RedRamage

I think this was discussed in a different thread, but I think it might be a big enough topic for it's won thread. I found this video from Pat McAfee where he diagrams things a big and explains the proposed new rule: There's some things I like about it. I think it does a very good job of eliminating the most dangerous part of returns: The coverage guys running down the field and slamming into the return defenders while also encouraging returns. In a lot of ways it's turning kickoffs into a form of a running play... the "defense" (coverage guys) are lined up opposite the "offense" (return defenders) and they have to stay in position until the play starts (punt returner catches the ball) then they try to go tackle the running back (punt returner). I DO think this will lead to more returns and I do think this is a good thing try to create. There are a few things I don't like though... I'm not a fan of a touchback going out to the 35, but that seems to just be for kicks that reach the end zone on the fly. I'm not sure what the rule would be for a kick that bounces in the "landing zone" (0-20 yards out) and then bounces into the end zone. If that was a lot shorter (even to just the 20 yard line) I'd be happier. The 40 yard penalty for a kick that goes out of bounds will apparently also be applied for a kick that doesn't make to the landing zone (0-20) on the fly. I'm okay with that (though I'd simplify it and make it the same yardage as landing in the end zone) IF they get rid of the rule that if the returner touches the ball while being out of bounds and the ball isn't out of bounds then it's considered out of bounds. If you're asking the kicker to land the ball in a small area you can't make that area 10 feet smaller on all edges with this loophole. I also don't like the onside kick rule. At least according to Pat a team has to declare they are doing an onside kick, and then it reverts back to the old rules for the onsides try. Further, onsides can ONLY be done in the 4th Qtr, and can ONLY be done by the trailing team. I don't love that because I do like the threat of a "trick play" for onsides at anytime, but I also don't know how you'd reasonably have an onsides scenario with the new rules.

Yeah, that might have a huge impact on if teams are willing to take a flier on him. I mean from a cash stand point it makes sense, but if he's disrupting the locker room it may not be worth it.

That's kinda how the Pistons won in 2004, wasn't it?

Based on the story it sounds like he's a fit for the Lions... has the love of football, has the mentality the Lions want. And as a side note, he fits in a position that the Lions need. It's exceedingly apparent that this really is a side note for Holmes so I'm not be sarcastic about that. With the exception of one outlier, Mock Draft Database shows most mock having him going mid-20s to end of first round.

Schedule: March 30 Saturday vs the St. Louis Battlehawks at 4 p.m. April 7 Sunday vs the Birmingham Stallions at noon April 14 Sunday vs the Houston Roughnecks at noon April 20 Saturday at the San Antonio Brahmas at 7 p.m. April 28 Sunday at the Memphis Showboats at 3 p.m. May 5 Sunday vs the Arlington Renegades at 1 p.m. May 12 Sunday at the D.C. Defenders at noon May 18 Saturday vs the Memphis Showboats at 4 p.m. May 26 Sunday at the Houston Roughnecks at 2:30 p.m. June 1 Saturday at the Birmingham Stallions at noon It's too bad the UFL didn't schedule a game in Detroit on April 28th, Draft Weekend. I think some of the NFL fans in the city for the event might have be lured into attending a UFL game after the draft. But I don't know if Ford Field is being used extensively for any draft festivities and if so maybe they didn't think they'd have time to prepare it for a game on Sunday. I supposed it's also possible that the NFL didn't want any UFL stuff going on in Detroit even the day after their big draft event.

Yeah, I was a bit disappointed that they glossed over the lows. It think it's important to acknowledge that there are ups and downs even in great season. There was a very slight nod to the 49ers loss at the end when they talked about not being perfect at the end (25:45), but I would have preferred to see more of the lows touched on.

We're very much navigating into political talk here. Let's leave that for the political forum please.

Never! If he takes a big jump he'll probably injury his back when he lands. Seriously though, I don't think he's going to be amounting to much, but I think it's more injury related than skill related.

