RedRamage

This is the least troubling of things in my opinion. I suspect bets like this happen all the time and 99.99% of the time we never hear about them because they don't pay out and/or it's just a off hand news item: "Oh wow, that person was lucky!" It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that Goff could have the first score. The Lions are a known "trick play" team. They've passed to Goff twice, one leading to a TD. Goff has also rushed for two TDs with the Lions. I think it's far more likely that someone saw the potential huge winnings and took a flyer on it vs. someone leaked that the Lions were gonna try this play. (I mean even if you accept that a leak happened, someone betting on it was still taking a HUGE long shot... Even if the bettor 100% knew that the Lions would try this trick play if they got within 5 yards of the end zone, there's still long odd against: You have to have the Lions get the ball first or prevent the Chiefs from scoring on their first drive. You have to have the Lions get close enough to the EZ, but also not get into the endzone. You have to have the Lions run the play successfully. None of those things are gimmies at all.) 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 partial, 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 the 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 stretch 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.

On one hand: If this was buzzed down to the officials (and this seems more and more likely after it already seemed probable), then this does seem to go against the rules that NFL has setup regarding what's reviewable and what isn't. On the other hand: If this is truly how the rule is written, then the Lions did break the rule on that play and it shouldn't have stood. I'm very conflicted on this as the Lions certainly have been screwed over in the past on things that should have been called but weren't (example: The ball batted out of the endzone vs. Seattle). I generally want the rules to be called correctly rather than an apology after the fact that the officials got a call wrong. But... This is obviously a very obscure rule. But... still a rule. But... is it? What's the actual text of the rule? Does it define what actions a players needs to make to be considered a QB under center or is that open to interpretation? And if it is then I definitely go back to the refs on the field didn't think it was a foul and shouldn't be reviewable. In the end it's just going to end up as one more footnote in Lions history of another controversial thing that (probably) screwed over the Lions.

Yeah, it's a bit of a mystery to me why DMo isn't being used as much... now, I will say we don't have a great sample size, so it's possible it's just a matter of the game plan... thinking Gibbs is more effective against this defense. However, the early numbers definitely favor Gibbs.

I kinda agree. It was an avoidable penalty, certainly. But to me it's more of a case of the light turned yellow and I think I can make it through but... oops, it turned red before I hit the intersection. It was a misjudgment, not a blatant effort to break the rules. Branch's action was more of I'm stopped at a red light, but I think I see an open area large enough, I'm gonna gun it and run the red light and slip through traffic. This was a blatant, stupid decision and I suspect it'll cost him at least one game, maybe two. It's also going to increase his a bad reputation with the league. We all saw how that effected Suh. Even stuff that was questionable (or even not very questionable at all) was assumed to be a deliberate act because of his rep, and he was penalized heavily for it. Further, in game, teams will know they might be able to get Branch worked up by goading him. I don't want to over blow this and say Branch is evil or anything... the act itself was pretty minor over all, plus he owned up to it and said it was stupid and wrong and he shouldn't have done. So I'm not clutching at pearls here in terms of saying on horrible the actual act was. Rather I'm worried about the damage it could do him in terms of reputation.

Yeah but, that Carlos Monarrez. The guy is a click bait/shock jock ... er reporter. His entire schtick is getting people riled up and "hate reading" his columns.

I find it amazing that parts of Tennessee, Nevada, Arizona, and Indiana aren't getting the game that's played by the team in their state!

Yeah, it wasn't a very good performance by many on defense. I honestly felt Hutch wasn't that great in this game.

I think the rebuttal would be that it wasn't reviewed, it was discussed by the refs. Now I know that sounds like a semantic argument, but what I mean is the refs have always been allowed to huddle to discuss a play and change their mind... even before replay was a thing. They do this quite often for intentional grounding, for example. Now... this assumes that the refs really did talk about it themselves and weren't buzzed by replay. That's definitely something that might be debatable, but their story is that they did it themselves without help.

My biggest disappointment on this whole thing was that the flag nullifies just an AMAZING blocking performance by ARSB. If that play stands I think we're all talking a lot more about how great a job he did on it.

To me, right now (I reserve the right to change my mind later of course), it feels like the Golden Tate non-touchdown against the Falcons... it was the right call, probably, but it's a stupid rule.

I mean... that wasn't a very hard record to break, but yeah he does. It's be more impressive sounding (to non-Lions fans at least) to say he as twice as many playoff wins in the SB era compared to all other Lions QBs combine!

After a bit more looking, I found that there have been at least TWO previous version. The version I have is this one: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/32036/monopoly-grand-rapids-edition/images I feel like this did a pretty good job of being Iconic Grand Rapids. Then there's this version: I can only find a eBay listing with more details (https://www.ebay.com/itm/205447113823). This is obviously not a Hasbro licensed version but a knock off. It feels like it was made by someone who googled things about Grand Rapids, but at least they did a better job of putting like-things together from what I can tell.

