What defines a coach is whether they win or lose
The Detroit Lions are the Motor City’s red-headed stepchild. Unlike the other three professional franchises that have been able to win titles or at least legitimately compete for them, the Honolulu Blue and Silver has slumbered in mediocrity or worse since their last title in 1957.
It’s a part of the Detroit culture that sometimes we may make fun of the Lions but on Sundays, we fervently pray they will turn into a real contender.
However, whether we’re talking about Wayne Fontes, the big buck as he called himself since the media was always gunning for his job, who authored the only postseason win for this franchise since 1957, or Jim Caldwell who called the media the dungeon of doom because of their pessimistic view of the team, or Matt Patricia for berating a reporter about not sitting up during his press conference, these were diverse personalities with differing results.
Fontes and Caldwell are the Lions’ most successful coaches since their last championship. They treated their players like men and allowed them to be themselves. Matt Patricia is one of the least successful coaches in the history of this franchise and he was a ‘my way or the highway’ kind of guy.
Now success with the Lions is relative when compared to other franchises that have actually had success. But one thing is for certain, coaches come in all kinds of sizes, personalities, and colors. Yet none of those tangibles traits I mentioned make a coach great or bad. What defines their legacy as a coach is the simple matter of whether they win or lose.
Lions coaches have not won to any degree of note since 1957 and the cluelessness of this franchise can certainly make it easy to gloss over what is actually happening and just label them a loser. It has been so easy to do so for 60 plus years, that the national media takes it for granted.
However, it is also lazy and sloppy to not do some research or simply pay attention.