Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content Count

    22,724
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RedRamage


  1. 11 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

    I think what's flying under the radar is the hiring of Aaron Glenn. He seems to be an up and comer and was courted by other teams and the Lions got him. For once I want other teams to poach the Lions coordinators for coaches and I think Glenn will be. 

    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.


  2. 3 minutes ago, T&P_Fan said:

    A lot of national media making fun of Campbell’s press conference yesterday as they only focus on the knee cap sound bite.  Overall, I thought the press conference was really good.  Well articulated in many cases, passion boiling out.  Campbell already making the lions more relevant.  

    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.


  3. 5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

    Say what you will about his drafts, but he knocked it out of the park with some of his free agent signings like Golden Tate and Glover Quinn. Other signings such as Tulloch and Bush weren't too bad and he made decent trades like for Chris Houston. He seemed to have more skill for pro personnel than college. 

    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.


  4. 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.

    • Like 1

  5. 2 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

    Listening to the Pride of Detroit podcast today they mentioned that John Harbaugh, Joe Judge, and Brian Flores are the only Head Coaches in the NFL without prior play calling experience. Harbaugh obviously makes you feel good because he's had a lot of success in Baltimore. Flores looks like he's an improvement from Tua away from being a quality hire and the Giants are a lightyear away from being a good team under Judge. I can't say the Campbell hire inspires me at all given only 3 guys in the NFL have no prior play calling experience.

    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?


  6. 11 hours ago, Jason_R said:

    He started with no credibility. He left with less. 

    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.


  7. 9 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

    My bone of contention is I just don't know how much we can get for him and I'm skeptical of if we can get more than a first.(which is what it would take for me)

    Has there really been a precedent in recent memory to compare him to?  We talked about Cutler but he was a lot younger than Stafford.  

    If teams really are willing to give as much as many of you lead to believe then fine trade him, I'm just skeptical of what he can really get cause there's nothing to really compare it to that I can think of.   

    If the best we can get is a 1st from a Super Contender(which means it will be a late first) Id prefer just to keep him cause I would see that as a lateral move cause you're just going to then have to use a first and likely not even get a qb as good as him anyway.  

    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.


  8. 36 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

    One thing that concerns me about the Campbell hire is looking at all of the playoff coaches over the last couple of years and seeing just how many of them were X's and O's guys, with prior offensive or defensive play calling experience going into the job and how few did not have prior play calling experience. For the sake of John Harbaugh, since he only called special teams plays, I included him in the camp of guys who didn't call plays prior to becoming a Head Coach.

    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.


  9. 1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

    With only the Houston job left open, I have to observe that there were 6 openings for Head Coach and it looks like none of them are going to a black coach (maybe Caldwell in Houston).    Player-wise the league is 70% black.    Happy MLK Day.  

    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.


  10. 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.


  11. On 1/16/2021 at 2:54 PM, Jason_R said:

    Nope. 

    These players have spent 15 or more years training and competing at the highest level every day. They do not respect bull ****. 

    And they shouldn’t. 

    Patricia came in with zero credibility. Bro, did he even lift?

    No. He was a fat slob who rode the coattails of the greatest HC in history and the greatest QB in history. 

    He could have earned credibility if his rocket scientist defensive schemes worked. But they didn’t. So he started with zero credibility and went down from there. 

    Suddenly it was players who another coach had won with who were the problem. Coach with zero credibility at the start found himself in a credibility deficit and had to start running off good players. Now the franchise has a talent deficit as a result. 

    At the very least Campbell proved that he belonged in the NFL as a player. And he has paid his dues as a coach. He may not be the right guy, but he would not be starting out with zero credibility. 

    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.


  12. On 1/16/2021 at 1:45 PM, Gehringer_2 said:

    Well, yes and no. Every coach needs some wedge to establish his credibility. But it can be different for each coach. If you played for Bill Walsh you had to respect that he was going to give you better X's and O's every week than the other guy got. If you are Bill Belichek your players have to respect that you have a whole hand full of the rings they want too. Some coaches may have the luxury of a personality that just pulls people in (Urban Meyer?). If a coach doesn't have those things (yet), but is young and strong enough to go through drills or train with his players to prove his commitment and establish a common frame of experience, there is nothing wrong with that either.

    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.


  13. 15 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

    I have to say, Campbell looks to be in incredible shape. It must of been hard to take Patricia seriously when he was making the players run and he was fatter than holy ****. 

    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.

