Jump to content

Sydney_Fife

Fire Jim Caldwell

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Punts and Kickoffs are very different things... so much so that some teams use different guys for each.  Add in the fact that the NFL has done it's darnest to make it less "profitable" to return kicks and the fact that the Lions haven't been a good kick returning team in a long time... it just doesn't make sense in the majority of situations to run out the ball.

The half-point per drive is not insignificant PLUS, as Jason indicated, you give up field position too.

We don't use different guys though.......

Of course a half point per drive is important, and while we're obviously on an ugly streak(small sample size alert!), I don't think you can coach assuming your guy will only make the 15 every time he returns. To each their own I suppose. What's the expected points added on 2 KOs taken back to the 15 and the third to the EZ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nastradamus said:

We don't use different guys though.......

Of course a half point per drive is important, and while we're obviously on an ugly streak(small sample size alert!), I don't think you can coach assuming your guy will only make the 15 every time he returns. To each their own I suppose. What's the expected points added on 2 KOs taken back to the 15 and the third to the EZ? 

I feel extremely confident that if the lions had a rate of anywhere close to 1 out of 3 being touchdowns, not a single person here would be complaining about them not making it past the 15. Without looking at the numbers, through 4 games, I would guess they are 0 for about 10 (that weren't touchbacks) though. So your scenario doesn't really apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nastradamus said:

We don't use different guys though.......

Of course a half point per drive is important, and while we're obviously on an ugly streak(small sample size alert!), I don't think you can coach assuming your guy will only make the 15 every time he returns. To each their own I suppose. What's the expected points added on 2 KOs taken back to the 15 and the third to the EZ? 

Heck, if every third KO was a TD I'd say ALWAYS run them out.  But it isn't... not even close.  If we assume that taking the ball out averages starting at the 15... therefore 10 yards difference... therefore .5 points less (on average) you'd need to average one TD every 14 Kickoffs.  The Lions aren't even close to that.

I looked at 2015 (Yes I know... different players, different return man... but I wanted to eliminate small sample size as much as possible).  In 2015 the Lions received 85 kick offs and scored... zero TDs on those kicks.  For the sake of easy math, let's say the Lions receive 84 Kicks this year... if they average 15 yards per attempted rush out of the EZ they would need to get 6 return TDs.  When was the last time the Lions had 6 return TDs off Kickoffs in a year?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hardyaf said:

I feel extremely confident that if the lions had a rate of anywhere close to 1 out of 3 being touchdowns, not a single person here would be complaining about them not making it past the 15. Without looking at the numbers, through 4 games, I would guess they are 0 for about 10 (that weren't touchbacks) though. So your scenario doesn't really apply.

Its a lesson on small sample size. Its like saying never run the ball if you get stuffed a few times. In fact though, teams that run the ball stick to it even when it doesn't go well early on 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nastradamus said:

Its a lesson on small sample size. Its like saying never run the ball if you get stuffed a few times. In fact though, teams that run the ball stick to it even when it doesn't go well early on 

I would feel confident you could increase the sample size to whatever you want and the very few teams would make up the difference. This is why almost every team takes the touchback. 

On your other note, and definitely off topic, I would absolutely say the lions in particular would be a better football team if they never run the ball. Using the same logic I presented early about field position and expected points, last season Ameer Abdullah added negative expected points to the lions over the course of an entire season. Some of that was due to turnovers, but a lot of it is because the lions kill themselves with short runs. For instance, getting 2 or 3 yards on 1st or 2nd and 10 actually decreases the expected value of your drive. And the lions do that a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red is right. Fielding a punt is far different from fielding a kickoff. He's also right that when you give up, say, ten yards of field position by refusing to take the touchback, you are also giving up, say, half a point plus the additional, say, half a point that your opponent gets from better field position. Multiply that by several kickoffs a game, and suddenly you are like the Lions, spending halves of several games with terrible field position, giving your defense short fields to defend, and losing games by a few measly points - that you probably gave up by losing the battle of field position. I'm sorry, that is losing football, and poor coaching. If Andre Roberts was Mel Gray, maybe I would feel differently. But he's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

Red is right. Fielding a punt is far different from fielding a kickoff. He's also right that when you give up, say, ten yards of field position by refusing to take the touchback, you are also giving up, say, half a point plus the additional, say, half a point that your opponent gets from better field position. Multiply that by several kickoffs a game, and suddenly you are like the Lions, spending halves of several games with terrible field position, giving your defense short fields to defend, and losing games by a few measly points - that you probably gave up by losing the battle of field position. I'm sorry, that is losing football, and poor coaching. If Andre Roberts was Mel Gray, maybe I would feel differently. But he's not.

