View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 17th, 2014, 9:47 am



Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Same Old Lions? 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12018
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
JL wrote:
I went to a neighbor's house and had a piece of pie. It was apple pie, and my favorite is cherry. It tasted great, the pie had a lattice crust, it was sweet and no bitter aftertaste. But the plate it was served on wasn't porcelain, the napkin wasn't linen, and the fork wasn't sterling silver. Oh, and there was no scoop of ice cream either.

Off topic? Not really. Instead of being more happy that the Lions won, too many people want to focus on the negatives.

Lions had too many penalties? The Lions had 8. The Jets had 20, including one player (Kyle Wilson) that got flagged on 4 consecutive plays. The Jets won - do you think they should give the win back?

I've been a Lions fan since 1957. In all that time I've seen the Lions go into Washington and lose in the most incredible number of ways.

So while a lot of you want to whinge and moan about all the bad things - things NONE of you negative nannies can work to correct, since I doubt a single on of you work for the Detroit Lions - I'm going to sit back and enjoy the fact that my favorite NFL team won a game in Washington for the first time since my father was an itch in my Grandfather's britches.
Well said. =D>

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


September 24th, 2013, 10:19 am
Profile
Online
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1367
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
JL wrote:
I went to a neighbor's house and had a piece of pie. It was apple pie, and my favorite is cherry. It tasted great, the pie had a lattice crust, it was sweet and no bitter aftertaste. But the plate it was served on wasn't porcelain, the napkin wasn't linen, and the fork wasn't sterling silver. Oh, and there was no scoop of ice cream either.

Off topic? Not really. Instead of being more happy that the Lions won, too many people want to focus on the negatives.

Lions had too many penalties? The Lions had 8. The Jets had 20, including one player (Kyle Wilson) that got flagged on 4 consecutive plays. The Jets won - do you think they should give the win back?

I've been a Lions fan since 1957. In all that time I've seen the Lions go into Washington and lose in the most incredible number of ways.

So while a lot of you want to whinge and moan about all the bad things - things NONE of you negative nannies can work to correct, since I doubt a single on of you work for the Detroit Lions - I'm going to sit back and enjoy the fact that my favorite NFL team won a game in Washington for the first time since my father was an itch in my Grandfather's britches.


I didn't see anyone on this thread say they were unhappy about the win or that the Lions didn't deserve it. The only point that people have been trying to be make is that this team hasn't gotten past their SOL moniker because they are still making the same mistakes. The Lions will forever hold that moniker just like when a person gets a nickname for doing something stupid. The name may fade over time, but do one thing that reminds someone of the name and boom, it's back again.


September 24th, 2013, 11:04 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9864
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
Hystrix wrote:
m2karateman wrote:

Hystrix, what I want is to see week over week improvement in the team fixing their mistakes. They beat a winless Redskins team by a touchdown. By all rights, they should have blown this team off the field. While you want to point out positives (and any fan should), I can point out equal amounts of negative. There were lots of positives that could have been counted during all of the losses in last season as well.

As I said in another post, I'm happy they won. But that victory won't put blinders on me as to what could have or SHOULD have been better. You can slice this however you want, you are entitled to your opinion. As I am entitled to mine.

Some of the negatives I spoke of;

1. While Bell has a good overall day, his rushing average was barely above 3.0 ypc.
2. The Redskins, meanwhile, averaged 5.5 ypc.
3. The pick six was a terrible play, either by Stafford (bad pass) or CJ (bad route). Terrible.
4. Lions were 4/13 on 3rd down.
5. Redskins were 6/13 on 3rd down.
6. Redskins had nearly double our rushing yards, and over 400 yards from scrimmage net.
7. Griffin, who has struggled throwing the ball, completed 64% of his passes.
8. Lions had 8 penalties, including another dumb personal foul.
9. Lions gave up 116 yards in returns (including pick six).
10. Snap miscue with Stafford nearly causing a fumble, and a wasted play.
11. It took the CJ rule to discount what would have been the go ahead TD against the Lions in the final quarter. More bad deep coverage.
12. Another LONG TD run given up by our defense.

