RedRamage

I actually have the exact opposite opinion. I LOVED when they went down to 4 team divisions. I thought when it was 5 teams in a division way too much of your season was spent on divisional opponents. When it was just 16 games a season combined with 4 opponents you had to play twice, half the season was just your division. When half the playoff slots were decided by total record (3 division winners + 3 wild card slots) that meant playing in a weak division could give a team a HUGE advantage. Team A, in a weak division, might win 6 of 8, then win only 4 of the other 8 games giving them 10-6. Team B, in a touch division, might win just 4 of 8 games, but even having a better record outside of the division, say 5 of 8 still only ends up with 9-7 and Team A gets the Wild Card.

I just want him to be good this week... then he can suck after that.

But why sudden death after they both get a shot? Why not sudden death before they both get a shot? What's different? In both cases you're saying after an arbitrary point whoever scores next wins. The last second field goal is different because that's ruled by the clock. The game is over when the clock is done. In that situation they're not saying: "Okay, you're tied... next score wins no matter how much time there is or isn't on the clock." To put it another way, let's look at baseball. If after 9 innings the score is tied both teams get an equal chance to score until a full inning is over and one team has more points. The NFL rules used to be (in baseball terms): We flip a coin to see who starts batting, and then the first team to score a run in extra innings wins the game. Doesn't matter if it's the home or away team... first score wins. The current NFL rules are: We flip a coin to see who starts batting, then if that team scores (for example) 5 runs in their inning they win. If they score fewer than 5 runs, the other team gets a chance to bat. If they're still tied after that then next score wins. But also if the first team doesn't get a hit, walk, or even one ball (only strikes thrown) then the other team wins. Ben's plan essentially is: We flip a coin... both teams get one inning to bat. If the score is still tied, then next score wins. My plan is: We flip a coin... Play three more innings, but if at any point one team is up on the other by x-number of runs that's a "Mercy Rule" and that team wins. In my humble opinion I'd prefer a setup where both teams play 3 more innings and then if one is leading that team wins, otherwise it just ends in a tie. But the NFL doesn't seem to want this, so my plan is to try to accommodate a way to finish OT early while still trying to be semi-fair in terms of giving teams a shot.

This one is for you @chasfh At this point as the Lions are driving down in OT to try and get a TD to finish it without the Rams even getting a chance. They had 1st and 10 from the 18 yard line and Cris starts talking about if the Lions should start thinking about kicking the FG. "You start thinking about it right, you start thinking how much do you need before you're going to go line up and kick it. You start thinking about which side do you want your kicker to be able to kick it from. But it's coming so easily right now I don't think you'll see them take big changes. I just think they'll play under control till they get the third down and maybe kick it there."

SOP just doesn't have same ring to it though.

With a win in game 144 the White Sox are now at 33-111. The '03 Tigers were at 37-107, so 4 games ahead of the '24 Sox. The Tigers managed to get 6 more wins in the last 18 games of the season so the Sox will need 10 wins to tie the '03 Tigers or 11 to get ahead. So far the White Sox had accumulated just six wins since the All Star break, so I can't say as it seems terribly likely that they'll get 10 in 2.5 weeks. The absolutely best the White Sox can do now is 51 wins. Even if they win out and the Marlins and/or Rockies lose out, the White Sox will still finish 3 games behind those teams.

Floating out the idea here to have a Weekly non-Lions game thread. I thinking this would be a good place to talk about the other games rather than just general NFL thread. Here's the list of Week 2 games: Thursday Bills @ Dolphins Sunday Early Chargers @ Panthers Saints @ Cowboys Colts @ Packers Browns @ Jaguars 49ers @ Vikings Seahawks @ Patroits Jets @ Titans Raiders @ Ravens Giants @ Commanders Sunday Late Rams @ Cardinals Steelers @ Broncos Bengals @ Cheifs Sunday Night Bears @ Texans Monday Falcons @ Eagles I'll be mildly interested to see how the Vikings fair against the 49ers and I'll be interested to see how the Pack does without Love. I'll probably actually try to watch part of the Bears game.

