RedRamage

I'd be okay with that. I mean, I'd rather a full TV crew so that replays would sync and all that, but if the only option would radio synced up I'd be okay with it. And yes I know that technically I could just play radio audio while watching TV, but it's not quite the same and means I'd be stuck with going back to watching live instead of being able to do it on tape delay and fast forwarding through commercials.

One more thing I forgot to mention from yesterdays game: I did NOT like St. Brown's TD celebration. I'm sorry if all you young whippersnappers thought it was funny or cute or whatever. But let me tell you straight up: It was NOT funny. It was NOT cute. I mean crap man... my heart can't take stuff like that! For the love of all us older guys who are in horrible shape are just one greasy hamburger away from the heart attack... do NOT do something like that again!

The NFL disagrees with you:

I know it would cost more, which is why it'll never happen. But I also think it would be well within the NFL's budget to handle it. If they can do it for MLB they can do it for NFL. It helps now that the Lions are better. But I'm sure we all clearly remember the years when the Lions were the red-headed step-child that no one cared about and we'd get the same cliched stories (did you know that Stafford and Kershaw were on the same team in highschool?!?!?), wrong names, and bad information from the announcers, etc. I don't want the announcers to be complete homers, but I also wouldn't mind a Detroit focused announcer team who'll at least have accurate information about the players I care about and won't repeat the sale old tired crap all the time.

I'd say a home and away crew. I'd give the home feed to anyone not in the away team's immediate area, but for that matter do all three if there's demand for it. I think it wouldn't be too hard to figure out a way to allow people to pick their feed too.

I just really, really wish it was possible to get a local crew for each team. I mean come on... it's 2025 with a gajillion streaming options. MLB does team specific crews for 162 games x 30 teams (almost... there are some national games of course). Why can't we have a local crew for just 17 games?

But does have a reach... quite a good one.

It felt like we had the D-Team (or worse) again yesterday. I remember a handful of mis-pronounced or wrong names said. And I remember the color guy saying after the 4th down stop: "This is as good as a turnover!" Yeah... because that's what it is! It's a turnover on downs.

As much as people shouldn't have overreacted to one loss on the road against a good Packers team, I don't want people to overreact too much to one win at home against a bad Bears team. Don't get me wrong, it was a SOLID win, but it was against the Bears, so I won't say I have 100% confidence back... yet.

Just for the fun of it I compiled some numbers from the 7th innning: Hits: 5 Walks 4 HBP: 1 Outs: 3 Ks: 0 56 pitches where thrown by the Yankees, of them the Tigers swung on 19 of them... About a 1/3 swing rate... but honestly that was only because Hill (the third guy in) started throwing strikes. Before Hill came in 36 pitches were throw with 9 plate appearances. The Tigers swung 7 times. Less than 20% of the pitches offered by the first two pitchers were swung at. Hill accounted for 1 hit, 1 walk and all three outs. That means that the entire Tigers team came to the plate before a single out was recorded. Cruz and Leiter both had infinite ERAs in that outing.

Can judge BJ on one game anymore than you can judge Campbell on one game. I seem to remember a lot of people thinking Campbell was in over his head his first year in Detroit. (Not saying Johnson will or won't be a good coach... just saying it's too early to judge.)

The only thing worse than Lions fans overreacting to a loss is non-Lions fans overreacting to a loss.

Well what do you expect? Patullo has lead his offense to an average of 24 point a game this year. So far Morton's offense hasn't even been able to score!

I agree... I just think it's also a immature thing to do. Spitting in general as some sort of dominance display is stupid. I also expect Parsons to make a comment about it. Something like: "Trying to get your opponent ejected is for the weak, it shows you can't beat them straight up."

Apparently Dak spit first... kinda. It's very clear that Dak deliberately spat towards Carter. It landed near his feet, which was what I suspect Dak intended to do: Now this is in NO WAY trying to excuse Carter's actions. Instead I just wanted to point out that Dak also had the maturity level of a little boy by spitting towards Carter.

