RedRamage

Wanna know what's really weird? I pulled the game in youtube TV at this entire drive is missing from the NFL version of the game. The NFL Network version goes right from the Cowboys FG at 9:18 to the start of the 'Boys next drive at 8:21. I had to go back to the Amazon Prime version to rewatch the drive. It starts to get increasingly hard not to suspect some funny business when the refs miss Saylors getting his head shoved into the turf, then miss offsides, then miss a possible DPI on the same drive... only for the NFL Network recording of the game to just not include that drive at all.

I think this is one problem with replay... now just let me state that I think replay review is overall a good thing and the game is better because of it. But, there is certain consequence it because of the way the rules are written. I think that refs tend to let plays happen perhaps a bit more knowing that replay will fix it if they get it wrong. Taking this play for example. A ref might think: "Oh, I think that was a pass attempt, but I'm not 100% sure. If I call it incomplete and so blow the play dead, but it ends up a fumble, that'll be a mess. But if I assume it's a fumble and it ends up an incomplete pass, replay will be able to easily fix it." So, the ref lets it play out because replay to fix incomplete is easy, but replay to fix on a fumble after blowing the play dead is much harder. In theory, that makes sense and it's a good way to go. But in practice, this can be problematic. On this play there was clearly no question that it was a forward pass. But what if it wasn't super clear? What if there were no really good camera angles? Now there's potential that what the ref(s) thought was an incomplete pass but let play out because replay will fix it now is trapped by rules that say there has to be clear evidence to overturn.

Two first rounders, one second (or third?) rounder, a high priced FA they're not getting pressure. The talent should be there.

I feel like the Lions of 2024 and 2023 were great because of the OL and the DL. I feel like the 2025 Lions are bad (or at least not great) because of the OL and DL. I mean, there's plenty of other things to talks about... ARSB suddenly dropping passing like crazy... our depleted secondary... changes in OC and DC and OC again (kinda). But it feels like our OL can't protect well against good teams and it feels like our DL can't get pressure consistently against good teams. I don't want to be too much doom and gloom here... we knew the 2025 schedule was going to be tough, and we knew the 2025 Lions were going to have some issues (OC and DC leaving, Ragnow retiring, McNeill being out for the start of the season) and we've still got a winning record. This isn't the 1990s where we'd be pretty good one year, then crappy the next, then pretty good again, then crappy... And it's probably a testament to what Holmes and Campbell has done in such a short time that we're left unsatisfied by 7-5. I just think that we need to really work on improving the lines going into 2026 if we're going to be that dominate team again.

Plus the defense obviously needed more practice, so maybe that extra plays in OT will help them??

I agree. As longer and longer FG become more common I think they'll find a way to made them harder to make.

The Giants allow the most ypc of any team in the NFL at 5.9 and have allowed the most yards on the ground (1886). If the Giants DL is the most talented it's not with stopping the run. https://www.nfl.com/stats/team-stats/defense/rushing/2025/reg/all Note: I'm not sure if those stats are updated with yesterday's game. If they are you could argue that part of the reason they are the worst is how well the Lions ran on them, but I'd guess even without the Lions game the Giants would still easily be in the bottom 5.

I don't know that I agree with that. If the Giants get the TD, obviously that's almost certainly game over. Lions need two scores with very little time left, so while not super likely, the end result is somewhat worth the risk. Furthermore, a FG puts you up 6... but that means the Lions "just" need a TD and extra point to win the game. And of course the Lions KNOW that they need that to win the game. The entire drive will be singularly focused on getting that TD because there is no other option. However, if you give the ball to the Lions down by 3, there may not be quite the same desperation. The Lions may not take the same risks to win the game, and may settle for a FG. Obviously it's easy to Monday Morning QB the whole thing and say: Look, the Giants stopped the Lions and forced a FG... the should have kicked so they would have won. But the results are obviously predicated on the situation the Lions were in and would have played out differently had they been down 6 instead of 3.

I honestly worried that he'd get flagged for a hip drop tackle.

I agree with everything here, include, unfortunately, the last part. Salary Cap/Floor ultimately benefits the owners, and as @gehringer_2 pointed out, teams could find ways to overpay for other things (coaches, facilities, scouting, developing, etc.) to gain and advantage there if they're just capped on player salary. I think a big part of what makes the NFL successful is that a HUGE portion of team revenue comes from TV rights, and those rights are shared across the board. And in my opinion there's good reasoning for this. No one is paying to get the YES Network, for example, to watch the Yankees take batting practice or run fielding drills. They're paying to watch the Yankees play other teams, so should not the other teams get some of that revenue? But getting sharing like that will be very, very hard to get the owners to all agree too and you're right that it will require open accounting.

