Reporter: Matt Patricia in danger of losing his players

[nc0gnet0]

Lol. So basically you have no NFL success stories and tried to paint Mangini as a success. Nice. The only thing Patricia will win in the NFL is more gang rapes.

Dam that Nick Saban, such an absolute failure, LMAO. Gang Rape...yawn......Trying to change the subject now that you can't get your foot out of your mouth?

 

[Newblood]

Dam that Nick Saban, such an absolute failure, LMAO. Gang Rape...yawn......Trying to change the subject now that you can't get your foot out of your mouth?

15-17 screams success.

 

[bamainatlanta]

Dam that Nick Saban, such an absolute failure, LMAO. Gang Rape...yawn......Trying to change the subject now that you can't get your foot out of your mouth?

Not concerned with college coaches. Weis can't get a job in the NFL anymore. That Should tell you something, and yes he did interview for gigs.

Again, the Belichek NFL coaching tree is barren dipshit.

 

[bamainatlanta]

15-17 screams success.

Not to mention Saban was an absolute failure as an NFL coach.

 

[Alterego]

I wish MP the best of luck. He may be a decent head coach but that remains to be seen. As a DC for the Pats, he wasn't concerned with stopping the other team, just slowing them down (holding to FGs) because their O could put up the points. Granted, Det was 7th in points (25.6), 13th in yards (337.8), 6th in pass yards (261.4), 32nd in rush yards (76.3), but they were 21st is SoS (120-136). If Stafford can continue to generate the points, he'll have a chance to be a decent HC. NE was 29th in total D last year and DET was 27. The biggest difference is that NE was first in O and DET was 13th, which may be related to their weak run game. He will be an interesting story to follow next year.

 

[anotheridiot]

We all know the Lions will be handicapped with the QB deal, better for us they implode this way as well right?

 

[Tostada]

Dam that Nick Saban, such an absolute failure, LMAO. Gang Rape...yawn......Trying to change the subject now that you can't get your foot out of your mouth?

Saban was an absolute failure as an NFL head coach...yup...mierda logic on your part.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I wish MP the best of luck. He may be a decent head coach but that remains to be seen. As a DC for the Pats, he wasn't concerned with stopping the other team, just slowing them down (holding to FGs) because their O could put up the points. Granted, Det was 7th in points (25.6), 13th in yards (337.8), 6th in pass yards (261.4), 32nd in rush yards (76.3), but they were 21st is SoS (120-136). If Stafford can continue to generate the points, he'll have a chance to be a decent HC. NE was 29th in total D last year and DET was 27. The biggest difference is that NE was first in O and DET was 13th, which may be related to their weak run game. He will be an interesting story to follow next year.

I agree with all of this.

Stats are a funny animal. In six seasons as the Patriots’ defensive coordinator, Patricia’s units never finished outside the top 10 in points allowed. That is the Stat that matters most.

The last time the Lions had any running game at all, they went 11-5. I don't think that is obtainable for the Lions this year, but if Stafford has at least a middling running game, they are a top 5 offense easy. I honestly have no clue what to expect out of the D, but they do have a few Players, Ansah (if healthy), Slay, and Quin. As terrible as the Lions D was last year, they did at least create a lot of turnovers.....

 

[bamainatlanta]

I agree with all of this.

Stats are a funny animal. In six seasons as the Patriots’ defensive coordinator, Patricia’s units never finished outside the top 10 in points allowed.

The last time the Lions had any running game at all, they went 11-5. I don't think that is obtainable for the Lions this year, but if Stafford has at least a middling running game, they are a top 5 offense easy. I honestly have no clue what to expect out of the D, but they do have a few Players, Ansah (if healthy), Slay, and Quin. As terrible as the Lions D was last year, they did at least create a lot of turnovers.....

Creating turnovers is usually more random than fans realize.

Turnover Margin
Sit through five insufferable minutes of NFL coverage and you’ll hear somebody harp on the value of turnovers at least once. They’re important, and good teams do tend to win the turnover battle, but there’s also a certain amount of randomness and variance from year to year. Most notably, teams at the extreme ends of the turnover spectrum are unable to sustain that level in consecutive campaigns.