Maybe not equal to the 14 you brought up, but there is a whole bunch of stuff that, if the Lions had played a quality team, would have easily cost them the game.



Not to piggy back off Pablo, but here goes:

1. Bells career average is closer to 4.8 ypc. If that's a bad day for Bell, I can't wait to see what a good day is. BTW fantasy leagues buzzing over Bell. When is the last time a Lions Running back mattered in Fantasy Football, let alone our backup.

2. So what? Were the Deadskins RBs all healthy? Must be nice. Maybe Skins fans are patting themselves on the back for there running game being marginally better, but I doubt it.

3. Yep. He has made a whopping two INTs so far. 6 TDs, 2 INTs and 1000 passing yards. What's the complaint again? Oh, and they then scored on the next two drives. Mistakes happened, we recovered.

4. Again bad day on the 3rd down conversion front, yet we still won.

5. Would you be happier if the Lions were 6/13 on third down and lost?

6. Like Pablo said, which team had more yards?

7. Griffin made more mistakes than Stafford, who you wanna bust on for his ONE INT. Griffin also had fewer yards, fewer TDs (as in 0), and he LOST.

8. Yeah, the Redskins had there share of penalties as well. One of those 8 you mention was some bogus new kickoff rule. Even the slappy NFL announcers acknowledged it was obscure.

9. 116 return yards? You really are reaching. The Lions kicked off 5 times. Doesn't sound that impressive.

10. Yeah as Pablo said he didn't fumble. It was a boneheaded play by a veteran center who wasn't paying attention.

11. I will never, EVER feel bad about another receiver getting a TD taken away. EVER. There is a reason you called it the CJ rule.

12. 30 yards? I guess. Still kind of a reach. The Deadskins scored one measly offensive TD. If that's our worst problem...

Hey you have the right to your opinion, but you sound more like your trying to do your best WJB impression than bring up anything valid. BTW winning cures a lot. Next week is gonna be a rough game....just enjoy the wins when we get them.



You and Pablo have chosen to insert information pertaining to either the entire season where it's convenient, or comparing last year to this year, or comparing to other teams not involved in this game. Are we talking about the Washington game, or something else? Make up my mind.

You were the one that decided to list the positives, don't blame me for pointing out the negatives. I'm not the only one doing it. Schwartz has done it, as well as the other coaches, immediately after the game.

I don't know about you, but I'm not getting my hopes up on the season because of one win on the road against a team that is winless thus far and still managed to be one play away from tying the game.

You wanna compare me to WJB, that's fine. Whether you like it or not, he was correct about many of his observations regarding this team. Perhaps he method of arguing was unsavory, but his points were right on about a number of things. I'm not the only one on this forum, and certainly not the only observer of this team that saw this game for what it was.

It was a victory. But not a performance that makes me feel really good about the next two games coming up.

If the Lions are able to beat Chicago or Cincy, they will have proven something. But I GUARANTEE you, if they would have faced either of those teams on this past Sunday, and performed that way, they would have had their collective BUTTS handed to them. If you can't accept that fact, then you can join Billy in the Rose Colored Glasses Wearing Bleachers.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


September 24th, 2013, 11:50 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9864
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
JL wrote:
Lions had too many penalties? The Lions had 8. The Jets had 20, including one player (Kyle Wilson) that got flagged on 4 consecutive plays. The Jets won - do you think they should give the win back?

I've been a Lions fan since 1957. In all that time I've seen the Lions go into Washington and lose in the most incredible number of ways.

So while a lot of you want to whinge and moan about all the bad things - things NONE of you negative nannies can work to correct, since I doubt a single on of you work for the Detroit Lions - I'm going to sit back and enjoy the fact that my favorite NFL team won a game in Washington for the first time since my father was an itch in my Grandfather's britches.


First off....what the FU(K does what the NY Jets did this past weekend have to do with the Lions game against Washington?! Are you a Jets fan or a Lions fan?

I never said the Lions were the most penalized team this weekend. I never said they were the worst team this weekend. And I NEVER said I wasn't happy about the win against Washington.

Go ahead and enjoy the moment. Because that moment has ended.