Pretty much my feeling exactly. On the good news side... he won't have to learn a new team name, so his learning curve will be slightly lower. 😉

Have you tried Locked on Tigers?

Sorry, but if this was scripted the NFL needs to better script writers.

Fame is fleeting! Funny how he got the record and then lost it just a few periods later. I mean, at least he can say he once held it, but not to even hold it for a full game is funny (to an outsider).

Stop it y'all... you're BOTH pretty! You don't need to fight. Seriously though, I think you're both sides here are arguing extremes and you don't need to. In any play there's gonna be some level of luck and some level of skill. The doink off the face mask is a perfect example. If the Vildor was a more skilled player, maybe he catches that instead of it going right through his hands. If Aiyuk is a little less skilled, maybe he isn't able to track the ball as it doinked off Vildor's mask and he isn't able to make the catch. So yeah, CLEARLY there is skill involved. But, there's a dozens different ways the ball could have bounced off Vildor's mask and only a few put the ball in an area that Aiyuk could catch it. So CLEARLY there is luck involved as well. I think the 49ers probably are a bit more skilled as a team and this played a part in them being able to come back and win the game. I also think they got some lucky bounces and this played a part in them being able to come back and win. I think it's unlikely that skill alone would have been enough. I'm quite certain that the lucky bounces they got alone would not have been enough.

https://www.mlive.com/lions/2024/02/lions-will-give-all-pro-offensive-lineman-time-space-to-mull-his-future.html?utm_campaign=grandrapidspress_sf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook Not too much new stuff other than the fact that his toe is "inoperable." I wasn't aware of that. I kinda wonder if we did make the SB and win it all if that might not have prompted him to retire on a high note.

I don't remember anyone acting like Glenn is a genius. Most of us understand that he hasn't been given the same level of talent as the offense, but at the same time I don't think any of us are ready to call him genius or laud him as a great coordinator.

I'm just thrilled that it's the very end of January before we even starting looking at draft stuff.

That's very offensive.

Another bonus here... I'd heard at least one talking head say that he thought Ben Johnson would be taking Hank Fraley with him to Washington. With Ben staying that would seem to mean that Hank is staying as well.

Do we know position yet? Are we before or after the Ravens?

He was mostly non-existent. I wasn't watching him closely so I dunno how much he was doubled teamed or not. He did have a couple of passed batted down I think. Not a great showing for him but again I don't know how much the offense game planned to eliminate him.

I 100% agree. Goff could have been better, but he was more than good enough. The receivers need to catch those balls. And I agree that we need to remember that the 49ers are a good team. There is a reason they were the 1-seed. There's a reason they've been to the NFC Championship three years in a row. This is a very, very good team and the Lions hung with them quite well. Honestly if you'd have said to me before the game that the Lions would lose, but just be 3-points I would have said: "That sounds exactly right... maybe even a little better than what I would have thought." It's just heart breaking that they were ahead by so much and then lost.

Well Goff didn't have his best game ever. A number of his passes were a bit outside making it harder for the receivers to catch, so I wouldn't say his above criticism. That said, Goff was NOT the reason the Lions lost... not by a long shot. The Lions would be stupid to move on from Goff now and anyone who says they should based on this game is being idiotic.

I think that's too simplistic. It's not just a question of how confident Campbell is or isn't in Badgley, there's also the question of 7 vs. 3 points. Even if they get the FG if 49ers turn around and get 7 points, that's still a losing proposition. And yeah I know we technically only lost by 3 points, but how the teams would have played out the rest of the game would have changed radically with a different score.

I think the flag was thrown because it sorta looked like Offensive Pass Interference. This is when the receiver interferes with the defender being able to make an interception. However, on the replay it seems like to me both players were playing the ball... that is they were going trying to make a catch on the ball. I think it was the right call to pick up the flag. Now, I would have loved to see the call stand because it would have helped the Lions, but I don't think there was interference there. There was a play earlier in the game where I thought there was definitely OPI, but not on this one.