"Trick plays are for people who can’t beat you straight up." Running that through google translate and I get this: "I'm not a very smart player and easily fooled." Is there anyone here who speaks "little bitch" and confirm if that's an accurate translation?

Yeah, this should be the default response to any article from him.

If this is intended to be a response to my post, then you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I said it's not fair to ask if Goff can be elite without Johnson. It's not fair because Goff has had at least some level of success under two different coaching staffs. In a worst case senario (ie, if I was trying to give Goff as little credit as possible) this implies that he as at least basic skills and he can be taught/trained by multiple people to play at an elite level. At worst Goff has great talent and great ability to learn and follow instructions. I went on to further say that Morton has been handed an load of talent. If Goff and/or the offense faulters it's on Morton, not Goff. I'll say straight for the record: I was definitely one of the ones who was questioning Goff when he first came to the Lions. Even after the amazing finish in 2022 I still had doubts. Straight up: I was wrong. My post was not questioning if Goff is good... there's no question there. Goff is very good. Would he have the same success without the great players around him? No, of course not because football is a very interconnected sport. Would AMSB have the same success with a lesser QB? Would Gibbs has the same success without a great OL? No, because football is interconnected.

The QB is very important to an offense, but the QB is only part of it. A big part, yes, but only a part. How much of Goff's success with the Lions is Goff and how much of it is elite RB, elite OL, great WR, great play calling? It's hard to say. Everything is far more connected in football than in many other sports. Is it fair to ask: "Can Goff succeed in an offense without Ben Johnson?" I don't think so no, but it's clear Goff has had some level of success under two different coaches/OCs. Add in that the RBs and WRs are the same and much of the OL is the same... it's up to Morton to keep the offense - which is KNOWN to be elite level - going. If it fair to ask: "Can Ben Johnson succeed without Goff?" I don't think so no. Because he's going into a whole different org with different RBs, WRs, OLs, etc. etc. etc. If Ben fails it isn't necessarily because no Goff. Heck, it may not even be the offense. Ben could fail because he's not a good HC instead of because he can't win without a great QB.

I hope it's true because it'll be bad for the Packers, but I'm not going to assume it's true until we see evidence of it beyond merely Jones crying souring grapes.

Not to bad mouth your chiro, but... that's seems a bit like saying: "Oh, look: clouds in the sky. That might mean rain or it might not mean rain."

There's no question this makes the Packers better and I don't like that. It's debatable how much better of course, and what the long term lack of first round picks in the next two years will do to their ability to maintain a great team. I definitely think this makes the Packers more dangerous, but I don't know if I think this makes them the favorite in the division.

I absolutely agree. I thought it was a good pick at the time and I still think it was reasonable. Let me try to explain my thoughts another way: There's a $1M lottery with 2 million tickets available for sale and tickets cost $1 each. I'm gonna spend $10K on tickets... oops, none of them won. That was a bad decision and a waste of money. You, on the other hand, spent $3 on tickets and oops, none of them won. That was a bad decision and a waste of money, but it was a low waste. In hindsight we know that you didn't win and if you had that knowledge ahead of time you could have saved yourself $3. So it's still a bad decision, but it's a minor bad decision. Nothing like my $10K bad decision. The reward was high, the risk was relatively low... but in hindsight it was a bad decision.

So are you saying you get good value from a lottery ticket that doesn't win? Look, I fully understand that most draft picks don't end up becoming productive NFL players and even fewer become star players. I'm also not saying that it was a bad gamble. I thought it was a good pick at the time and I supported it. But in hindsight the production we got from the picket was zero. It was a relatively low value we spent on what could have been a very high return. But it didn't work out and therefore it was, ultimately, a bad pick. That doesn't mean Holmes suck. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take risks. That doesn't mean anything more than we put some value into the pick and we got zero out of it. Even a non-impactful player who is a ST guy would have given us more value than Hooker. There's no shame in look at the pick 2.5 years later and saying: "Yep, it was a reasonable gamble, but it didn't pay out so in hindsight we should have done something different." It's okay to call it a bust without saying that Holmes is a bad GM or that he's making bad decisions.