The Lions have upcoming games against the Bears, Packers, Browns, Bengals and Cowboys before the bye week. They are 2-1 right now. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see them at 3-5 after that run of games.

Would THAT make you happy? Because my opinion is that if the Lions continue to play like they did Sunday, making foolish penalties and allowing chunk plays, they will be LUCKY to have the three wins after that stretch. All five of those teams are MUCH better than Washington and Arizona. The Lions got by Washington and gave away the game against Arizona. Arizona has two wins since last September. Wanna guess who those two wins came against?

Soooo.....let's all give a big YAHOO because the Lions FINALLY beat the Redskins on the road.

As I said before....I'm happy about the win, but not excited about the performance.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


September 24th, 2013, 12:06 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9446
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
m2karateman wrote:
You wanna compare me to WJB, that's fine.


I knew WJB posts and I know your posts and you sir are no WJB! (thankfully)

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 24th, 2013, 1:19 pm
Profile WWW
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7355
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
Pablo wrote:
BillySims wrote:
I think the Cards are a better team than he gives them credit for being.


Those Cards who scored and early TD vs. the Saints and then gave up 31 straight points to lose 31-7 and are now 1-2.

Let's still remember, the Lions have now played three teams and those teams have combined to win one game (the Cards win over the Lions). That said, the SOL would be one of those teams in the past - not the team that just won in DC.


UM. It was the Saints. You know that team that has a mission to prove that they are back from the bounty gate scandal? The Saints are slightly more than an average offense. And it appears their defense is vastly improved so far.


September 26th, 2013, 10:38 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7355
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
Hystrix wrote:
m2karateman wrote:
BillySims wrote:
We'll then I feel sorry for you that you have become so embittered that you can't just appreciate that the Lions beat history yesterday. Could they have played better? Yep. The SOL would have lost.



I'm not embittered Billy, I just see the game for what it is. The win yesterday proved nothing positive about the Lions, other than the fact that Joique Bell should be given more touches during a game, and that our offensive line isn't as poor as what some people (WJB) would have us believe.

Foolish penalties were made. SOL. Poor coaching decisions made. SOL. Dropped passes. SOL. Missed receivers. SOL. Missed opportunities. SOL.

It's not the wins or losses that make them the SOL. Remember, under Wayne Fontes this team often won 8, 9 or 10 games per season. But they were still considered the SOL. Why? Because they would often shoot themselves in the foot at the most critical points in the game, and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when it mattered most.

It just so happens that yesterday the Lions ran into a team that was better at crumbling at those points than they were. The Lions won, and I am happy about that. You take the bad wins with the good wins. But if you can't recognize that if they had played that sloppy against a better opponent, such as the Bears, they would have lost big, then you are watching with rose colored glasses.



Nothing positive except for the list of 14 things that I mentioned earlier, but yeah other than that...


Well, it has been reported that the Lions video equipment was down for the entire game. You know the pictures that they look at on the sideline to see what the other team is doing on different plays? So, the Lions played the entire 1st half without that benefit, while Washington's was working. In the second half, Washing started sharing their all 22 video feed with Detroit. Schwartz gave a public praise to Shanahan for his good sportsmanship after the game.

So, the Lions still won despite missing our starting RB and any video feed in the 1st half.


September 26th, 2013, 10:45 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7355
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
m2karateman wrote:
Hystrix wrote:
m2karateman wrote:

Hystrix, what I want is to see week over week improvement in the team fixing their mistakes. They beat a winless Redskins team by a touchdown. By all rights, they should have blown this team off the field. While you want to point out positives (and any fan should), I can point out equal amounts of negative. There were lots of positives that could have been counted during all of the losses in last season as well.

As I said in another post, I'm happy they won. But that victory won't put blinders on me as to what could have or SHOULD have been better. You can slice this however you want, you are entitled to your opinion. As I am entitled to mine.

