RedRamage

Anyone else think Mayfield sorta kinda looks like The Deep here?

Party like it's the 1950s!

This stuck me this morning when I was coming in to work listening to a Lions podcast: The Lions by no means played a clean game. Some bad penalties... some drops from our receivers... running game wasn't there... only one sack... a missed FG... And yet we won, handily. We kept the Bucs out of the end zone, we had some big plays and we went into their stadium and beat them solidly. Even just a few years ago we often said that the Lions need to play a near perfect game if they wanted to beat [insert good team here]. We often said the Lions didn't have the luxury of making mistakes because the margin for error was so slim. We often said that something to the effect that if only the refs hadn't blown that one call we might have won. Now we're the team that others are saying that about. The Bucs needed to play mistake free football to beat us and they made mistakes. The Bucs margin for error was so slim that a few missed plays meant they lost by two TDs. I'm certainly not saying this is a Super Bowl bound team. But this also isn't the SOL. This is a team that can make mistakes, that can be missing key players and can still go into a visiting stadium against a decent opponent and come out with a win.

The 2005 season.

Lions tied for best record in the NFL!

Wow! What a block!

Injuries are really starting to hurt this team... OL problems, RB problems, secondary problems...

iirc, the new Turf is supposed to be less injury inducing, but who knows.

Because there's usually a big bigger drop off from QB1 to QB2 then there is from [insert any other positions here]1 to [insert any other position here]2.

First of all: Who says it was due to hitting? There are plenty of ways to get injured that don't involve football contact. Second: Just because they aren't practicing doesn't mean they won't play Sunday. It's entirely possible it's precautionary. Third: Walk throughs aren't the same thing as doing the plays live. You won't get the same feeling. If you never hit in practice you're not going to know how it works for real.

Taylor Swift? Pfwwww... who that that Taylor?

Just to play the contrarian here... Gibbs: limited use Campbell: limited use LaPorta: Homerun Branch: Homerun Hooker: Injured, but we knew that. Martin: Has he even played? Sorsdal: Filled in Green: Practice squad guy Obviously 5 games into their first year is WAY to early to judge players, but of the top 4 picks, two have been wild successes, but 2 have also been on the verge of being busts imho. Gibbs and Campbell have NOT provided first round level of performance so far. If we're going to list LaPorta and Branch as success stories based on 5 games, then I think we also need to label Gibbs and Campbell as failures (or at least disappointments) based on those same 5 games and where they were taken. For the record: I do believe that Gibbs and Campbell will be successful players. Maybe not 1st round level success, maybe they will be. I'm CERTAINLY not trying to label them as busts right now. I'm just trying to temper things a bit. LaPorta and Branch have been wildly successful, but we don't know if they will stay this successful for the rest of their careers, or even the rest of the season. If we're JUST going to judge based on 5 games (which is fair, that's all we have to judge so far), then we also need to judge the other picks the same way.

...plot twist... he beats the Lions.

Bear in mind that the Panthers aren't a good team and had a depleted secondary. I don't know that we necessarily need to break the bank for ARSB, but I would hate to see him gone.

https://youtu.be/8N0jK9wvR2A?t=51 Check out the highlight video starting at this point... this is the Montgomery long run for a TD. Watch number 9 come into the screen at the end. Look, I'm still not sold on Jamo... but the speed is on display here. If he can stay healthy and get integrated into the game plan that speed is impressive.

That's been my opinion for a long time. I did some real quick calculations: Years with Brady (2001-2007,2009-2019): Winning Percentage = .767 Years without Brady (1991-1995,2000,2008,202-2023): Winning Percentage = .467 If you want to discount the Browns years, that bumps his non-Brady years to .483 Again, this is just rough calculations. I'm sure some of those years with Brady he didn't start them all so there's probably some wins that I'm not counting as "Brady-less" win that should be... but even if we add in a an extra 11 wins to the non-Brady time that puts Belichick at exactly .500. Not exactly greatest coach of all time. And it doesn't seem like a matter of just Belichick and Brady peaking at the same time together and then falling off together too. There's a pretty sharp line. With Brady Belichick achieved double digit wins EVERY year except for one (17 of 18). Without Brady he has just 3 years with double digit wins (3 of 11). Brady, meanwhile, had two of three years without Belichick getting double digit wins.