The big difference between a punt and a kickoff: There is commonly no reward for not returning a punt. No teams return punts out of their own endzone. They only return punts that aren't going to be touchbacks, where there is literally no reason not to try. Which is why its silly that the lions always choose to return a kickoff from the endzone, but never a punt from the endzone. If you could fair catch any punt for a free 25 yards, every team would do that every time. 

Most expected value models do take opposing field position into account, fwiw. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hardyaf said:

I would feel confident you could increase the sample size to whatever you want and the very few teams would make up the difference. This is why almost every team takes the touchback. 

On your other note, and definitely off topic, I would absolutely say the lions in particular would be a better football team if they never run the ball. Using the same logic I presented early about field position and expected points, last season Ameer Abdullah added negative expected points to the lions over the course of an entire season. Some of that was due to turnovers, but a lot of it is because the lions kill themselves with short runs. For instance, getting 2 or 3 yards on 1st or 2nd and 10 actually decreases the expected value of your drive. And the lions do that a lot. 

Sure, if you're bad, you're bad. That's different that sillily extrapolating a small sample size that is unlikely to repeat over the course of a season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

Red is right. Fielding a punt is far different from fielding a kickoff. He's also right that when you give up, say, ten yards of field position by refusing to take the touchback, you are also giving up, say, half a point plus the additional, say, half a point that your opponent gets from better field position. Multiply that by several kickoffs a game, and suddenly you are like the Lions, spending halves of several games with terrible field position, giving your defense short fields to defend, and losing games by a few measly points - that you probably gave up by losing the battle of field position. I'm sorry, that is losing football, and poor coaching. If Andre Roberts was Mel Gray, maybe I would feel differently. But he's not.

We had some decent KO return options to start the year, all who Roberts was chosen over. I doubt what he is showing in practice is that he is completely incapble of taking it past the 15. He had a bad day. The next week he had a good week as returner. Yes, of course they are different, but you can still see that the man has abilities in the open field. This isn't talking about an OL playing CB here........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The starting drive position and 0.5 expected point loss is fair. I guess we can disagree on whether that qualifies as significant. That difference is not something that concerns me enough to bench a guy for taking it out of the end zone.

But it doesn't count twice. Those expected points numbers take into account the resulting field position of the other team on their next drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many things that can happen in a drive that will overcome that initial deficit. Yes, based on thousands of various drives it is shown that it has this small effect on scoring. But there is just much noise within a small sample like we are discussing that I don't think it is significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelton said:

There are so many things that can happen in a drive that will overcome that initial deficit. Yes, based on thousands of various drives it is shown that it has this small effect on scoring. But there is just much noise within a small sample like we are discussing that I don't think it is significant.

I don't disagree, that in each individual game it probably doesn't matter. But thats true of everything about Caldwell. Individually, the lions didn't lose because caldwell (or his staff) doesn't believe in taking a touchback. They don't lose because he didn't challenge a call. They don't lose because he doesn't know an obscure rule. They don't lose because he mismanages the clock. Etc. None of his mistakes** are so criminal that he is single handedly losing the game for his team. But they all add up. And he doesn't make up for it anywhere (that I can see anyway). For instance, If he game planned like Belicheck, I wouldn't complain about them running the ball back (actually, I would, but I would also think he might have some numbers to back it up). So yeah, he's not doing anything criminally dumb, like punting on second down, or taking the wind in overtime (which Belicheck also did, fwiw), but he doesn't nessesarily do anything well, and his little mistakes add up.