Some of the negatives I spoke of;

1. While Bell has a good overall day, his rushing average was barely above 3.0 ypc.
2. The Redskins, meanwhile, averaged 5.5 ypc.
3. The pick six was a terrible play, either by Stafford (bad pass) or CJ (bad route). Terrible.
4. Lions were 4/13 on 3rd down.
5. Redskins were 6/13 on 3rd down.
6. Redskins had nearly double our rushing yards, and over 400 yards from scrimmage net.
7. Griffin, who has struggled throwing the ball, completed 64% of his passes.
8. Lions had 8 penalties, including another dumb personal foul.
9. Lions gave up 116 yards in returns (including pick six).
10. Snap miscue with Stafford nearly causing a fumble, and a wasted play.
11. It took the CJ rule to discount what would have been the go ahead TD against the Lions in the final quarter. More bad deep coverage.
12. Another LONG TD run given up by our defense.

Maybe not equal to the 14 you brought up, but there is a whole bunch of stuff that, if the Lions had played a quality team, would have easily cost them the game.



Not to piggy back off Pablo, but here goes:

1. Bells career average is closer to 4.8 ypc. If that's a bad day for Bell, I can't wait to see what a good day is. BTW fantasy leagues buzzing over Bell. When is the last time a Lions Running back mattered in Fantasy Football, let alone our backup.

2. So what? Were the Deadskins RBs all healthy? Must be nice. Maybe Skins fans are patting themselves on the back for there running game being marginally better, but I doubt it.

3. Yep. He has made a whopping two INTs so far. 6 TDs, 2 INTs and 1000 passing yards. What's the complaint again? Oh, and they then scored on the next two drives. Mistakes happened, we recovered.

4. Again bad day on the 3rd down conversion front, yet we still won.

5. Would you be happier if the Lions were 6/13 on third down and lost?

6. Like Pablo said, which team had more yards?

7. Griffin made more mistakes than Stafford, who you wanna bust on for his ONE INT. Griffin also had fewer yards, fewer TDs (as in 0), and he LOST.

8. Yeah, the Redskins had there share of penalties as well. One of those 8 you mention was some bogus new kickoff rule. Even the slappy NFL announcers acknowledged it was obscure.

9. 116 return yards? You really are reaching. The Lions kicked off 5 times. Doesn't sound that impressive.

10. Yeah as Pablo said he didn't fumble. It was a boneheaded play by a veteran center who wasn't paying attention.

11. I will never, EVER feel bad about another receiver getting a TD taken away. EVER. There is a reason you called it the CJ rule.

12. 30 yards? I guess. Still kind of a reach. The Deadskins scored one measly offensive TD. If that's our worst problem...

Hey you have the right to your opinion, but you sound more like your trying to do your best WJB impression than bring up anything valid. BTW winning cures a lot. Next week is gonna be a rough game....just enjoy the wins when we get them.



You and Pablo have chosen to insert information pertaining to either the entire season where it's convenient, or comparing last year to this year, or comparing to other teams not involved in this game. Are we talking about the Washington game, or something else? Make up my mind.

You were the one that decided to list the positives, don't blame me for pointing out the negatives. I'm not the only one doing it. Schwartz has done it, as well as the other coaches, immediately after the game.

I don't know about you, but I'm not getting my hopes up on the season because of one win on the road against a team that is winless thus far and still managed to be one play away from tying the game.

You wanna compare me to WJB, that's fine. Whether you like it or not, he was correct about many of his observations regarding this team. Perhaps he method of arguing was unsavory, but his points were right on about a number of things. I'm not the only one on this forum, and certainly not the only observer of this team that saw this game for what it was.

It was a victory. But not a performance that makes me feel really good about the next two games coming up.

If the Lions are able to beat Chicago or Cincy, they will have proven something. But I GUARANTEE you, if they would have faced either of those teams on this past Sunday, and performed that way, they would have had their collective BUTTS handed to them. If you can't accept that fact, then you can join Billy in the Rose Colored Glasses Wearing Bleachers.


I have a pair of rose colored glasses? OK. I am critical of the Lions when they deserve it. I just am not going to go looking for things to be critical of though. I was critical of the Lions decision to stand around doing nothing with 53 seconds and 3 time outs at the end of the 1st half in the Cardinals game. That deserved being criticized.


