Lions - what is it exactly?

[KENSINGTONY]

Any team that loses a playoff football game 5 to 0 [[Lions vs. Dallas,1970) and goes from 6-2 to 7-10 in one season[[2007) is and has been cursed with mediocre players,bad scouting,bad coaching,bad management,and maybe just too much bad luck.

[Jman]

"Was Ford out of town in the 90's?"

The great 90's. Wins 79, Losses 81

[Novine]

I find it bizarre that I'm arguing with a guy who works for a business publication about who's responsible for a the lousy product on the field. In any other business, if the product sucks, it's the owner who's ultimately responsible for it. Bad workers? Bad management? Bad finances? Bad planning? It all comes back to the owner. Even if the owner didn't make all of those bad decisions, they are ultimately responsible because they have the power to control all those aspects of the business.

Why is it any different with the Lions? Bill Ford Sr. alone is in the position to control all of what's wrong with the Lions. Not the players, not the coaches, not the management, it's the owner. The fact that it's been 50 plus years of bad with a few years of good and one thing that hasn't changed in that time points to bad ownership being responsible for 50 plus years of mostly bad football.

[BShea]

The great 90's. Wins 79, Losses 81

No, they were 88-82 from 1990-1999. With six playoff appearances. As a Browns fan, I'd take a 60% playoff season rate.

Or maybe you prefer the status quo?

The fact is, they won in the 1990s. They went to the post season six times. Since the 1950s, it was by far the team's best decade. They had some talent. Same owner, which belies the theory that they cannot win because of some curse or permanent spiritual malaise.

[NoHeartAnthony]

They did not win in the 90s. Sure they were just above .500, but no one hands out trophies for regular season champs. There is ONE season in the modern era where you could say the Lions might have been SB contenders. ONE. That is not winning.

[Jman]

Regular season games = 160. What are you counting?
How did they do in their 6 play off appearances?

Prefer the status quo? Nope, just would like to see a winner like I did in the 40's, 50's, and early 60's.

[kenp]

1999 8-8
1998 5-11
1997 9-7
1996 5-11
1995 10-6
1994 9-7
1993 10-6
1992 5-11
1991 12-4
1990 6-10
79-81

[BShea]

In any other business, if the product sucks, it's the owner who's ultimately responsible for it.

No one is suggesting that Ford isn't ultimately responsible. I'm saying there isn't some sort of magical force at work: It's simply bad decisions reinforced by other factors [[location, over-loyalty, etc.) that compound the losing into a systemic problem.

Bill Ford, ogre or not, didn't make Marty M. decline the ball in overtime. He didn't give up 48 points on Sunday. He didn't help Dempsey make that field goal. He didn't make Harrington say stupid things about piano playing. And even if he is an malevolent force who has turned the Allen Park complex into Castle Grayskull, these players are paid millions to execute. Ford didn't make Milt Plum throw 87 interceptions in 65 games. [[FYI: The beloved Bobby Layne was a turnover machine with 142 pics in 97 games)

I'm simply disputing Gnome's theory that sinister forces are at work. It's simply bad decisions and bad personnel. From Ford and others. Nothing you need a voodoo priest to cure. Losing breeds a heavy culture and is dispiriting, but that's quickly cured. And my impression is that Stafford is the real deal. Get a defense and some talent around him, and you're in the hunt.

Again, if Ford lucks into a Chuck Noll, as it took the Rooneys a couple of generations to do, all the losing is a hazy memory. No one remembers that the Steelers were a miserable doormat for decades [[and hopefully will be again).

[Jman]

A excellent leader has the ability to surround him/herself with excellent people. Mr. Ford does not seem to have that quality.

[punky1]

"...and Detroit has it's geographic and cultural reputation working against it..."

What exactly was meant by referring to these two issues?

[Jman]

"...and Detroit has it's geographic and cultural reputation working against it..."

What exactly was meant by referring to these two issues?

I can understand the geographic arguement as it is the same reason that Uof M cannot compete with SEC and the PAC 10.

Cultural reputation? Gimme a break. Detroit has always been known as a sports town with a loyal following for all of it's teams. We were never fair weather fans until recently when the Lions supporters could no longer stand the dismal performance of their team that has lasted for decades.

[BShea]

Cultural reputation? Gimme a break. Detroit has always been known as a sports town with a loyal following for all of it's teams. We were never fair weather fans until recently when the Lions supporters could no longer stand the dismal performance of their team that has lasted for decades.

Detroit is NOT known as a football town. Diehard fans make think it is, but it is not. Some cities have that rep and no matter how bad the team is for years, the stadium is sold out -- Green Bay, Cleveland, etc.

