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.

Didn't appeals used to take a lot longer? Honestly when I heard Branch was appealing I 100% thought it was a stalling tactic to make sure he could play against the Bucs with Arnold and Kerby both being questionable and that they'd then drop the appeal after the game.

This is the least troubling of things in my opinion. I suspect bets like this happen all the time and 99.99% of the time we never hear about them because they don't pay out and/or it's just a off hand news item: "Oh wow, that person was lucky!" It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that Goff could have the first score. The Lions are a known "trick play" team. They've passed to Goff twice, one leading to a TD. Goff has also rushed for two TDs with the Lions. I think it's far more likely that someone saw the potential huge winnings and took a flyer on it vs. someone leaked that the Lions were gonna try this play. (I mean even if you accept that a leak happened, someone betting on it was still taking a HUGE long shot... Even if the bettor 100% knew that the Lions would try this trick play if they got within 5 yards of the end zone, there's still long odd against: You have to have the Lions get the ball first or prevent the Chiefs from scoring on their first drive. You have to have the Lions get close enough to the EZ, but also not get into the endzone. You have to have the Lions run the play successfully. None of those things are gimmies at all.) 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 partial, 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 the 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 stretch 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.

On one hand: If this was buzzed down to the officials (and this seems more and more likely after it already seemed probable), then this does seem to go against the rules that NFL has setup regarding what's reviewable and what isn't. On the other hand: If this is truly how the rule is written, then the Lions did break the rule on that play and it shouldn't have stood. I'm very conflicted on this as the Lions certainly have been screwed over in the past on things that should have been called but weren't (example: The ball batted out of the endzone vs. Seattle). I generally want the rules to be called correctly rather than an apology after the fact that the officials got a call wrong. But... This is obviously a very obscure rule. But... still a rule. But... is it? What's the actual text of the rule? Does it define what actions a players needs to make to be considered a QB under center or is that open to interpretation? And if it is then I definitely go back to the refs on the field didn't think it was a foul and shouldn't be reviewable. In the end it's just going to end up as one more footnote in Lions history of another controversial thing that (probably) screwed over the Lions.

Yeah, it's a bit of a mystery to me why DMo isn't being used as much... now, I will say we don't have a great sample size, so it's possible it's just a matter of the game plan... thinking Gibbs is more effective against this defense. However, the early numbers definitely favor Gibbs.

I kinda agree. It was an avoidable penalty, certainly. But to me it's more of a case of the light turned yellow and I think I can make it through but... oops, it turned red before I hit the intersection. It was a misjudgment, not a blatant effort to break the rules. Branch's action was more of I'm stopped at a red light, but I think I see an open area large enough, I'm gonna gun it and run the red light and slip through traffic. This was a blatant, stupid decision and I suspect it'll cost him at least one game, maybe two. It's also going to increase his a bad reputation with the league. We all saw how that effected Suh. Even stuff that was questionable (or even not very questionable at all) was assumed to be a deliberate act because of his rep, and he was penalized heavily for it. Further, in game, teams will know they might be able to get Branch worked up by goading him. I don't want to over blow this and say Branch is evil or anything... the act itself was pretty minor over all, plus he owned up to it and said it was stupid and wrong and he shouldn't have done. So I'm not clutching at pearls here in terms of saying on horrible the actual act was. Rather I'm worried about the damage it could do him in terms of reputation.

Yeah but, that Carlos Monarrez. The guy is a click bait/shock jock ... er reporter. His entire schtick is getting people riled up and "hate reading" his columns.

I find it amazing that parts of Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona, and Indiana aren't getting the game that's played by the team in their state!

Yeah, it wasn't a very good performance by many on defense. I honestly felt Hutch wasn't that great in this game.

I think the rebuttal would be that it wasn't reviewed, it was discussed by the refs. Now I know that sounds like a semantic argument, but what I mean is the refs have always been allowed to huddle to discuss a play and change their mind... even before replay was a thing. They do this quite often for intentional grounding, for example. Now... this assumes that the refs really did talk about it themselves and weren't buzzed by replay. That's definitely something that might be debatable, but their story is that they did it themselves without help.

My biggest disappointment on this whole thing was that the flag nullifies just an AMAZING blocking performance by ARSB. If that play stands I think we're all talking a lot more about how great a job he did on it.