RedRamage

Okay, let's score. Put the game away.

I would not have accepted that.

That's virtually the same as a long TD drive though, isn't it??

Probably go for 2? Hell no! That would be stupid!

Even if we win this game I don't see us making a deep run with this defense.

3rd and forever? Yeah, that's an automatic first down... 🙄

There's the defense we know and love.

I fixed your typo there. That was a horribly called game.

I'm with you 100% here. When Stafford retires, if he's got a regular season game in Detroit or against Detroit that year, sure... do a quick little thing... he was the best QB we had here since Layne and I wouldn't mind some quickie little thing honoring him then. But not now. Now is all about the Lions back in the playoffs and hosting the game. Now is about a push for a playoff run. Now is about Goff and the current team.

While I agree that McVay could have done a better job, you're evaluating the trade based on something that happened, more or less, before it. 1. Rams have McVay as a coach 2. McVay + Goff wasn't working 3. TRADE -> McVay + Stafford worked If the Rams could magically change McVay and/or Goff to make them work together well at step 2 or maybe even realize that Goff was a very good QB and they should switch out McVay at step 1... then the trade never happens. But by the time we get to step 3 as assume that steps 1 and 2 are locked and evaluate the trade based on the results. Evaluate step 1: Should the Rams have kept McVay as the coach? Meh... debatable, but they did, so move to step 2. Evaluate step 2: Should the Rams have found some way to make McVay and Goff work? I would say yes, definitely. But the Rams failed here and didn't make it happen, so move to step 3. Evaluate step 3: Should the Rams have traded for Stafford? I would say yes because they won a SB with Stafford (et al) and likely would not have if they didn't do the trade. You're trying to say that step 3 wasn't a good move because they should have done something different in step 1 or 2, and I agree that they should have. But they didn't, so by the time they get to step 3 the trade is the winning move for them.

First, I don't think anyone is saying winning a SB with Stafford on the team absolves McVay of anything. That's not the point. Second, the "They could have had short term success and set themselves up better" part is only true if you assume that McVay is able to change who he is/what he thought. It feels a bit like saying: "I can't go outside my house from my dining room so I need to go into my den first and then go outside." And you replying: "You could have gone outside from your dining room if you just put a door in the wall." McVay didn't know how to handle Goff right and/or Goff changed what he was doing after the trade (I'm leaning more towards #1 here). If the Rams didn't trade for Stafford, McVay would continue to mishandle Goff and/or Goff likely won't have changed his approach. McVay could have changed his approach, but it's very unlikely that would have happened. I could put in an outside door in my dining room, but that's definitely not going to happen. So without the trade it's very, very likely the Rams don't make the SB just like it's very, very likely I'm not moving directly from my dining room to the outside. You seem to be arguing that the trade isn't a win for the Rams because they didn't need to do it. But because of the "McVay Block" in regards to how he perceived Goff, they did have to do it.

I was kinda hoping that Staley might come back to the Lions as OC or some other capacity if Johnson left.

I totally agree. I have no problem with the Saints wanting to score, even a head of the game with virtually no time left. No issue with that whatsoever. But victory formation has a special meaning to it. Everyone knows what it means. The offense is saying: "I'm not going to try anything here... just kneeling down." The defense sees this and agrees not to slam into the offense and try to cause injuries when the offense is not trying to advance the ball. This isn't a trick play... this isn't being sneaky... it's slap in the face to the defense and it erodes the sportsmanship and the understand and if it happens more it WILL lead to injuries.

For 20 minutes.

I prefer 3rd for Hooker and Bridgewater in the 4th. Given that this is the last game for Teddy, let him end it on the field and let the fans give him an ovation without Hooker coming it stepping on that. At least that's my 2 cents.

I also don't think it was deliberate. I do think it's possible a ref is biased and just leans toward more calls against one team vs. another... but I don't even know if that's happening here. I do think it was just a mistake like many others but happened at the worst possible time and means it was majorly highlighted both in this game and across the sporting world. It reminds me of that one play where (I think) Favre fell down and was sacked by someone which lead to a new sack record. People were chirping that Favre intentionally went down to allow the sack because he was buddies with the guy who sacked him. If that same play happened in any other game at any other time in the season and no one would think the QB intentionally tried to get sacked. But because it was for the sack record it was on center staged and picked apart and examined 10 ways from Sunday.

I think it's more that the NFL isn't paying them enough to NOT have to work another job. I obviously have zero inside information here, I don't know how much they pay or whatever... but I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of this: The employer only needs you to work from January to July and only pays you for those months. They don't pay you as much as you'd like to have year round, so you get another job from August thru December. During that Aug-Dec time you're getting out of practice of your Jan-Jul job... you're forgetting details, you're not remembering all the steps you used to take to complete the job... then you come back in January and have to spend part of the time re-learning the old job as well as learning any new twists. What the employer should do to get the most out of you is pay your year round and during the Aug-Dec you can be reviewing last year's work, making suggestions for improvements, talking with clients to get a good understanding of what they want, learning the new stuff before January, doing some practice runs in December and be 100% ready to go in January. You'll be a much more productive and accurate employee this way (in theory). The obvious downside here is that the employer has to pay you for 12 months instead of 7. The employer may not see that as cost beneficial... the added cost of those other 5 months doesn't produce enough better of an employee to make it worth it. BUT: Your clients are complaining to the employer that you're not doing a very good job and could using more training and practice. If the employer is a pretty hard successful company and could pretty easily afford to pay you year round and make the clients happier... it seems like the employer is just a cheap bastard.

The hope is that they would have more time to studying the rule book and more time training by looking at film. Maybe there would be more time they could spend with teams off season or between games so that more communication can happen. Whether that happens or not is obviously a big question mark, but officiating is just a part-time gig and most or all of these officials are normal M-F jobs, that does mean they'll have less time to focus on officiating.

^^^^ This... 100% this. Now obviously I want the Lions to win so I'd prefer which ever team we think we have a better shot at. But, at least as far as I'm looking it would probably be very similar to either, in which case I want the Rams cause I would be so much more upset if we lost to the Packers twice, at home, and one of those was knocking us out of the playoffs.

Johnson hasn't proved he can do anything with an offense that doesn't include Brock Wright in it.

Rated how? Based on how the player views them as a successful coach/coordinator? Based on if they like to play for them? Based if they think they'd be a good HC? Based on looks?

Here's roughly 16 minutes of therapy that's helping me move on...

100% my feeling as well. The Lions assumed the officials would do their job. They didn't.

If official audio exists of this, it'll never get out.

Correct. If Skipper was eligible, he would have been lined up in an illegal formation. So, even if the Lions decided to check out of the play or Decker is covered and Goff decided to run the ball in, the Lions should have been flagged for that as well. Once 70 was wrongly announced as eligible the Lions were screwed no matter what. There was no possible way they could have run a legal play. Correction: Once 70 was announced AND the Lions got in formation at the line.