And other than homegrown players who love the city, how many NFL players say "I want to play in Detroit!"

When it comes to factors such as geography, history, etc, Detroit can't compete with a Dallas, Miami, etc.

Of course dollars are typically the biggest factor, but when elite free agents can command top dollar from several different teams, Detroit has an uphill battle.

[kenp]

No, they were 88-82 from 1990-1999. With six playoff appearances. As a Browns fan, I'd take a 60% playoff season rate.

So your a reporter and you screwed up the above.
After reading all your posts here I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Dont you have the exact situation down there in Cleveland.
And dont say we arent a football town, thats BS. I bet if you looked at the record during the Millen era we sold out almost every game, that is until we just went into protest mode.

[BShea]

After reading all your posts here I'm trying to figure out what your point is.

Gnome suggests the evil force stemming from Bill Ford Sr. is responsible for the Lions' woes. I say it's purely poor hiring decisions made by Ford, made by his executives and poor play by players -- very few of whom go on to do anything other than scrub duty elsewhere. The problems here are not spiritual or metaphysical.

Dont you have the exact situation down there in Cleveland.

Not a spiritual one. The Browns' ownership has made poor executive and coaching hiring decisions, but there is no sense of soul-crushing malaise and apathy there. And the Browns were in the playoffs in 2003 and were 10-6 two years ago, so the fans have been at least teased. Cleveland sells out every game. The last blackout came in 1995 because of the protests against the team moving. Ownership is also willing to spend vast sums to improve -- hence, the wooing of Mike Holmgren and Bill Parcells this week to take over the team as top dog.

Cleveland also benefits from longer and more recent success than Detroit when it comes to football. Other than the 1970s and this decade, the Browns have been a contender. The 1980s were the best time of my life because the team was always on the brink of the Super Bowl, losing in spectacular fashion.

And dont say we arent a football town, thats BS. I bet if you looked at the record during the Millen era we sold out almost every game, that is until we just went into protest mode.

Selling out and being a "football town" are not synonymous. Green Bay is a football town, where there is a waiting list of 20-30 years for season tickets. A football town doesn't abandon the team when there is a losing period. For sure, Detroit, like every other NFL city, has a cadre of hardcore fans who go to games no matter what. I see them every Sunday tailgating outside my apartment [[I live a couple blocks from Ford Field). But again, that doesn't make it a football town. This is far more of a hockey town [[someone should make a phrase out of that ...), basketball town and Tigers town. The Lions are clearly fourth.

Detroit suffers from having four pro teams and having those teams be good when the Lions have struggled. That saps the football fandom.

When Detroit gets something like the Dawg Pound or the Black Hole in Oakland, then you can tell me you're a football town in the traditional sense.

Bizjournals regularly ranks NFL bases through a system of metrics. The latest, from 2006, I believe, ranks Cleveland No. 1 and Detroit 16th. Here is their breakdown:

Cleveland:
Support factors [[NFL medians in parentheses)
Overall support rank of 32 teams: 1
Average attendance: 72,868 [[63,808)
Percent of capacity: 99.8% [[94.7%)
Attendance fluctuation: 0.8 points [[12.7 points)
Difficulty factors [[NFL medians in parentheses)
Overall difficulty rank of 32 teams: 1
Winning percentage: .321 [[.500)
Market population: 4.7 million [[4.5 million)
Per capita income: $30,998 [[$33,635)
December high temperature: 38 degrees [[52 degrees)

All figures are 10-year averages [[1996-2005) unless noted.

Detroit:
Support factors [[NFL medians in parentheses)
Overall support rank of 32 teams: 20
Average attendance: 67,225 [[63,808)
Percent of capacity: 90.9% [[94.7%)
Attendance fluctuation: 19.5 points [[12.7 points)
Difficulty factors [[NFL medians in parentheses)
Overall difficulty rank of 32 teams: 9
Winning percentage: .356 [[.500)
Market population: 7.0 million [[4.5 million)
Per capita income: $33,932 [[$33,635)
December high temperature: Plays in domed stadium [[52 degrees)

http://www.bizjournals.com/edit_special/43.html#l

[gnome]

what the hell are you talking about? When did I say there was a tri-lateral commission circling the earth in a 707 manipulating the currency, pre-teen pregnancy, the price of gasoline and the Lions play calling?

jeezze

[BShea]

Opps ... that's totally my fault. I meant to write Gannon and wrote Gnome. Sorry. Been a long week.