 

**except running the ball 3 straight times on the goaline when he has a pass-first team, and then kicking a field-goal against a bryan hoyer led offense... I'd argue that directly led to the loss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree, that in each individual game it probably doesn't matter. But thats true of everything about Caldwell. Individually, the lions didn't lose because caldwell (or his staff) doesn't believe in taking a touchback. They don't lose because he didn't challenge a call. They don't lose because he doesn't know an obscure rule. They don't lose because he mismanages the clock. Etc. None of his mistakes** are so criminal that he is single handedly losing the game for his team. But they all add up. And he doesn't make up for it anywhere (that I can see anyway). For instance, If he game planned like Belicheck, I wouldn't complain about them running the ball back (actually, I would, but I would also think he might have some numbers to back it up). So yeah, he's not doing anything criminally dumb, like punting on second down, or taking the wind in overtime (which Belicheck also did, fwiw), but he doesn't nessesarily do anything well, and his little mistakes add up.

 

**except running the ball 3 straight times on the goaline when he has a pass-first team, and then kicking a field-goal against a bryan hoyer led offense... I'd argue that directly led to the loss

That is perfectly reasonable. I don't necessarily agree that all of those things add up to a conclusion that Caldwell is the reason the team is 1-3.

Don't misunderstand, I don't particularly like him. I just thought the weight being given to a handful of returns that cost 10 yards of field position around our own 20 was overblown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shelton said:

That is perfectly reasonable. I don't necessarily agree that all of those things add up to a conclusion that Caldwell is the reason the team is 1-3.

Don't misunderstand, I don't particularly like him. I just thought the weight being given to a handful of returns that cost 10 yards of field position around our own 20 was overblown.

I don't think there was a lot of weight given to the return game "mistakes."  Rather it was just one of a number of examples I used to indicate what I saw a problems with Caldwell.  That slipped into a discussion on whether running out of the endzone was really a mistake or not.  That's fine... it's a discussion forum tangents are expected and usually fun to explore, but I don't think anyone was saying Caldwell should be fired because and only because of, or even mainly because of, poor discussion making by the return specialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, if you're bad, you're bad. That's different that sillily extrapolating a small sample size that is unlikely to repeat over the course of a season. 

Average of 10.5 kickoffs in a game. Five for each team. Times 16. That's 80 kickoffs in a season. If, on average, Andre Roberts runs it out to the 15 instead of taking the 25, that's 800 yards of field position he's losing and 40 points. (But maybe he will suddenly turn into Devin Hester, of course, I hadn't thought of that.)

Geez even the fans are Lionized. They like for our team to be undisciplined, to make dozens of bad decisions in hopes that one of those bad decisions might pay off in a splashy play. They apologize for it, justify it, defend it. Oh, we lost to the Titans by 1 and the Bears by 3. Those are the breaks.

And my point is not just kickoff returns. It is that this team is undisciplined in many ways - including by not taking the 25 yards, including penalties, including sloppy play execution - and this has to be on Caldwell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the lions are 1-3 is not jim caldwell, its that they are not very talented.

Defense: slay, ansah, and who else? Quinn?  Maybe but he is getting older and didnt really want to mix it up woth the bears running backs.  Ngata?  Nope.  Done.  Levy?  Who?  The guy that used to play linebacker for the lions?

The rest of the cornerbacks and linebackers are bad.  The dline is bad.  I heard a lot about quandre diggs and nevin lawson in the preseason, does anyone still think theyre good?  

Offense: stafford.  Abdullah?  I guess so.  But we may never know.  Riddick?  Third down back only.  Jones?  Good.  Tate?  Used to be good and seema to have quit.  Ebron?  Unproven.  Oline?  Tomlinson is terrible.  Rieff is average.  Warford regressed.  At least decker has potential and swanson has improved.

They have a complete rebuild to do on defense.  They are dependent on their entire oline improving with age.  And they have decisions to make on rieff and warford this year.

This is a tear down, folks.  This team sucks.  Its only hope is if stafford can go crazy like he did in week one.  He is capable of it, but thats the only way theyre going to win games this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason the lions are 1-3 is not jim caldwell, its that they are not very talented.