How did it project 2013? Very well. The two teams that stood out like a sore thumb at the bottom of the turnover rankings were the Chiefs and Eagles; they were each at minus-24 in 2012, and nobody else was worse than minus-16. In 2013, much of their success was driven by a dramatic shift in this metric. The Chiefs had the second-best turnover margin in football at plus-18, while the Eagles were fourth with a plus-12 figure. Kansas City’s improvement of 42 turnovers is the most anybody’s improved in a single season since the strike year of 1987. The Jets (minus-14) and Lions (minus-12) stayed roughly the same, but the Cowboys and even those absurdly lucky Colts — granted, in the one category where simple regression might have expected them to improve — saw their turnover margin improve by 16 or more from 2012 to 2013.

The five teams at the top of the turnover charts were unable to repeat in 2013, each falling off by at least 15. That included the Patriots, Bears, Giants, and Falcons — but the most interesting case was Washington. A huge chunk of its 2012 success came by avoiding turnovers on offense; Washington turned the ball over a league-low 14 times in 2012. It hit that figure by Week 8 of 2013, and by the time Kirk Cousins had inflated his trade value in December, the D.C. team had turned the ball over 34 times, tied with the Lions for the second-worst rate in football.

I could look up the top teams of 2016 and compare where they ended up in 2017 but I'm too damn lazy.

http://grantland.com/features/nfl-stats-predicting-success/

 

[nc0gnet0]

Creating turnovers is usually more random than fans realize.

Turnover Margin
Sit through five insufferable minutes of NFL coverage and you’ll hear somebody harp on the value of turnovers at least once. They’re important, and good teams do tend to win the turnover battle, but there’s also a certain amount of randomness and variance from year to year. Most notably, teams at the extreme ends of the turnover spectrum are unable to sustain that level in consecutive campaigns.

How did it project 2013? Very well. The two teams that stood out like a sore thumb at the bottom of the turnover rankings were the Chiefs and Eagles; they were each at minus-24 in 2012, and nobody else was worse than minus-16. In 2013, much of their success was driven by a dramatic shift in this metric. The Chiefs had the second-best turnover margin in football at plus-18, while the Eagles were fourth with a plus-12 figure. Kansas City’s improvement of 42 turnovers is the most anybody’s improved in a single season since the strike year of 1987. The Jets (minus-14) and Lions (minus-12) stayed roughly the same, but the Cowboys and even those absurdly lucky Colts — granted, in the one category where simple regression might have expected them to improve — saw their turnover margin improve by 16 or more from 2012 to 2013.

The five teams at the top of the turnover charts were unable to repeat in 2013, each falling off by at least 15. That included the Patriots, Bears, Giants, and Falcons — but the most interesting case was Washington. A huge chunk of its 2012 success came by avoiding turnovers on offense; Washington turned the ball over a league-low 14 times in 2012. It hit that figure by Week 8 of 2013, and by the time Kirk Cousins had inflated his trade value in December, the D.C. team had turned the ball over 34 times, tied with the Lions for the second-worst rate in football.

I could look up the top teams of 2016 and compare where they ended up in 2017 but I'm too damn lazy.

http://grantland.com/features/nfl-stats-predicting-success/

I will grant you there is an element of luck involved in the turnover battle, but I will fall short of calling it a major component.

 

[fenderpfunk]

Lions would SLAY in the big 10

 

[PrideisBears]

Lions would SLAY in the big 10

I dont know about slay lol

 

[botfly10]

Creating turnovers is usually more random than fans realize.

Turnover Margin
Sit through five insufferable minutes of NFL coverage and you’ll hear somebody harp on the value of turnovers at least once. They’re important, and good teams do tend to win the turnover battle, but there’s also a certain amount of randomness and variance from year to year. Most notably, teams at the extreme ends of the turnover spectrum are unable to sustain that level in consecutive campaigns.

How did it project 2013? Very well. The two teams that stood out like a sore thumb at the bottom of the turnover rankings were the Chiefs and Eagles; they were each at minus-24 in 2012, and nobody else was worse than minus-16. In 2013, much of their success was driven by a dramatic shift in this metric. The Chiefs had the second-best turnover margin in football at plus-18, while the Eagles were fourth with a plus-12 figure. Kansas City’s improvement of 42 turnovers is the most anybody’s improved in a single season since the strike year of 1987. The Jets (minus-14) and Lions (minus-12) stayed roughly the same, but the Cowboys and even those absurdly lucky Colts — granted, in the one category where simple regression might have expected them to improve — saw their turnover margin improve by 16 or more from 2012 to 2013.

