RedRamage

I am a bit disappointed that Rutledge went to the Texans... I mean, I know G isn't high on the list of needs, but how cool would it have been to have a Rutledge and a Ratledge as our starting guards??

It was a hard decision for them because they really like Miller and his upside outweighed his lack of injuries. However the Lions believe that they can rectify the situation. My insiders tell me that the Lions have hired someone to take a crowbar to Miller's knee when he gets off the plane in Detroit.

Because I feel personally attacked by this post, I'm gonna defend myself (even though I know this was mostly just meant as humor). The reality is that ALL GMs have ALWAYS mixed need and BPA. It's never a question of all NEED or all BPA, but rather how much does one vs. the other impact the decision. And even that's way to simple of a question. How big is the need? Like does a team literally have no one on the staff who could be expected to be an adequate starter or do they have someone who would be okay, but they'd really prefer to upgrade? Saying Holmes is a BPA guy isn't saying that he only drafts the BPA and never the need, just that the slider between NEED and BPA is well past half-way towards the BPA side. I consider BPA to be more important in Holmes determination than it likely is for most NFL GMs.

Lions are gonna roll out with a 3-tackle base set this year.

I wonder if he's feeling too much weight of people expecting him to be the next hotshot prospect (after Clark of course)? Of course, maybe I'm reading way too much into it but his K numbers are AWFUL so far this young season. Striking out at a 43.4% clip. (23 Ks in 53 PA)

WHY HAVEN'T WE CALLED HIM UP YET!??!?!?!?!??!

Rainer seems off to a very slow start.

This isn't very clear to me... Are you saying there's a possibility you'd want Proctor?

This is the big thing for me... now obviously it's possible that Holmes and Campbell are talking themselves into a pick based on need and/or impressive athletic ability. But given how important the "right fit" has always been in terms of attitude and drive and motivation, I find it harder to think that they would get sucked into a player who doesn't have the mental make up that they're looking for. If they draft Proctor I'd assume that he's got the mental make up to do the job for them until proven otherwise. This is NOT a "Brad and do no wrong" thing... this is more that attitude seems to important to the Lions that I don't see them taking a guy who got great potential but poor attitude.

Every time I see an unmade bed with a hat on it I think about... wait... who was that again?

For the record, I'm NOT trying to dumb on Holmes here. I think he is definitely more willing to flyers on these guys and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Generally speaking he's spending fewer assets to get them so, over all, I think it's probably work the risk. I'm just saying that I feel there's enough to a history here that a joke about a guy in the draft being more attractive to Holmes because he has an injury is on point.

Holmes has a history of taking flyers on guys who were injured or had regular injuries in the past Draftees: Jameson Williams - Torn ACL Hender Hooker - Torn ACL Ennis Rakestraw - Sports hernia surgery James Mitches - Knee/Leg injury Levi Onwuzurike - Chronic back issues Josh Paschal - Leg injury in his final college season Free agents: Emmanuel Moseley (x2) Marcus Davenport DJ Chark Isaiah Pacheco Even with more limited success of late in the draft, I don't think anyone is seriously questioning Holmes skill as GM. But I think it's fair to say that he has a history to looking to catch lightning in a bottle with guys who are injured. Beyond all that, I think it was mostly intended as a joke.

Brad Holmes is getting excited!

Not in the Apollo capsule, no. It was... worse.

My ever so humble take on OT: I want it to be as much like "real" football as possible, but I also understand that FG is a hard sport that take a toil on players and longer games risk more injuries so I'm okay with shortening the period if there's a way to do it without radically changing how the game is played. So here's my plan: OT is a 15 minute period. At the end of the period whoever is ahead wins, or if the teams are still tied the game ends in a tie. However, if any team gains a 4 point lead that ends the OT in the team with the lead wins. This means a team may lose without ever getting the ball, yes... but that's only if the opposing teams scores a TD. A team can't win on a "cheap" FG. Furthermore, the other team can't win on a "cheap" FG, even if the first team doesn't score. You need a TD or at least two "cheap" FGs.