September 26th, 2013, 11:01 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3785
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
I think when you talk about the SOL, what you are REALLY talking about is consistancy. SOL (IMO) does not refer to them being winners or losers, what it refers to is that same old comprtable feeling of "what the heck". Going back past the millen era, even before the Fontes era, the Lions have always been that team that leaves you shaking your head. The history of getting destroied by "trap games" then turing around and beating the unbeatable goes back as far as I can remember. Being confrence champs one year, then cellar dwelling the next was not out of the norm, and could be carried on through today...


In order to get past the moniker of SOL, this team neeeds to not only start being consistant and win when they should and at least be competative when then should lose, but they need to do it over at least 2 years. when this team can consistantly compete for 2 years in a row, THEN it will have a shot at losing the SOL hat. But not before then. Anyone saying they are not at this point is an optamist at best. The past 2 full seasons only strengthen the argument of the SOL. PLAYOFFS....then 4 wins...then ??? who knows this year. thats is EXACTY what SOL means to me.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


September 26th, 2013, 11:51 am
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
regularjoe12 wrote:
I think when you talk about the SOL, what you are REALLY talking about is consistancy. SOL (IMO) does not refer to them being winners or losers, what it refers to is that same old comprtable feeling of "what the heck". Going back past the millen era, even before the Fontes era, the Lions have always been that team that leaves you shaking your head. The history of getting destroied by "trap games" then turing around and beating the unbeatable goes back as far as I can remember. Being confrence champs one year, then cellar dwelling the next was not out of the norm, and could be carried on through today...


In order to get past the moniker of SOL, this team neeeds to not only start being consistant and win when they should and at least be competative when then should lose, but they need to do it over at least 2 years. when this team can consistantly compete for 2 years in a row, THEN it will have a shot at losing the SOL hat. But not before then. Anyone saying they are not at this point is an optamist at best. The past 2 full seasons only strengthen the argument of the SOL. PLAYOFFS....then 4 wins...then ??? who knows this year. thats is EXACTY what SOL means to me.


This is what I don't get. If anything, the Lions have been consistent .... forever. Just not in a good way.

The comment about it not being unusual to be a conference champ one year and then cellar dweller the next? What parallel universe did that happen in?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/

Detroit has only had a small handful of winning seasons since the '50s ... even in the '90s when there was some respectability with Sanders, Moore, Fontes ... there were only 3 seasons with double digit wins. And never a conference championship. The 1991 team at 12-4 was the only really significantly successful Lions team in 40 years (I lived in Chicago at the time, but loved Erik Kramer back then, and was shocked he was let go for Peete). But getting a wild card birth a bunch of years and losing it is not a successful season.. it is a tease, or complacency generator. That's why Fontes was fired.

IMO, the Lions should expect nothing short of a superbowl showing out of Schwartz, with the top draft picks he's been handed on a silver platter. People shouldn't be arguing whether the Lions have better players - they SHOULD have better players by LEAGUE DESIGN. IMO Schwartz should have been fired after a 4-win season last year. Has any coach ever had the talent that he's had and done less? I don't think so. I really believe as long as he is wearing the headset, the Lions will never be what they could be... and what the league actively tries to enable them to be.


September 26th, 2013, 10:53 pm
Profile
National Champion

Joined: August 13th, 2006, 11:04 pm
Posts: 869
Location: Washington, DC
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
I.E. wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
I think when you talk about the SOL, what you are REALLY talking about is consistancy. SOL (IMO) does not refer to them being winners or losers, what it refers to is that same old comprtable feeling of "what the heck". Going back past the millen era, even before the Fontes era, the Lions have always been that team that leaves you shaking your head. The history of getting destroied by "trap games" then turing around and beating the unbeatable goes back as far as I can remember. Being confrence champs one year, then cellar dwelling the next was not out of the norm, and could be carried on through today...


In order to get past the moniker of SOL, this team neeeds to not only start being consistant and win when they should and at least be competative when then should lose, but they need to do it over at least 2 years. when this team can consistantly compete for 2 years in a row, THEN it will have a shot at losing the SOL hat. But not before then. Anyone saying they are not at this point is an optamist at best. The past 2 full seasons only strengthen the argument of the SOL. PLAYOFFS....then 4 wins...then ??? who knows this year. thats is EXACTY what SOL means to me.