Defense: slay, ansah, and who else? Quinn?  Maybe but he is getting older and didnt really want to mix it up woth the bears running backs.  Ngata?  Nope.  Done.  Levy?  Who?  The guy that used to play linebacker for the lions?

The rest of the cornerbacks and linebackers are bad.  The dline is bad.  I heard a lot about quandre diggs and nevin lawson in the preseason, does anyone still think theyre good?  

Offense: stafford.  Abdullah?  I guess so.  But we may never know.  Riddick?  Third down back only.  Jones?  Good.  Tate?  Used to be good and seema to have quit.  Ebron?  Unproven.  Oline?  Tomlinson is terrible.  Rieff is average.  Warford regressed.  At least decker has potential and swanson has improved.

They have a complete rebuild to do on defense.  They are dependent on their entire oline improving with age.  And they have decisions to make on rieff and warford this year.

This is a tear down, folks.  This team sucks.  Its only hope is if stafford can go crazy like he did in week one.  He is capable of it, but thats the only way theyre going to win games this year.

They are not talented (especially on defense), but they have more talent than the Titans or the depleted Bears. I don't think it is unreasonable to blame those losses on poor execution from top to bottom, which is on the coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Average of 10.5 kickoffs in a game. Five for each team. Times 16. That's 80 kickoffs in a season. If, on average, Andre Roberts runs it out to the 15 instead of taking the 25, that's 800 yards of field position he's losing and 40 points. (But maybe he will suddenly turn into Devin Hester, of course, I hadn't thought of that.)

Geez even the fans are Lionized. They like for our team to be undisciplined, to make dozens of bad decisions in hopes that one of those bad decisions might pay off in a splashy play. They apologize for it, justify it, defend it. Oh, we lost to the Titans by 1 and the Bears by 3. Those are the breaks.

And my point is not just kickoff returns. It is that this team is undisciplined in many ways - including by not taking the 25 yards, including penalties, including sloppy play execution - and this has to be on Caldwell.

If he does it 80 times this year, that would not be optimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jason_R said:
5 hours ago, Buddha said:
The reason the lions are 1-3 is not jim caldwell, its that they are not very talented.

Defense: slay, ansah, and who else? Quinn?  Maybe but he is getting older and didnt really want to mix it up woth the bears running backs.  Ngata?  Nope.  Done.  Levy?  Who?  The guy that used to play linebacker for the lions?

The rest of the cornerbacks and linebackers are bad.  The dline is bad.  I heard a lot about quandre diggs and nevin lawson in the preseason, does anyone still think theyre good?  

Offense: stafford.  Abdullah?  I guess so.  But we may never know.  Riddick?  Third down back only.  Jones?  Good.  Tate?  Used to be good and seema to have quit.  Ebron?  Unproven.  Oline?  Tomlinson is terrible.  Rieff is average.  Warford regressed.  At least decker has potential and swanson has improved.

They have a complete rebuild to do on defense.  They are dependent on their entire oline improving with age.  And they have decisions to make on rieff and warford this year.

This is a tear down, folks.  This team sucks.  Its only hope is if stafford can go crazy like he did in week one.  He is capable of it, but thats the only way theyre going to win games this year.

 

They are not talented (especially on defense), but they have more talent than the Titans or the depleted Bears. I don't think it is unreasonable to blame those losses on poor execution from top to bottom, which is on the coach.

I think caldwell is a poor coach.  His one saving grace is his ability to get his players to play hard for him because they respect him.  The evidence from the bears game is that the team no longer does that.

Which is why caldwell must be fired.  If not mid season then at the end of the year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as fans we have the following:

A coach that is terrible

A team that is terrible except maybe 2-3 players

So how are the new cheerleaders? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shelton said:

That is perfectly reasonable. I don't necessarily agree that all of those things add up to a conclusion that Caldwell is the reason the team is 1-3.

