RedRamage

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.

The difference here is that it wasn't the play clock, it was the game clock. At least according to the rules expert during the broadcast, the game clock is a cold, hard fact. It isn't treated the same way as the play clock. That said, in practice I don't know how it wouldn't be. My guess is it evolved thusly: When time the game clock ends, whoever is the keeper of that clock yells time or fires a gun or whatever (heck, this America, I'm sure he fired a gun). As tech advanced and the game clock wasn't an actual stopwatch/clock maned by a person on the sidelines, it became the responsibility of one of the refs keep an eye on the clock when they were getting down to close to the end and stop the game when the 15 minutes were up. This isn't too hard... I mean you only have to watch near the end of a Qtr. When the 0:00 show up, blow the whistle if you don't hear a lot of grunting from the field. When they started using a play clock I'm sure people said something like: "Wait, now EVERY play we need to watch the clock? How can we do that and do our job of watching for false starts, illegal motions, etc. etc. etc.?" So they devised a plan: "Okay, we'll put huge count down timers in the endzone. If you see those tick to 00, look down at the ball. Is it snapped? Let the play happen. Is it not snapped? Throw the flag." And thus the "subjectiveness" of the delay of game is born. But this "subjectiveness" was never retroactively applied to the GAME clock so the rules with that are still (or should be) 0:00 - instant end of qtr./half/game. In practice... is there a specific assignment to a ref to watch the game clock near the end? If not, would they not just effectively act the same way as the play clock? If they notice time up, then check if the play is going, and if not stop play?

I would agree that he will definitely be playing... but to what level is the question. If this is the first week he's been really able to go full speed (or near it) it may take a while for him to be fully set with the Lions defense and be able to mesh well. Sunday may be essentially his first pre-season game. So we might see a 70% or 80% Mosely has he get back into fully physical, mental, scheme, team condition. So, is 70% or 80% (or whatever number I pull out of my backside) Mosely better than 100% Jacobs? Maybe. But will be he be significantly better? I kinda doubt it. I expect improvement over Jacobs, but "light years" better this week.

I honestly don't like it... for purely personal reasons. I like the routine of Sunday afternoon games. Late afternoon isn't too bad, but still... Sunday afternoon's were made for football.

I don't want to laugh too hard at Packer's fans because what... we've dominated them for two years? How many decades have they dominated us?? But still I found that Grossi video funny. He's a Packers fan but he's not afraid to make fun of Packer's fans and he seems at least to be very much in touch with fans bases around the league. If you haven't watched if various skit videos you should. The one about Jamo after the gambling was hilarious.

I want to see three things from Jamo. A receiving TD, a rushing TD, and a $100,000 donation to my bank account.

Listening to Campbell press conference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTvVF0Ivg-U) and he was asked first about Jamo and it wasn't a ringing endorsement. "We just gotta see where he's at with Football. This will be his first week back and uh, so we'll take it every day *shrug*. See how he does." Now what does that mean? Well, like with just about everything else you could read multiple ways: It could be a case of not expecting anything substantial from Jamo anymore so it's like... "meh... we're getting back a 2nd string player... it's nice, but no big deal." Or it could be a case of "We all thought we had a few more weeks to flesh out the plan for Jamo coming back and we're caught a little unprepared right now." Still, even if this is the case I'm a little surprised there is more excitement from Campbell about him coming back.