This is what I don't get. If anything, the Lions have been consistent .... forever. Just not in a good way.

The comment about it not being unusual to be a conference champ one year and then cellar dweller the next? What parallel universe did that happen in?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/

Detroit has only had a small handful of winning seasons since the '50s ... even in the '90s when there was some respectability with Sanders, Moore, Fontes ... there were only 3 seasons with double digit wins. And never a conference championship. The 1991 team at 12-4 was the only really significantly successful Lions team in 40 years (I lived in Chicago at the time, but loved Erik Kramer back then, and was shocked he was let go for Peete). But getting a wild card birth a bunch of years and losing it is not a successful season.. it is a tease, or complacency generator. That's why Fontes was fired.

IMO, the Lions should expect nothing short of a superbowl showing out of Schwartz, with the top draft picks he's been handed on a silver platter. People shouldn't be arguing whether the Lions have better players - they SHOULD have better players by LEAGUE DESIGN. IMO Schwartz should have been fired after a 4-win season last year. Has any coach ever had the talent that he's had and done less? I don't think so. I really believe as long as he is wearing the headset, the Lions will never be what they could be... and what the league actively tries to enable them to be.



I see what you're saying, IE. I think Joe meant Division Champ, not Conference.


September 27th, 2013, 8:17 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3785
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
Hystrix wrote:
I.E. wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
I think when you talk about the SOL, what you are REALLY talking about is consistancy. SOL (IMO) does not refer to them being winners or losers, what it refers to is that same old comprtable feeling of "what the heck". Going back past the millen era, even before the Fontes era, the Lions have always been that team that leaves you shaking your head. The history of getting destroied by "trap games" then turing around and beating the unbeatable goes back as far as I can remember. Being confrence champs one year, then cellar dwelling the next was not out of the norm, and could be carried on through today...


In order to get past the moniker of SOL, this team neeeds to not only start being consistant and win when they should and at least be competative when then should lose, but they need to do it over at least 2 years. when this team can consistantly compete for 2 years in a row, THEN it will have a shot at losing the SOL hat. But not before then. Anyone saying they are not at this point is an optamist at best. The past 2 full seasons only strengthen the argument of the SOL. PLAYOFFS....then 4 wins...then ??? who knows this year. thats is EXACTY what SOL means to me.


This is what I don't get. If anything, the Lions have been consistent .... forever. Just not in a good way.

The comment about it not being unusual to be a conference champ one year and then cellar dweller the next? What parallel universe did that happen in?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/

Detroit has only had a small handful of winning seasons since the '50s ... even in the '90s when there was some respectability with Sanders, Moore, Fontes ... there were only 3 seasons with double digit wins. And never a conference championship. The 1991 team at 12-4 was the only really significantly successful Lions team in 40 years (I lived in Chicago at the time, but loved Erik Kramer back then, and was shocked he was let go for Peete). But getting a wild card birth a bunch of years and losing it is not a successful season.. it is a tease, or complacency generator. That's why Fontes was fired.

IMO, the Lions should expect nothing short of a superbowl showing out of Schwartz, with the top draft picks he's been handed on a silver platter. People shouldn't be arguing whether the Lions have better players - they SHOULD have better players by LEAGUE DESIGN. IMO Schwartz should have been fired after a 4-win season last year. Has any coach ever had the talent that he's had and done less? I don't think so. I really believe as long as he is wearing the headset, the Lions will never be what they could be... and what the league actively tries to enable them to be.



I see what you're saying, IE. I think Joe meant Division Champ, not Conference.

Thank you, that is what I meant.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


September 27th, 2013, 9:07 am
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2281
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
I.E. wrote:

IMO, the Lions should expect nothing short of a superbowl showing out of Schwartz, with the top draft picks he's been handed on a silver platter. People shouldn't be arguing whether the Lions have better players - they SHOULD have better players by LEAGUE DESIGN. IMO Schwartz should have been fired after a 4-win season last year. Has any coach ever had the talent that he's had and done less? I don't think so. I really believe as long as he is wearing the headset, the Lions will never be what they could be... and what the league actively tries to enable them to be.