Don't misunderstand, I don't particularly like him. I just thought the weight being given to a handful of returns that cost 10 yards of field position around our own 20 was overblown.

this guy gets it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nd1377 said:

A coach that is terrible

A team that is terrible except maybe 2-3 players

Outside of a few blind squirrel exceptions, you just accurately summarized the Detroit Lions of the last 40+ years

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jason_R said:
19 hours ago, Buddha said:
The reason the lions are 1-3 is not jim caldwell, its that they are not very talented.

Defense: slay, ansah, and who else? Quinn?  Maybe but he is getting older and didnt really want to mix it up woth the bears running backs.  Ngata?  Nope.  Done.  Levy?  Who?  The guy that used to play linebacker for the lions?

The rest of the cornerbacks and linebackers are bad.  The dline is bad.  I heard a lot about quandre diggs and nevin lawson in the preseason, does anyone still think theyre good?  

Offense: stafford.  Abdullah?  I guess so.  But we may never know.  Riddick?  Third down back only.  Jones?  Good.  Tate?  Used to be good and seema to have quit.  Ebron?  Unproven.  Oline?  Tomlinson is terrible.  Rieff is average.  Warford regressed.  At least decker has potential and swanson has improved.

They have a complete rebuild to do on defense.  They are dependent on their entire oline improving with age.  And they have decisions to make on rieff and warford this year.

This is a tear down, folks.  This team sucks.  Its only hope is if stafford can go crazy like he did in week one.  He is capable of it, but thats the only way theyre going to win games this year.

 

They are not talented (especially on defense), but they have more talent than the Titans or the depleted Bears. I don't think it is unreasonable to blame those losses on poor execution from top to bottom, which is on the coach.

This. We will be a sub .500 team because this team isn't talented, but I agree that right now we are 1-3 due to issues outside of talent. Discipline, poor coaching, etc. are major reasons why.

Trying to justify Caldwell still being on this team or justifying Roberts continuing to take the ball out for 8 yards deep in the endzone is just crazy to me. Fans of the Packers/Patriots/Steelers/Seahawks/etc. would be foaming at the mouth demanding for Caldwell to be gone and for Roberts to stop making bone-headed plays (for the record, I obviously don't mind him trying to return punts...but kickoffs are totally different).

Lions fans are, by and large, complacent and loyal to a fault. Caldwell had one solid season largely due to having a dominate offense and since then has failed to deliver. He isn't a good coach, he wasn't seen as a good coach in Indy (those fans HATED him), and by most reports he was going to be fired as the Ravens OC after the disaster that was the 2013 season for the Ravens.

http://forums.colts.com/topic/4461-caldwell-fired-merge-with-poll/

http://boards.baltimoreravens.com/topic/56849-news-late-for-work-11-jim-caldwell-to-interview-for-lions-head-coaching-job/?page=2

Thread full of Colts fans after he got fired and Ravens fans praying Caldwell got the job here so he wouldn't be the Ravens OC anymore (after one full year). Interestingly enough, the Ravens went from 25th ranked offense (points scored) in 2013 with Caldwell as the OC and then to the 8th best offense in 2014 after Caldwell left. 

Stop defending this terrible coach. He isn't good, he needs to go. The fact he not only got hired but was the only publicly announced interview just confirms the utter ineptitude of Mayhew. I still for the life of me, cant't fathom how people actually defended Mayhew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EchO said:

.........The fact he not only got hired but was the only publicly announced interview just confirms the utter ineptitude of Mayhew. I still for the life of me, cant't fathom how people actually defended Mayhew.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that he inherited an 0-16 team and then made changes which led to the playoffs. For the Lions, making the playoffs is a miracle and seen as a major accomplishment by fans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nd1377 said:

A lot of it has to do with the fact that he inherited an 0-16 team and then made changes which led to the playoffs. For the Lions, making the playoffs is a miracle and seen as a major accomplishment by fans. 

I understand this line of thinking, I just don't agree. To me that line of thinking is like defending Stalin because he wasn't as bad as Hitler. For the record, I'm not saying you in particular are doing this, but just because Mayhew wasn't as bad as literally the worst sports executive in the history of...sports...doesn't mean he was good or worthy of defending: he was terrible, just not historically terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      95,488
    • Total Posts
      2,719,647
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×