     


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

    Campbell was the tight ends coach with the Miami Dolphins from 2011 until he took over as the interim head coach when Joe Philbin was fired on October 5, 2015. Campbell led the team to five wins and seven losses.

    After leaving the Dolphins in January 2016, Campbell was hired by the Saints as the assistant head coach and tight ends coach.

    I find it interesting that he, as the TE coach, became the intern HC in Miami.

    Also the fact that he was hired as assistant HC and TE coach by the Saints means something too me.  I wasn't sure if he got the aHC tag as just a way for him to be a gopher for the HC because a TE coach doesn't have enough to do of if it was a "real" position.  Seems like it's real.  That's good.


  15. 27 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

    To be fair though, he is currently the TE coach/AHC on a team that utilizes Taysom Hill as a do-it-all QB/TE/Flex and it's working out pretty well. Pretty much the epitome of what you're describing. I don't think he would go and completely abandon it all to try to create a 3yds and a cloud of dust football team.

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


  16. 37 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

    Fans gets enamored with offensive and defensive rankings but that really doesn't measure leadership. Get a strong leader and add good coordinators. Vrabel in his one season as defensive coordinator had the worst defense in the NFL. He is a good leader and surrounded himself with good coordinators. Two of his coordinators are head coaches now. 

    ^^^^ 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.)


  17. 10 hours ago, Jason_R said:

    Instead, what it looks like is the team hired Spielman to oversee football operations for ownership. He is the guy responsible to get the GM and HC to stay on the same page. And Spielman has been, at the very least, heavily involved in the interview process; it would be speculative (but not implausible, and probably more likely than not) to say that he’s been the leading voice. 

    A lot of people keep talking as if the team needed to hire a GM so they can hire a HC, but the facts on the ground demonstrate that ownership/ Spielman didn’t believe this at all. From how it appears now, they are going to give Holmes the chance to rubber stamp Smith tomorrow, or to start work on day 1 and tell the Owner, President, Special Assistant to the President that they are wrong. 

    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.)


  18. 56 minutes ago, kgeorge78 said:

    Im neutral on the hire.

    His first step is to figure out the Stafford Situation.

    I've said it before I love Stafford but it's time to go.  lets see if he can get a 1st for him but not holding my breath.

    If he stays I'm ok with that as well as long as they draft wisely.

     

     

    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.


  19. 14 hours ago, T&P_Fan said:

    I would hire every college coach before Harbaugh.  He is the worst.  

    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.


  20. 8 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

    I think that's fine then, we can agree. I don't think unconscious bias can be the reason for every poor call. Even the best of the best miss some, so to that point I would rather put it as "an official missed a call" rather than "was bad at his/her job" because their job is much more than just that singular call.

    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.

    • Like 1

  21. On 1/7/2021 at 8:50 PM, MichiganCardinal said:

    What is your alternative explanation? Do you really believe there is some grand conspiracy where senior NFL personnel and administration pick and choose winners and losers of games? Who have NFL game and replay officials who have spent their entire adult lives climbing the officiating ladder from high school to JuCo to D3,2,1 to the NFL putting that plan into motion? And those officials then executing that plan by having zero to five 50-50 calls in a game (or sure a little worse sometimes) go for one team and against another? And that not one of these hundreds of people involved has ever blown it wide open - publicly or privately - when it would rank as probably the biggest sports scandal in US sports history? Do we go further then? Do they have enforcers too? Or is it more likely that even the best of the best sometimes make bad mistakes?

    I'm not going to believe this kind of grand conspiracy in the same way I won't believe the moon landing was faked... or that airplane vapor is turning the damn frogs gay... That's the stuff for InfoWars, not me. 

    Could one person maybe pull off a little bit of BS that would tarnish the league's reputation, destroy their own reputation, and likely land them in prison? Sure, we saw that in the NBA with Tim Donaghy. But some grand scandal meant to keep the Lions down and other teams up? Nah. They've managed to do that on their own just fine.

    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.

     


  22. On 1/6/2021 at 8:48 AM, MichiganCardinal said:

    I think there is something to this, but it's more along the lines of unconscious bias than overt favoritism or even outright fixing of games as some go so far to say.

    Basically all people, even those paid to be neutral, see the Lions and without even thinking about it go:

    Lions --> Inept Franchise --> Probably doesn't do things well

    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.


  23. image.thumb.png.1a13526edab72b025da93b8dd3fceaea.png

    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"?

×
×
  • Create New...