Yep. He dropped an easy pass... The TFL wasn't really his fault, you can't help it if there's defenders on you the moment you get the ball. So his is receiving grade is an "Inc." in my opinion, but he did well block and I really love to see that because for me it means two things: 1. He's going out and doing what the coaching tell him to do. He's not pouting or trying to be a primadonna. 2. He knows the play book because he's doing his assignments. I still have my doubts about Jamo. This certainly wasn't a great game for him, but it also wasn't a horrible game either.

Yeah, I mean it's a (potential) scoring play so you'd think it's would be based on whether the ball broke the plane or not.

I've always kinda thought in the back of my head: It's hard to may halftime adjustments when you're playing well. I mean, what do you adjust? You scored 4 TDs and kept the other team to just one and a FG. I know there's always little things that you can do and you can spot trends here and there that you can work on... but honestly, why would you make serious adjustments when you're destroying a opposing team?

@buddha you'll enjoy this.

SOLF... that's terribly appropriate! I'll own that moniker. I really started following the Lions in the 90s and they seemed almost on the verge of breaking out, but it never happened. Then we got Ross... and it seem maybe... in 1999 we started out 6-2... Heck, we beat the St. Louis Rams. One of only three teams to do it that year. But then the second half of 1999 fell apart. But... front office make over! We got this guy Millen who was a breathe of fresh air and was gonna turn things around. Except Mornhinweg was a joke as an HC... oh but wait: The pride of the State of Michigan with a proven track record, Mariucci was coming! Except he failed. Then Marinelli... oh wait, 0-16. Then it was this Schwartz guy who the players seemed to love... in his third year he got us to 10-6. Okay... except them it all fell apart. Caldwell? Not very exciting, but... whoa! 11-5 in his first year here? Except them we slipped into perennial middle of the pack. Patricia? Eh... there was never a major up with him. Now we got Campbell and everything is looking great. But I've seen this before. I saw it in 1999, I saw it in 2011, I saw it in 2014... I've seen great years and great starts that have all gone to nothing... so yeah, SOLF is very appropriate. Intellectually I know: Different coach, different players, different front office. Intellectually I know that this isn't the SOL. But emotionally? Yeah, I'm still feeling like the other shoe is gonna drop any day now.

Compared to the previous four weeks, I'd say yes we will.

One of the issues I think with reviewing these is that if the clock is in frame. This is probably less of an issue with the play clock vs. the game clock. But what's shown on TV is not official so they can't go by that. Generally it's going to be very close if not exact, but if we're trying to get the call right on a split second decision you can't rely on a unofficial clock that might be off by a split second or more. I suspect that's why these plays aren't reviewable.

But the official time keeper isn't on the field, at least I don't think so. Again, this is all a pretty meaningless debate because we don't have all the information. I guess my long winded post above is essentially saying that I think they built in the subjectivity for the PLAY clock understanding that officials can't be looking at the PLAY clock and the play at the same time, but never retroactively added the subjectivity to the GAME clock. So: Technically there is no subjectivity in the GAME clock. When it hits zero the period is done. In practice, though, there is subjectivity in the GAME clock because, just like the play clock, the officials can't be looking at that and the play at the same time. If the official doesn't blow the whistle before the play is snapped, then the period isn't done. (Remember of course that the play just needs to START before 0:00, it could theoretically go on for many seconds later. So the ref can't just blow the whistle when s/he see 0:00 because the play might be in progress.)

But does the official time keeper have the power to stop the game? I speculate that originally he probably did but I don't know that the official time keeper has any ability to do that now. Maybe s/he can buzz the official or ref, but I don't think they can actually stop the game.