RedRamage

Dang... that's sad. I just looked up some info on him and he was born in GR, MI!

As much as I hate the Packers, I loved (no pun intended) that uniform. How incredibly AWESOME would it be to have the Packers wear this and the Lions wear a similar uni decked out like the Portsmouth Spartans?

Meh... the media - specifically the national talking heads - say a lot of stuff. And I truly think much of what they say is designed to attract attention (negative or positive) more than it is to try to convey what they actually think.

Shamelessly stealing from Reddit:

I also wonder how much his time as assistant head coach in NO helped. Campbell was never an OC or a DC, but he had a stretch as an interim HC and 5 years as an assistant HC. Now, obviously I'm just some old dude on the internet, not a member of any NFL front office and certainly not an owner. But I wonder sometimes if teams are too often swayed by the success an OC or DC has. The skills to run an offense or a defense obviously have some overlap with running a full NFL team, but there's also lots and lots of parts that don't overlap. Now of course the odd thing here is that AG seemed like the type of guy who had some of those skill that an HC needs (aka the whole: "Leader of Men" thing).

A game manager is a person who manages the game.

Remember 2003? Charles Rogers breaks his collar bone during a bye week practice?

With this win Dan Campbell is now 44-30-1 as Lions head coach. He has sole possession of 5th place in total wins by Lions head coaches. Based on winning percentage he's now 4th all time among Lions HCs:

While I'm not ready to fire Morton, I do think he hasn't been fantastic. In fairness the DL of the Bucs is very good, but there doesn't seem to be much creativity in this game. Way too many runs up the middle and that line stuffed too many of them. I'd like to see more play action and/or runs outside. Especially at the end of the game... I mean running the ball for kill clock and force TB to use TOs WAS the right call, but why not try something a little outside instead of right up the middle?

As much as I hate to be sucked into conspiracy theories, I wonder if that Branch clip gets pulled as fast as it did if it doesn't show two blatant mis-deeds by the Chiefs.

I think that if such evidence was found it would be major. Many fans will be upset of course, but beyond that I think the biggest danger would be the lawsuits from the gamblers. If there is clear, undisputable evidence that the games are rigged then there's going to be a lot of money to be made on suing the gambling houses and the NFL. Lawyers will be lining up to take on a class action lawsuit of that magnitude. Again it will depend massively on what evidence is available, but I suspect the NFL would respond to in different ways: 1. If there's no reliable evidence that the refs on the field were contacted they'll stand by the line that it was a decision by the refs on the field. 2. If there's reliable evidence that NY was involved (which there seems to be) they'll say that they did call the refs, but only to point out the specifics of the rule, NOT to tell them what to do. The refs were to make the final call. Now this is a technicality of course. It's like when your mother caught you with your hand in the cookie jar when young and she says: "Are you sure you want to do that?" I mean, technically she's asking you a question, but you both know she's telling you to drop the cookie. But that technicality might be sufficient in a court case. 3. If there's reliable evidence that NY was involved and they told them to overturn the call, then I'd guess the NFL will says: "We made a mistake. Yes our rules say we shouldn't have done that, but mistakes happen. We'll send a nice apology letter to the team just like we do when the refs blow a call on the field that doesn't/can't be reviewed." 4. If there's reliable evidence that the Gambling house was involved... well then it all burns down.

Copy-pasting what I said in the Lions 2025 thread about this: Now, the other questionable side of things might be: Did the gambling house call up the NFL and ask them to overturn the play so they didn't lose half a million dollars? Imho: No. First, half a million is probably not a huge amount to a gambling house, and it would likely off set, at least partially, on the far more numerous bets placed on any other player to likely score first. Second, if the gambling houses are in cahoots with the league enough to make calls like these I doubt they risk the exposure on a bet that again seems relatively lowish to me. Third, the NFL didn't just make up a rule on the spot to appease the gambling house. Granted, they may have stretched the interpretation of the rule, but there still has to be some rule that they could fudge this on. And finally, it seems unlikely that the play happens, the gambling house checks and sees that they're going to lose a bunch of money, calls into the NFL, the NFL reviews and then look up the rule book, and decides there's at least enough wiggle room in this obscure rule to overturn, and then buzzes in to the refs within 120 seconds.

What I would love to see is that whole rule book re-evaluated. The rule book is based, of course, on a game that's more than 100 years old and I'm quite certain that many of the rules are based what made sense back in the 1920 game. They've of course been amended and updated and changed, but I suspect that many existing rules are based on the core ideas of the game back then. Take the whole book and have some people sit down and go through it rule by rule: What is the purpose of this rule? What is it trying to accomplish? Is it to define the basic game? Is it to make the game more entertaining for the audience? Is it for player safety? Get to the bottom of the intent of the rule of the rule first, and then ask: Does it make sense in today's game? I suspect MOST of them will still apply, but I'm also sure that there will be at least some that do not. For each rule that still applies, ask: Should it be modified given how the game exists now and what we know about player safety, to achieve it's purpose better? For each rules that doesn't still fit with today's game, ask: Does the intent of the rule (make the game safer, more entertaining, better defined/understood) still make sense? Is so, how do we update the rule to make it fit the original intent? Examples: 10 second run off of the clock if officials call on the field stopped the clock, but review overturns the call and the clock should have been running. This is obviously what happened to the Lions in the Falcons game a few years back. What's the intent of the rule? To prevent granting an extra "time out" for a team trying to score before the clock runs out. The defense shouldn't get penalized if they did the right thing (for example, tackled a player in bounds) and the refs made the wrong call (said the ball carrier got over the sideline). Does it still apply in today's game? Yes, probably. Should it be modified for today's game? Yes, probably: Given that teams are drilled on quickly getting set and ready for the next play, they likely can get in place and run a play in less than 10 second, depending somewhat of where the ball is spotted vs. the original line of scrimmage. Suggested modification: Knock it down to 5 second run off or possibly make it dependent on how far away from the original line of scrimmage the ball is spotted. (For example, >20 yards = 10 second run off, =<20 yards = 5 second run off.

But the wording of the rules doesn't seem to define what a T-formation QB is. The stuff about touching or hands under center, etc... that's all after the fact. The rule to mean, reads like this: A T-formation QB can go in motion even if he's put his hands under center or touched the center, etc... I do not think this defines or establishes a T-formation QB. There may be some other rules somewhere else that define this and Goff may or may not have been a T-formation QB based on those rules, I dunno. Assuming he was a T-form QB, yes, they broke the rule. However, I would actually argue that the Lions were guilty of a False Start before the play happened. I think Goff's actions were absolutely abrupt and quick, which the rules define as a False Start if done by a T-form QB. I think I've said this once here already, but I suspect the NFL would just say: "We didn't review or overturn the call. We did call in to remind the officials what the rule was, but then we stepped back and allowed the refs to make the call as they saw it. It's a technicality imho... even if the replay officials didn't tell the refs: "It's foul, flag it." they certainly gave the impression to the refs that they should flag it. Any time the replay booth is going to buzz in to remind refs the specifics of a rule they're doing it because they thought the rule was called wrong.