But I’m not writing these articles. And some like to read them, there been alot of debate over the Goff situation. Ask yourself why are so many of these articles being written. Because there is a problem or not a problem ? Do these writers a hate Goff too ?
Thanks for posting the article.
1 Like
I could be and probably am mistaken. He could be talking to the huddle I guess. Just presumed he was talking to McVay. Body language didn’t seem correct for play calling.
Because they get views. Writers write stuff they don’t really believe all the time in order to get readership. Same with TV (cough Tucker Carlson cough). There just needs to be the perception of a problem, and an audience. There’s definitely a perception of a problem w/ Goff, and there’s definitely an audience, so the stories get written.
Now, is there actually a problem w/ Goff not being aggressive enough? Or, as I said earlier, is the problem that he’s been aggressive at the wrong time. There’s definitely a discussion to be had, but just because some writers argue the former doesn’t necessarily mean the latter can’t be true.
2 Likes
I agree that’s why there is such a debate on the subject, but can one be in the middle on this debate and believe some fault is Goff and some are not.
My opinion is Goff has a good chance to improve here the coaching staff here seems to be bringing out alot positives in these young players. So I look for him to keep getting better, but I also believe there is some issues that need to be corrected.
He’s obviously got some problems. But I’d rather have him address the ball security issues first and foremost before trying to be more “aggressive”. And my issue with “aggressiveness” might be more an issue with Lynn’s playcalling than Goff’s play- it’s hard to know for certain. I primarily want him to fumble less, so if that means more quick passes and less 4 second drop-backs, I’m okay with that.
Do you think some of them fumbles are due to him being new with his center, and now another center. Some of that seems like a communication issue and should get better with time.
1 Like
What I heard Campbell say was the verbiage in some of the plays needs shortened. The wristband was mentioned. Sounded like he wanted the OC to make the plays easier and faster to call and be understood by Goff and his receivers, blockers. everybody.
And less throws behind the sticks.
So it sounds like he plans on giving Goff as good a chance as he can, along with the receivers. But I get the feeling that it had better bring improvement because Campbell will stand behind a player as long as the effort is there, but ultimately said player needs to produce results or they will be replaced. Including Goff when opportunity arises.
1 Like
He’s obviously got some problems. But I’d rather have him address the ball security issues first and foremost before trying to be more “aggressive”. And my issue with “aggressiveness” might be more an issue with Lynn’s playcalling than Goff’s play- it’s hard to know for certain. I primarily want him to fumble less, so if that means more quick passes and less 4 second drop-backs, I’m okay with that.
1 Like
Interesting review of all of Goff’s turnovers.
Offensive line issues have been a contributing factor on five of Goff’s turnovers, Hodge and the rest of the Lions receivers need to do a better job winning their routes, and Campbell said the Lions’ lack of a downfield passing game has been an issue, too.
But Goff has been the victim of his own mistakes in many ways, and that must stop for the Lions to end their losing ways.
“I think we have to do a better job as a staff of designing some of these shots, protecting him and getting it downfield,” Campbell said. “I think we have to do a better job of protecting. And when I say that, I think that’s the protection plan as well because he can throw it. Now, he’s got to take care of the football because this has shown up again and here we go, we’re in the red zone and it’s why are we struggling to get touchdowns early in the half because we get in the red zone and we turn the ball over. Otherwise, we might score, or we should score. But I think there’s a number of things we can help him with, too, to help our whole offense with.”
2 Likes
Here’s why I struggle with Caldwell. Of those 36 wins, 20 were 4th quarter come from behind wins. Yeah we won games but how many of those games where we were getting killed, the opposing defense falls asleep, and we win because of some late game heroics by Stafford, Tate, CJ, or whoever else.
It wasn’t good football and it wasn’t sustainable football.
We knew we had to do better if we ever wanted to win in the playoffs…but Quinn failed us.
I think it was @FreebirdPartDeux or @CuriousHusker who said it best that they were bad football teams masked by these late game heroics wins.
They had talent, they were poorly coached imo.
That’s just what people say who was so wrong about Caldwell. And still trying to be right. And a team winning from behind and a team not quiting is part of being a good coach. But 9-7 wasn’t good enough so you guys got your man but he wasn’t even close to being a good coach he was all x and O’s but nothing else and wasn’t a man anyone wanted to follow. Caldwell wasn’t the best x and o guy but he was a coach men followed and played hard for wich is a big part of it, he is very similar to who you got not. Professional sports are alittle harder then some fans think, there always the all you have to do is copy what this team is doing and this is what good teams do BS .
I think people fail to realize, had Quinn got Vrabel or a good Head Coach that won us a playoff game, nobody would even remember Caldwell and everyone would have been happy about moving on from him.
That’s always the gamble if you get a good one your a genius and if you get a Patricia you look like a fool. We ended up with 2 fools.
Quinn got EXACTLY whom he wanted. He only had eyes for Patricia. Anyone else was a backup plan.
I do think it was intentional, sustainable, and good enough to get you 9 wins.
Most of those games weren’t comebacks from being blown out. Most of them were slow-paced, munch clock by design, understanding your own inadequacies and covering for them-type of games. Caldwell strategically tried to keep it close and let Matt’n’the boys win it at the end. It worked well enough to get us 9 wins. Would it work well enough to get us to the SB? I think not. I loved Caldwell as a dude, and as a leader of people, but didn’t like how conservative his coaching was.
Quin and Patricia, in hindsight, were massive downgrades. If Caldwell would have had really aggressive coordinators, and a good GM, I think he could have been good enough. He didn’t, so he wasn’t.
1 Like
I can’t help but wonder what Goff’s stats would be with Decker/Sewell healthy and playing well in 2022 along with a revamped WR core. Good enough for at least one more year?
3 Likes
Yup - IMO, unless some crazy-ass slam dunk massive upgrade presents itself, we stick with Goff for at least a minimum one more year.
If he works out, and we can spend all of that draft capital on other positions…Look the F out! We’re gonna shred some fools. Offense should be at or near complete (depending on who we choose to keep/who stays healthy).
If we can pull it off, add a monster pass rusher, and round out the offense next offseason. Add depth and talent to the D, after that.
Following season - bulk the D up.
Tat plan would net us probably 2-3 MASSIVE upgrades on D, and 2 massive upgrades at WR, next offseason (and/or replacing Vaitai).
Following season, upgrade the D - massively, and make a deep playoff run.
Adam Anderson bro
1 Like