The five teams at the top of the turnover charts were unable to repeat in 2013, each falling off by at least 15. That included the Patriots, Bears, Giants, and Falcons — but the most interesting case was Washington. A huge chunk of its 2012 success came by avoiding turnovers on offense; Washington turned the ball over a league-low 14 times in 2012. It hit that figure by Week 8 of 2013, and by the time Kirk Cousins had inflated his trade value in December, the D.C. team had turned the ball over 34 times, tied with the Lions for the second-worst rate in football.

I could look up the top teams of 2016 and compare where they ended up in 2017 but I'm too damn lazy.

http://grantland.com/features/nfl-stats-predicting-success/

Ask Lovie's Bears if turnovers are only due to randomness

Obviously some level of random chance will always be a factor. But teams can absolutely be trained to be on the hunt for them and to create them. We, as bears fans, should know better than anyone that if a team makes turnovers and scoring on D a priority, it can pay off big time.

 

[botfly10]

I guess I don't know that much about the Patriots, but this thread seems to be giving a fair bit of evidence that suggests Patricia was never really all that great of a D coordinator. Is that really true?

 

[iueyedoc]

I guess I don't know that much about the Patriots, but this thread seems to be giving a fair bit of evidence that suggests Patricia was never really all that great of a D coordinator. Is that really true?

He has Mike Tice level pencil in hat/behind ear game though.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I guess I don't know that much about the Patriots, but this thread seems to be giving a fair bit of evidence that suggests Patricia was never really all that great of a D coordinator. Is that really true?

So what is the Yard stick for success for Patricia? What does he have to accomplish in 1 year, 3 years?
Same question for Nagy, is his bar set lower, or would it be the same?

 

[modo]

So what is the Yard stick for success for Patricia? What does he have to accomplish in 1 year, 3 years?
Same question for Nagy, is his bar set lower, or would it be the same?

Detroit is a win now team based on what they did last year and the fact they got rid of their head coach. Nagy has a year because of the massive overhaul he has to do with the offense.

Detroit expected more out of their team last year, I doubt they let Patricia slide much. If he misses the playoffs two years in a row he is gone.

Nagy has two years minimum. Unless they shit the bed the second year he will get three. I think the Bears expect him to be in the playoffs year three and contend year two.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Detroit is a win now team based on what they did last year and the fact they got rid of their head coach. Nagy has a year because of the massive overhaul he has to do with the offense.

Detroit expected more out of their team last year, I doubt they let Patricia slide much. If he misses the playoffs two years in a row he is gone.

Maybe, but with his close friendship with the GM, I see three years minimum. I agree with the fact that if he misses it two years in a row, he might be deemed a failure, it depends on the circumstance, For instance if they lose Stafford for a significant period of time, I don't think anyone would expect playoffs.

Nagy has two years minimum. Unless they shit the bed the second year he will get three. I think the Bears expect him to be in the playoffs year three and contend year two.

I think if the bears aren't above .500 next year (again barring significant injury) it is Pace that is on the hot seat, and if the GM is gone, hard to see the Coach sticking around.

 

[playthrough2001]

Maybe, but with his close friendship with the GM, I see three years minimum. I agree with the fact that if he misses it two years in a row, he might be deemed a failure, it depends on the circumstance, For instance if they lose Stafford for a significant period of time, I don't think anyone would expect playoffs.



I think if the bears aren't above .500 next year (again barring significant injury) it is Pace that is on the hot seat, and if the GM is gone, hard to see the Coach sticking around.

That's ridiculous...

 

[modo]

Maybe, but with his close friendship with the GM, I see three years minimum. I agree with the fact that if he misses it two years in a row, he might be deemed a failure, it depends on the circumstance, For instance if they lose Stafford for a significant period of time, I don't think anyone would expect playoffs.



I think if the bears aren't above .500 next year (again barring significant injury) it is Pace that is on the hot seat, and if the GM is gone, hard to see the Coach sticking around.

I disagree with most of what you said regarding patricia. Caldwell was fired by making the playoffs...if you think patricia misses the playoffs two years in a row with a health stafford he is safe another year? I doubt it.

Pace is on the hot seat now. But I see a two year minimum. I think they can have an under 500 year and both Pace and Nagy will be here another year. Year two will be the key. They need to make the playoffs or be in contention until near the end.