WHile I agree with what you are saying in essence, in the era of the out of control 1st round rookie payscale the league system actually made it worse for the top few teams in the draft, especially if it was year after year in the top 5 ( a la detroit) in that having a few overpaid superstars and a bunch of turds on the rest of your roster is harder to win with when you need 22 starters than having a mostly balanced payscale on your roster with maybe 1-2 higher paid players. Not to say Schwartz doesnt need to be replaced because I think they should have made the move last season like you said, I just think saying the league is designed to balance the playing field with the draft is a misnomer in the past decade.


September 27th, 2013, 11:58 am
Profile ICQ WWW
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
DJ-B wrote:
I.E. wrote:

IMO, the Lions should expect nothing short of a superbowl showing out of Schwartz, with the top draft picks he's been handed on a silver platter. People shouldn't be arguing whether the Lions have better players - they SHOULD have better players by LEAGUE DESIGN. IMO Schwartz should have been fired after a 4-win season last year. Has any coach ever had the talent that he's had and done less? I don't think so. I really believe as long as he is wearing the headset, the Lions will never be what they could be... and what the league actively tries to enable them to be.


WHile I agree with what you are saying in essence, in the era of the out of control 1st round rookie payscale the league system actually made it worse for the top few teams in the draft, especially if it was year after year in the top 5 ( a la detroit) in that having a few overpaid superstars and a bunch of turds on the rest of your roster is harder to win with when you need 22 starters than having a mostly balanced payscale on your roster with maybe 1-2 higher paid players. Not to say Schwartz doesnt need to be replaced because I think they should have made the move last season like you said, I just think saying the league is designed to balance the playing field with the draft is a misnomer in the past decade.


That is a valid point. Getting the top picks isn't a slam-dunk for success ... and actually, I guess the rules didnt' intend for the same teams to be getting the picks year after year and getting into that position. I'm trying to think of another perennially struggling team that got into the position of a few enormous contracts and then a bunch of journeymen who couldn't play. I can't really think of one off the top of my head - but I'm sure there are one or two.

I think the Lions issue was there was a perfect storm of those kinds of big-dollar draft picks, and a GM that screwed things up & didn't peddle picks around to balance the team better.


September 27th, 2013, 12:22 pm
Profile
Stadium Announcer

Joined: October 30th, 2011, 8:16 pm
Posts: 82
Post Re: Same Old Lions?
DJ-B wrote:
I.E. wrote:

IMO, the Lions should expect nothing short of a superbowl showing out of Schwartz, with the top draft picks he's been handed on a silver platter. People shouldn't be arguing whether the Lions have better players - they SHOULD have better players by LEAGUE DESIGN. IMO Schwartz should have been fired after a 4-win season last year. Has any coach ever had the talent that he's had and done less? I don't think so. I really believe as long as he is wearing the headset, the Lions will never be what they could be... and what the league actively tries to enable them to be.


WHile I agree with what you are saying in essence, in the era of the out of control 1st round rookie payscale the league system actually made it worse for the top few teams in the draft, especially if it was year after year in the top 5 ( a la detroit) in that having a few overpaid superstars and a bunch of turds on the rest of your roster is harder to win with when you need 22 starters than having a mostly balanced payscale on your roster with maybe 1-2 higher paid players. Not to say Schwartz doesnt need to be replaced because I think they should have made the move last season like you said, I just think saying the league is designed to balance the playing field with the draft is a misnomer in the past decade.



I definitely agree with I.E. on that schwartz should have been gone after the arizona game last year. seriously, blown out, by the cardinals? thats about as bad as 0-16. He will not get this team to play to its full potential. I firmly believe (of course this is theoretical) had we beaten green bay in 2011, like any good coach should have had a team do with its starting qb benched, we would have played the giants, who were a much better match up for us than the saints. Also, the refs at the superdome seemed to dislike the lions far more than any other group of refs ive seen.

As for the rookie wage scale, Suh and Staffords contracts definitely hurt, but it shouldnt be an issue after we get Suhs contract under control. if he settles for the 11m a year that Atkins is getting, were in business and can sign some more players to be CONSISTENTLY good. of course we need the right coach for that as well.


September 27th, 2013, 12:28 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], kdsberman, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.