RedRamage

Wow... that's amazing. I mean, there's (virtually) no chance of getting it, but... still... a blocked FG, returned for a TD... it could happen. I'd be more than a bit po'd if they just gave up without an effort.

As the resident promotor of the forgotten Michigan holiday Champions Day, this pissed me off: 1932?? 1932?!? come on NBC... get your crap together. The team wasn't even in Detroit in 1932. Ugh...

Anyone else on Youtube TV? Are you getting chopping signal?

That seems like a very technical nitpick... but as someone who like technical nitpicks, I'll allow it.

Clearly he should have done a two-hand touch below the waist or pulled the flag off his waist. This is the NFL... it's not a contact sport.

Did anyone say we had to cheer for Stafford?

Totally agree. Give him time to process the loss and I'm sure the answer will be much better.

A little bit... but Detroit wasn't doing anything offensively in the second half. Our drives here: 9 plays, 4:36, 44yards, FG 6 plays, 2:40, 13yards, Punt 3 plays, 0:52, 6 yards, Punt It's not unreasonable at all to think that their defense could hold and get the ball back to Stafford. 4th and 14 isn't impossible, but it also isn't easy and missing means you give the Lions a relatively short field and a relatively good chance of at least getting a FG, meaning you need a TD to win. Punt and force the Lions to a 3 and out with that much time left? There's a good chance you get into FG range to win it. I don't think it was necessarily a bad call to punt. Obviously it turned out bad, but I wouldn't call it a terrible decision at all.

Not that they really could have done anything about it, but was anyone else annoyed that we didn't get to see if the ball cleared the goal post?

Credit where it's due... I suspect you did.

Things more likely to happen: Trump declares he was wrong about everything. Aliens invade Disney stops suing people for copyright infringement I stop eating junk food.

You're forgetting Clark and Layne.

I remember a time when we traded FG for TDs... it's nice to see the script flipped!

Okay, let's score. Put the game away.

I would not have accepted that.

That's virtually the same as a long TD drive though, isn't it??

Probably go for 2? Hell no! That would be stupid!

Even if we win this game I don't see us making a deep run with this defense.

3rd and forever? Yeah, that's an automatic first down... 🙄

There's the defense we know and love.

I fixed your typo there. That was a horribly called game.

I'm with you 100% here. When Stafford retires, if he's got a regular season game in Detroit or against Detroit that year, sure... do a quick little thing... he was the best QB we had here since Layne and I wouldn't mind some quickie little thing honoring him then. But not now. Now is all about the Lions back in the playoffs and hosting the game. Now is about a push for a playoff run. Now is about Goff and the current team.

While I agree that McVay could have done a better job, you're evaluating the trade based on something that happened, more or less, before it. 1. Rams have McVay as a coach 2. McVay + Goff wasn't working 3. TRADE -> McVay + Stafford worked If the Rams could magically change McVay and/or Goff to make them work together well at step 2 or maybe even realize that Goff was a very good QB and they should switch out McVay at step 1... then the trade never happens. But by the time we get to step 3 as assume that steps 1 and 2 are locked and evaluate the trade based on the results. Evaluate step 1: Should the Rams have kept McVay as the coach? Meh... debatable, but they did, so move to step 2. Evaluate step 2: Should the Rams have found some way to make McVay and Goff work? I would say yes, definitely. But the Rams failed here and didn't make it happen, so move to step 3. Evaluate step 3: Should the Rams have traded for Stafford? I would say yes because they won a SB with Stafford (et al) and likely would not have if they didn't do the trade. You're trying to say that step 3 wasn't a good move because they should have done something different in step 1 or 2, and I agree that they should have. But they didn't, so by the time they get to step 3 the trade is the winning move for them.

First, I don't think anyone is saying winning a SB with Stafford on the team absolves McVay of anything. That's not the point. Second, the "They could have had short term success and set themselves up better" part is only true if you assume that McVay is able to change who he is/what he thought. It feels a bit like saying: "I can't go outside my house from my dining room so I need to go into my den first and then go outside." And you replying: "You could have gone outside from your dining room if you just put a door in the wall." McVay didn't know how to handle Goff right and/or Goff changed what he was doing after the trade (I'm leaning more towards #1 here). If the Rams didn't trade for Stafford, McVay would continue to mishandle Goff and/or Goff likely won't have changed his approach. McVay could have changed his approach, but it's very unlikely that would have happened. I could put in an outside door in my dining room, but that's definitely not going to happen. So without the trade it's very, very likely the Rams don't make the SB just like it's very, very likely I'm not moving directly from my dining room to the outside. You seem to be arguing that the trade isn't a win for the Rams because they didn't need to do it. But because of the "McVay Block" in regards to how he perceived Goff, they did have to do it.

I was kinda hoping that Staley might come back to the Lions as OC or some other capacity if Johnson left.