But if both teams have a chance to have their offense on the field, then it's not sudden death. I think what you're saying is that both teams should get a shot and if one team is ahead after that, that team wins. I don't necessarily hate that idea honestly. It keeps it as close to regular football as possible and actually provides some incentive to NOT take the ball if you win the toss. But, what do you do if the teams are tied after they've both had possession once? Does it go sudden death then or does each team get a guaranteed offensive chance again? If the idea of guaranteeing each team gets their offense on the field in OT is to be more fair, why wouldn't we do the same if they tied after the first attempt?

That was really a killer there... That one just HURT because there were at least 4 defenders who could have prevented that from being a long YAC and they all missed or ran into each other.

Easier to understand for one. Is a team winning by more than 4 points? If yes, game over. If no, keep playing. Nothing about: If the first time gets a TD, then they win, otherwise the other team gets a shot. If the second team gets a TD they win. If the first team didn't score at all, then a FG wins it for the second team, but if the first time got a FG and the second team gets a FG then the first team gets another shot and they win if they get any points. You also eliminate situations which I think are "cheap wins" like the teams trade FGs then the first team gets a sudden death win on a FG. Or if the defense gets a safety the offense still needs to go down put up some points to win it.

He got a LOT of practice with that his first 12 years in the league so he knows what to do.

You mean the drive where they hardly threw the ball? Why isn't St. Brown getting the ball? Why are they running on first down all the time! 5 first downs and they ran the ball all 5 times! Horrible play calling.

Hindsight being 20/20, but a FG to end the half would have saved my heart a lot of stress.

A new season and an old push for my simplified OT rules. Now, in my personally opinion the best OT rules would be to simply play a full "5th" quarter and the game it over when that qtr is done. But, I get that the NFL doesn't want that. I'm not sure if it's because of concerns with players health or wanting the excitement of sudden death or some combo of both, but here is (yet again) my proposal for simplified OT rules that: Keep the excitement of sudden death Easier to understand for teams/fans Stays close to the NFL's current rules Stays close to "real" football (ie, don't reward changing philosophy like just trying to get a safe FG like the old OT rules did.) The proposed rules are this: A 5th qtr is played and a coin flip is used just like current rules are. Play stops at the end of the qtr OR if at any point one team leads by 4 or more points.

I didn't HATE the font... I get that they were doing for a unique font that was distinctly Lions... but I also can't say as I love it either. Again I get what they were going for and I think it mostly work with the name, but numbers were "meh" at best.

Wow... um... maybe it's not a good thing there's still time in the game?

Still time in the game obviously but... ouch.

The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Rednecks (Official Music Video)

Oh, for sure the field wasn't great and it definitely was a factor. But it wasn't the only factor.

I actually watched most of this game and I wasn't overtly impressed with either team, which is good for the Lions has both these teams were considered contenders. GB lost despite a fumble and 2 INTs from the Eagles. As for Philly? Hurts seems to be still making poor decisions. So this is a pretty much a best case senario for the Lions... GB loses, both teams look questionable. Having said that... this is the first game of the year and I expect to see some rusty players. I expect we'll see from rust from the Lions as well so I don't want to put TOO much emphasis on one game of lackluster play. As for Jordon Love: I don't wish ill-will on any individual, but I also am not going to be upset if this give the Lions an advantage this season. I'm quite sure no team out there was upset that the Lions secondary was a MASH unit last season. I doubt any other team's fan said: "I just wish the Lions didn't have so many CB injuries so that we faced an even better team." Well... maybe the Raven's fans did.

Wow... yeah, that's a tough call there. I suppose it depends on how you're classifying your dislike. Dislike of the player or dislike of the person? If you're talking the person it's hard to argue that Sutton isn't the worst given the alleged incident with his woman. But just as a player, CJGJ get it for the reasons you listed here.

Well... now that I did a bit of digging, this might not be the correct information. See here: The Cliff Notes version: The Grand Rapids Rustlers (or maybe Rippers??) did exist in the Western League, but moved to Omaha, and then folded. A separate team that was originally from Columbus moved, very briefly, to Grand Rapids, then to Cleveland.

I will add for the record, it seems like Rice is handling this correct now. He's admitted his involvement. He appears to have cooperated fully with police. He willingly turned himself in when a warrant was issued for this arrest. Since the accident he's done the right things from what I can see. Hopefully this is a good life lesson for him that will be expensive for him, but ultimately doesn't appear to have causes serious injury (or death) to anyone. It's not his fault that the NFL hasn't decided to suspend him and he certainly shouldn't feel some obligation to self-suspend himself.