Intangibles - In summary, after four years we are getting better play (but less playmaking?) from the franchise QB, the DBs are better, the Special Teams have improved to become one of the league's best. The offensive skill positions, both lines and the linebacking corps are all worse. Most disturbing to me is Coach Caldwell has not changed the fragility of the franchises psyche. It's impossible trying to explain to fans from other cities how snake bit this team is, and it is incomprehensible it continues. These are not the same men who choked away game after game in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, but here we are. We lead Dallas 20-7 in a playoff game and never score again. We lead the Packers at home 23-3 and get beat on a ridiculous Hail Mary. The Detroit Lions have taught an entire generation numerous obscure rules: The Schwartz challenge on Thanksgiving (unchallengeable, play stands), completing the process (8 full seasons of the Calvin Johnson rule and nobody knows what a catch is anymore), the batted ball rule (oh! NOW everyone knows the rule), ten second runoffs. It's amazing how we never catch a break. Fans refer to this amazing history as "same old Lions." I hate that phrase. The guy that buries that one forever is going to have streets named after him and they'll put his statue outside Ford Field.
Bobby, I think you absolutely nailed it here. If you grade on a curve, Caldwell has been the best Lions coach in recent memory. He's made them competitive every year (I'm old enough to remember, even in the Barry Sanders era, when 5-11 seasons were a common occurrence) and that's not something we should sneeze at.
But he hasn't changed the franchise's DNA. I mean, that's a silly notion if you think about it. In terms of roster, coaches, front office, etc., the 2017 Lions have no more in common with the 2000 Lions than they do with the 2000 Packers. And yet the pattern of being, at best, a "good-bad" team that can beat up on sub-.500 teams before topping out in the wildcard round has persisted for too long to be a coincidence.
But neither is it impossible to change. The pre-Noll Steelers and the pre-Belichick Pats had long stretches of haplessness. Bill Simmons talks about how weird the Tuck Rule game was for him as a Pats fan, because up until that moment those had been the type of calls that always went against them.
So yeah, I've come around to the notion that Caldwell needs to go. I have no idea what will ultimately help the Lions break the cycle, but they have to keep trying.
Question for you, though: Given that thorough overview you just provided, do you think the Caldwell hire was a mistake? As I recall, at the time the Lions wanted Whisenhunt, and he rejected them to go to Tenn, where he flamed out in less than two seasons. You could argue that he would have done better in Detroit, because he was always better helping a veteran QB elevate his game than nurturing a rookie (plus he had already demonstrated the ability to turn around a sad-sack franchise and make it a Super Bowl contender). But anyway, he turned down the Lions, not the other way around, so ultimately he wasn't an option. I don't remember who else was still out there when they chose Caldwell, but I don't think there were any McVay types. (Looking at
this list, the other coaches hired that year were Zimmer, Gruden, Pettine, O'Brien, and Lovie Smith. Zimmer is obviously the biggest success, but IIRC the Lions never had a shot at him. The following year saw Fox, Ryan, Bowles, Quinn, Kubiak, JDR and Tomsula get hired. Again, no breakout stars. Maybe if they had had enough foresight, they could have grabbed Quinn and Shanahan a year before the Falcons did).
Anyway, in the (admittedly unlikely) scenario where the Lions find a superstar with their next coaching hire, I think it's conceivable that we could look back on Caldwell the way we do Ray Perkins with the early '80s Giants or Mora with the early '00s Colts: The bridge coach who helped restore some respectability before giving way to a more talented HC who turned them into consistent winners.