[kenp]

Your probably a Buckeye.
Here is my fav quote of all
"Detroit suffers from having four pro teams and having those teams be good when the Lions have struggled"
So we have to suffer with 3 good teams, haha
I guess I get your point, in Cleveland you never win at anything. When is the last time there was a championship of any kind.

[EastsideAl]

The fact is, they won in the 1990s. They went to the post season six times. Since the 1950s, it was by far the team's best decade. They had some talent.

Some talent =



And just look at that beautiful plain silver helmet, that almost screams kicking ass and winning.

[jiminnm]

BShea, speaking as a fan, WCF has been a complete and utter failure as as owner of the Detroit Lions. I'm not sure why you're downplaying his effect on the team, but the mediocrity of the 90s you referred to has been the highlight of his ownership. Look at the record of his ownership:

1960s: 40-48-10
1970s: 66-75-3
1980s: 61-90-1
1990s: 79-81
2000s: 42-115

That's a staggering 288-409-14 [[.415) as owner of what was once a proud franchise. You said "when the Lions have struggled." The Lions have struggled for probably longer than many of the above posters have been around.

How can the Lions' fans expect anything more from the team? With an owner who has made bad personnel decisions consistently over the decades, starting with Russ Thomas [[his former chauffeur and protector from the drinking days) and lasting to today, the only way the Lions are going to get a first rate coach or the right draft picks will be to "luck into it." After all, if you select incapable management, why should you expect them to make correct decisions. But above all, WCF has been the one consistent presence over the last 46 years.

I can't even speculate how one person can have this effect, but it's evident that the entire organization has been infused with the culture of losing. Maybe Ray1936 is right, and Dempsey's field goal as the defense stood there and watched, almost laughing, as he kicked it. Maybe it was the fact the WCF completed his purchase of the Lions on the same day JFK was shot. Maybe it's just that WCF is a terrible manager, incapable of selecting people who have the abilities to win and incapable of seeing his own weaknesses. After all, WCF sat on the Ford board of directors as the company declined, but it was his son Bill that recognized his own weaknesses and brought in Alan Mullaly.

Maybe Bill could make better decisions, but who knows. As I read in an interview last season, Bill Ford said "I don't own the team." That, I expect is the answer. Lions' fans should expect nothing but heartache as long as WCF is the owner.

[p69rrh51]

Let's see:
1) William Clay Ford Sr. Chairman of the Excutive committee of the board of Ford [[the committee fthat controls all the money for the corporation) we all know the performance of Ford!

2) Owner of the Detroit Lions the record speaks for itself.

Enough said!!

[kenp]

I always compared the movie, "The Godfather" to the Lions. There was brothers, Sonny [[James Caan), who was a leader in the family, and then Michael [[Al Pacino), who later ran the family. Then there was another brother Fredo [[John Cazale) who was a little slow and kind of a missfit.
They didnt really know what to do with him so they sent him off to Vegas.
William Clay Ford was the Ford families Fredo. THey didnt really know what to do with him so he took care of the Lions.

[jtf1972]

Here, we have a genuine NFL stadium, where for about 30 years National Football League games were played. Do I hear an opening bid of $10 million?

"$10 million sounds fair! What NFL team played there?"

The Detroit Lions.

"I'll give you two bits."

[firstandten]

The Lions will remain bad until Ford Jr takes over, when that will happens we don't know

[GOAT]

Ford jr isn't taking over the Lions anytime soon. You see, he is busy re-building a large company and turning it around. Something his old man couldn't do in his heyday.

There is but one issue most have missed above. WCF [[let's just call him what he is; a drunk, senile old man) likes PEOPLE regardless of what they offer. If he likes you, you are in! Case in point. Matt "the 'stache" Millen. 'Nuff said.

[BShea]

BShea, speaking as a fan, WCF has been a complete and utter failure as as owner of the Detroit Lions. I'm not sure why you're downplaying his effect on the team, but the mediocrity of the 90s you referred to has been the highlight of his ownership.

Again, my point was is the problems are attributable to real-world, physical decision-making -- specifically, front office, coach and player hiring that proved to be unfortunate, and then over-loyalty to those hires -- rather than some mystical curse or fumble-inducing malaise stemming from metaphysical bad mojo.

I'm not downplaying anything.

Hire the right people to hire the right people [[and pay them), then you'll win. If Ford Sr. has made historic bad choices in hiring that have led to further bad choices in on-field personnel, then therein lies the problem. Bad [[or consistently unlucky) hiring, nothing more. No need for a priest or witchdoctor, as some suggest.

From what I've seen this year, it looks like the Lions have made a good choice in coach, and good draft choices at quarterback and safety. The core foundation appears to be there.