RedRamage

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.

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.