeing what the ratio is for the whole league. I mean, if (for example) there's only two HCs in the whole league without play calling experience and they both made it to the playoffs, that's maybe a point in favor then. It's probably just a sample size thing... we're only talking about 32 HC positions each year and I suspect the vast majority of hires come from either DC or OC positions, so the numbers will always be skewed in the direction of DC/OC experience.

Given that the vast majority of HCs aren't former players, perhaps comparing HC race ratio to player race ratio is the proper comparison to make? Of the current HCs, only 7 have any experience as NFL players. Of those, three were one year or less on a team as a player.

Shamelessly stealing this from POD: https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2021/1/18/22236484/monday-open-thread-will-darrell-bevell-return-as-offensive-coordinator Assuming that Dan Campbell is the next HC, what do you think about retaining Bevell as OC? Now, I certainly hope that this will be Campbell's decision and this isn't forced on him by higher ups, but assuming that Campbell and Bevell hit if off, would you LIKE to see Bevell back or would you prefer to move on to someone new? I can see some advantages to Bevell staying: Obviously he's got experience with the current players in Detroit and the offense did seem to improve once Patricia was gone. It might be nice for a rookie HC to have some hold over to help ease the transition. On the other hand, having a guy who was a hold over from the past regime and who acted as the intern HC might cause some resistance if Campbell tries to put his mark on the offense and it differs from Bevell. With many of the players talking about that "breathe of fresh air" that came with Bevell, if there are any struggles initially the players might side with the known OC who gave them a spark of life vs. an new HC.

So, are you saying that all other things being equal if Patricia was the exact same person, but he was in good shape that the players would respect him? Do you think he would have been a successful coach if only he's been physically fit? How has Campbell "paid his dues" as a coach more than Patricia had prior to coming to Detroit? Patricia: 6 years coaching in college on both sides of the ball. 7 years various position coaching in the NFL on both sides of the ball. 5 years defensive coordinator under arguably the best football coaching mind. That's some damn impressive experience if you ask me. Now obviously it failed... big time. But there is nothing in the "work experience" area that looks bad to me. Please don't misunderstand me: I am not in anyway trying to say that Patricia was/is a good coach. I think there are many things to point to and I think you sorta touched on them. But just disagree with the idea that his being fat was what made the players dislike him.

I totally agree with all of this. What I disagree with is that because Patricia is out of shape that football players will not respect him.

I think any player thinking that way is an idiot. If a player can't understand that the requirements of a coach and a player re: conditioning are different, then I dunno if that player is smart enough to even learn a playbook. That's not to say that it might not be a side note sort of thing. If you already don't like the guy for X, Y, and X and a little bit of W as well, then the fact that he's making you condition hard when he's in poor shape might just bit a bit of gravy on the top in terms of dislike. But anyone who says: "Man... he'd be a decent enough coach over all, but the fact that he's overweight just means I can't listen to a think he says and take it seriously"... that person is dumb.

So, I looked up Campbell's history...

Does that mean the Lions might be looking to draft another TE in the first round... one who can also throw the ball??

^^^^ This ^^^^ Being a good DC or OC does not (obviously) lead to being a good HC... which of course is news to no one. Being a HC is just different in that there is more to manage. How much experience in the job of being an HC Campbell has gotten by being an assistant HC I don't know... but he at least has that tag on him and so has hopefully does some of that type of stuff. (Just to be clear: Being an assistant HC also does not lead to being a good HC... I'm not trying to say that I only wanna look at assistant HCs and ignore DC/OC people. Rather I'm saying that I'm not going to limit myself to only looking at DC/OCs or former HCs.)

So if I'm understanding correctly, you believe that the Hierarchy in the Lions goes something like this: Owner -> President -> Spielman -> GM -> Coach As opposed to the more traditional: Owner -> President -> GM -> Coach Obviously both examples were are HEAVILY over simplified and there's far more nuance and team work rather than straight lines. But boiled down is that kinda sorta your idea of how things are set? For what it's worth, I listened to an interview with a beat writer for the Rams who said something along these same lines... that most people assume the GM picks the coach, but that may not be happening here and now, and that may be because the GM is a rookie GM. (Of course, given that Spielman is a rookie [insert job title and hierarchy slot here] I don't necessarily feel that he's automatically any better at picking a coach.)

Honestly I'd be shocked if they got anything higher than a 3rd for Stafford. And if that's all they got then I'd rather keep him, draft his replacement and let the guy learn on the bench for a year or three.

It would seem odd to hire the HC before the GM unless they are planning on the HC being the guy calling the personal shots.

Genuine question here: Why do you think he's the worst? I mean, his college resume at Michigan is certainly not good, but his pro record is pretty decent. I mean, I'd take a 44-19-1 and 5-3 post season record. But this is obviously only over four years, so might be a fluke of sorts. I'm not saying I want Harbaugh at all... I'm just curious what your reasoning is given that his NFL record is good.

Yeah I phrased that poorly... what was going through my head was: The official was bad at his/her job in this moment. It's entirely possible that this official is great 99.9% of the time and we just witnessed the 0.1%. To me, this isn't a call that should be missed... it's not a split second call, you have multiple angles, you have limited time, but still time to weigh the options and not rush to a conclusion... but even the best sometimes blow it. I mean I'd generally consider Jim Joyce to be a great ump, and he blew a major call, so it happens.

I don't have a good alternative other than it was just a really bad call. I suppose the replay person might have thought they saw something, but I certainly didn't see it and I think most viewers as well as the announcers as well as the almighty Dean Blandino himself didn't see it. That's my only explanation, but it requires an official seeing something that no one else saw, which is a bad official then. It's probably just that an official was bad at his/her job. My comment wasn't that losers-bias couldn't exist, therefore conspiracy, rather that I see losers-bias effecting the outcome of this call less than split second, on the field calls. For the record: I do NOT believe there is a grand conspiracy in the NFL to keep the Lions down. In fact, I think it would be in the best interest of the league for each team to occasionally be good and win it all. This keeps fans of every team invested and interested. So if there was some conspiracy to fix games I think we'd be more likely to see the Lions win, at least occasionally.

I can accept and buy that for some calls, but only some. The TD is a perfect example of one I won't accept as unconscious bias. That wasn't a split second decision. It wasn't really a question of how to apply a rule. The rule is plain: If there is no clear evidence, the call on the field stands. There just was no clear evidence. There was plenty of time to view, review, tri-view and apply the rule correctly. With "bias" calls I think it tends to be more of a: "Meh... I can't really tell for sure, so I'm going to error on the side of assuming the Lions made a mistake cause more often than not, they do." Obviously this isn't what they are saying, but it's kinda the logic that the bias is built on. In the case of reviewing the TD there's a clear and defined way to handle the "I can't really tell for sure" part.

Being a casual hockey fan at best, I'm curious what more hard core fans think about this. I don't have much of a problem as presented here, but how long until it's "The MassMutual Division" instead of "The East Division presented by MassMutual"?