I think there's part of the rule that says if you cross the 50-yard line you're "locked in." If you lose yards later that pushes you back past the 50 you still can't kick. I would assume if this is true they could do a similar thing with FG. If you ever get close enough that a TD would be inside the 60, then you're "locked in" to 3 pts, even if you later get pushed back so the FG is outside the 60. Having said that there's more nuance there with how far back does the snap go? I guess they could just say: Teams on average snap the ball 7 yards, so a kick from 50 yard line (+10 yard endzone) = 60 yards... therefore if the line of scrimmage is ever inside the 43 yard line the team is locked into 3+ FG.

Possibly, because here we're talking about what you're getting paid for. A player is getting paid to play the game. An owner is getting "paid" to put an entertaining product out there for fans. Even if the team is bad the owner may have created enough loyalty (sometimes by accident more than because of shrewd moves) that it's still entertaining enough that fans will spend money.

Sure, Baez is a great example of the dangers of signing a player to a big contract, but in baseball the playing field is level. What Baez started hitting like Judge while playing okay defense at SS. Suddenly his contract is a steal for the Tigers. So it's even. If Baez does poorly, as expected, or fantastic he's paid the same. If the Tigers can't reduce what they're paying if Baez sucks, then Baez shouldn't be allowed to hold out if he out performs. If the Tigers CAN reduce what they're paying Baez then I'd advocate for Baez to be allowed to hold out for more if he excels. Now this differs from what a lot of we're used to in our jobs, but sports jobs are different from what a lot of us are used to as well. Most of us aren't in a situation where we can't quit from our job and then have our previous employer prevent us from being able to get hired by a similar company in a different part of the country. Yes, there are non-compete clauses in some people's contracts, but those are rarer and not nearly of the same level of exclusive as NFL where it's basically: Here are the best 32 employers out there where you can make big money, or you can go to anyone from 33-whatever and make maybe 1/50th of what you'd make with the top 32.

The issue I have with NFL contracts is that the team really holds the majority of the cards. Super simplistically: If a player performs WELL below expectations of his contract, the team has ways to recoup large parts of the contract and pay the player less than agreed upon. If a player performs below expectations of his contract, the team has ways to recoup parts of the contract and pay the player less than agreed upon. If a player performs to the expectations of his contract, the team and player both get what they expected. If a player performs above expectations of his contract, the player has no way to increase his contract. If a player performs WELL above expectations of his contract, the player has no way to largely increase his contract. I understand that there are part of contracts that are guaranteed and parts that aren't. I also understand that players and agents know this and they go in with eyes open. I just feel that teams has a built-in, by default, method of reduce liability if if the player under performs while the player has no method to increase his income if he over performs. The "hold out" because his only option.

Yes, because Decker was released. Ragnow, of course retired, which means they can get some of the signing bonus back. And it makes some sense why Signing Bonuses aren't guaranteed... it was more of an off the cuff comment that NFL players are not always well protected in the contract side of things. I don't totally blame the Lions for trying to get some of the bonus back because it does end up effecting the salary cap and in a cut throat environment where every edge is needed that might end up being important. I think it's just one more example of the issues players face. I'd like the league to change it's rules to allow for some level of a team to be able to still pay out the signing bonus without it effecting the cap on a retired player. Obviously there's going to have to be some rules with that otherwise teams are going to just offer much higher bonuses with much lower base pay extended out many years because then a you can massively over pay your roster letting them retire and not have it effect your cap.

Yes, but only they guaranteed portion, if there is a guaranteed portion. Not all NFL contracts have that and even those that do are rarely all guaranteed. I used to think that signing bonuses were guaranteed, but even that's not the case apparently.

I disagree in the NFL where most contacts are not guaranteed. Decker being an obvious example here. The Lions seem to have wanted him to take a pay cut. They were "refusing" to pay the play under the contract. When he didn't agree to that the team cut him, "breaking" the contract. Teams in the NFL are allowed to do this, and they do it all the time. The players don't have the same luxury. They can't go to a team and say: "Hey, I think I've out performed my contract so I think you need to pay me more, and if you're unwilling to do that, I'm going to void the contract and go sign with a different team." Holding out is really their only leverage.

There's apparently a "bathroom" in the Orion capsule. Granted the Orion bathroom makes airplane bathrooms look positively luxurious... but still an actual bathroom is quite the upgrade over the Apollo capsule. If you're squeamish about this stuff, I'd recommend not looking up how the Apollo crews handled this.

Part of me would be so incredibly hyped to be in a mission like this... then another part of me says: Could you really spend 10 days in a small room with 3 other people? The introvert in me panics at that thought.