I thought about something like that too, but I'm not sure how it would work that would actually help smaller market teams compete. (This of course assumes a smaller market team where ownership actually wants to compete, not just make a profit and call it good enough.) Let's say the Twins have a player going up for free agency. The Dodgers or Yankees can just through a huge number at said player. If the Twins have the right to match that offer, that doesn't mean they'd have the ability to match it. Maybe some sort of "restricted" free agency where players are able to negotiate with other teams but the current team is allow to match but if they elect not too they get some sort of bonus? Actually... is might be nice if the new team has to pay a set fee to the old team for a restricted free agent, but again this assumes a small market team that's trying to compete. There'd have to be some salary floor in this situation to make sure the owner isn't just pocketing the fee.

Just watched this video by Trevor May: The TL;DW (Too Long; Didn't Watch) version: Free Agency seems to have issues. The problem, from a players perspective: Teams have control for a LONG time... players are taught that Free Agency, which may not come until way late in a player's career, is the one time to get that big contract so they need to maximize that one deal. They may never get another shot. Because of this players are unlikely to resign before free agency and other things (like team, city, family, friends, etc) become less important than the big payday. May suggestion one possible solution (while admitting it's just an idea, it may not work): Reduce the time it takes to get to free agency. If players see that they have a shot at two (or more) big deals, there may be less driving force to maximize that Free Agency contract. They may be more willing to re-sign with a team even before free agency. Obviously this would make owners unhappy, so the combined with this May suggests limiting Free Agency contract to a maximum of 5 years. This would mean that even if you were paying a player $25M a year, the full contract value would only be $125M. This would slow down the huge ballooning contracts of many hundreds of millions without limiting AAV per year and, presumable, not price smaller market teams out as much. Summary over. Not being someone who's hugely well versed in baseball front office stuff, I'm curious what people think of this. Personally the limiting Free Agency contracts to just 5 years doesn't seem like a big enough benefit to the owners to make them willing to shorten team control. I also question how much that will help small market teams. I fear that it would just make the bigger markets willing to pay crazy AAV knowing that their only taking on 5 years liability so if the contract ends up being a dud they're not chained to it for 8, 10, or more years.

I'll be in my house for this one!

Ah, okay... yes I was missing something.

You know they're not undefeated, right? Am I missing something?

I thought that too when watching the game. Lopez was showing up a lot during the game... 5 total tackles, 3 solo, 1/2 a sack and 2 TFLs... DJ Reader? 2 tackles, 1 solo. McNeil? 1 tackle, 1 solo. Williams? 0. According to pro-football-reference he was only in on 8 plays.

You didn't let him finish! He was saying that he's STUNNED that Daboll was fired --- now, instead of like a few weeks ago.

I also think they are being much more open about concussions being an issue AND trying to have stricter rules for dealing with them. That will help, obviously, but there's no real way to eliminate concussions or damage from repeated collisions. I could foresee an instance where someone sues the NFL or the NCAA or a school. Whether they should win or not is obviously very much up for debate, but I could foresee a situation where they win big. If that happens I don't think it'd be too long before others started suing as well... which could lead to schools just shutting down football programs. If the potential liability starts to outweigh the financial benefit it might happen. I certainly hope it doesn't and I hope I'm just speculating way outside of reality.

Yeah, it's hard to wrap my head around it. My only thought was that something happened and he thought he was in so much trouble with the police chasing him that he didn't figure there was any way out. The question is what was the trouble? Was it real? And if so... was it really that bad? Or was it more "imaginary," potentially brought on by mental issues? And if so, where those mental issues exasperated by concussion/head injuries? I've speculated in the past that I wonder how much longer football as we know it will exists. I could easily see in 10 or 20 years that there are radical changes or the whole sport itself mostly disappears.

I thought they were talking percentages.

Win/Loss/Tie record for individual players is a stupid stat. I mean I'm happy for Stafford that he gets to play on a winning team, but really this super duper highlights why it's a stupid stat. Do we really think that Stafford's talent level is increasing as he's getting older?

Honestly... I kinda am. I was skeptical at first and I do still very much dislike that that the surprise onsides kick is no longer available. But, that said I like that it's not 90% of the time kicked into the endzone for a touch back. I like that there are returns happening. I think the way the team are lined up prevents high speed collisions so reducing injuries.

Yeah I missed that the first time too. I thought an Out of Bounds went to the 40, but I guess not if you kicking from the closer on?? Not sure on the rule, but obviously the Lions knew the rule and took advantage both times.

It sure feels like SOL broadcasts.