So apparently a new "Grand Rapids Monopoly" just came out. I know there has been at least one previous version, but that version is a bit dated so I was curious to see what the new one would be like. Short version: HORRIBLE. Properties are: Brown: Fish Ladder Park and Provin Trails. Okay, I can kinda see Fish Ladder. That's not super iconic, but it is definitely part of Grand Rapids and relatively well known. I've never even heard of Provin Trails before looking up. Looks interesting... un-improved trails. However, it certainly isn't iconic Grand Rapids. In fact, it's a Kent County Park that's outside of Grand Rapids city limits. Seems a very odd choice. Lt. Blue: GR Public Museum, John Ball Zoo, (okay, liking where this is going) and Steelhead Trout. Um, what? A museum, a zoo, and... a fish? How are those grouped together? Pink: Medical Mile, Lantern Festival, Wealthy Street. Huh? For non-Grand Rapidians, Medial Mile is a stretch where there's a bunch of hospitals and medical research and education things. It's well known, so yeah I like that. Wealthy street is okay... it's historic in terms of how long it's been in GR I guess and starting to be built back up, so okay, I can understand that. But then Lantern Festival? Again, the grouping makes no sense and Lantern Festival is really not an iconic Grand Rapids thing at all. Orange: Schuler Books, Bridge Street Market, and Meijer. Eh... I mean, I guess? Schuler Books isn't like a major business or anything, but it is Grand Rapids in origin. Bridge Street Market is okay, and I understand Meijer, which is definitely GR based. Red: Mr. Burger, Grand Rapids Popcorn, and Chili Dog. Eh... maybe? I mean I won't really consider Mr. Burger or GR Popcorn to be iconic businesses, but I suppose?? But then we tack on a food item? Again... what? I get the feeling that maybe they wanted this to be Yesterdog or something but Yesterdog didn't want to pay out?? Yellow: Downtown Grand Rapids, Amway Grand Plaza, Ford Airport. Again two of these make sense to me. Amway Grand Plaza is very iconic GR. It's the first real tall building that was built in GR. And of course the airport is a major thing. But "Downtown"? You have two notable building, and then a ill-defined area? Green: Gun Lake Casino Resort, Art Prize, Cherry Street. -Facepalm- Okay so Gun Lake is well known, but... it's more than 20 minutes outside of Grand Rapids. Art Prize is very iconic GR, so that's okay. Cherry Street is like Wealthy Street. But again what heck is up with this grouping? A business well outside of GR limits, an event, and a semi-historic street? Dk Blue: Grand River and the Blue Bridge. At least these are iconic GR. The city is named after the rapids that used to be here on the Grand River and the Blue Pedestrian Bridge is pretty well known. These seem odd choices to the most expensive properties and the grouping (one natural, one man made) is a little odd. Utilities: Reeds Lake and Riverwalk Promenade. Reeds Lake is better known as part of East Grand Rapids (wealthy suburb of GR) but it's close enough that I'm okay with it. The Riverwalk Promenade is an okay inclusion... but again, odd pairing. Railroads: (oh boy... hang on folks) Mountain Biking, Paddleboarding, The Rapid, and Fishing. What? Biking and Fishing... sure, that happens a lot in GR. So, outdoor activities is the theme? Paddleboarding... eh... I certainly haven't noticed much of that in GR, but... maybe I'm just missing it?? But then The Rapid... which is the name of our city bus service. How does that fit... like at all? As a (nearly) life long Grand Rapidian this just feels like SUCH a miss! The old Grand Rapids Monopoly is, as I said, a bit dated now, but still SOOOO much more iconic Grand Rapids.

See, when I hear 5th/3rd, and especially when I see it written like that, I always think of it as a fraction: And of course that simplifies to 0.2/0.33333.... which equals 0.6. So a Fifth-Third is actually only 60% effort.

Just like anything, it wouldn't be impossible to hack given you throw enough money and talent at the problem, but I suspect it would be quite difficult. Then you also have to hope that your efforts don't get discovered. And honestly if you're going to hire someone who unethical enough to take lots of money to do this, that same person may see that he could earn a extra chunk of money selling you out to MLB or media. Plus hacking the pitchcom is only half the battle. Next you have to find a way to reliably, secretly, get that pitch data to the player. This could be done with a sound or a light, but I don't think it would take too long for someone to start catching on to this. And you have the danger of your own teammates. This was how the Astro's sign steal scandal broke. Your pitchers might be loyal to the team and not talk about it, but once a pitcher moves to a new team, you think he's going to remain loyal to the old squad? You think he's going to want to face his old squad knowing that they hacked ptichcom and his pitches are going to be known? So, in short: Yes, it probably can be hacked, but the cost and effort would be high, and the risk of getting caught would also be very high.* (*Now the players may not care... I mean look at how none of the players in in Houston Scandal got even a slap on the wrist. They might go along with it for temporary glory. Honestly, not even the front office or manager suffered extensively.)

I dread the day when they start selling naming rights to parts of the stadium: "Welcome back to Sam Bernstein Field inside 5/3 Bank Ballpark where Will Vest has just come out of the BelleTire Bullpen and finished his warmup tosses on Little Ceaser's Mound. As he prepares to pitch Rodriguez steps into the Wallside Windows Batters Box and the 9th inning, brought to you be Meijer, is underway!"

While I think most of us would prefer to go back to yester year and just name it Tiger Stadium or Tiger Park or something like that, those days are long gone. So, purely for the discussion, what brands/companies would you find acceptable? The "rules" for the discussion are these: 1. The company has to be big enough to reasonably be able to afford naming rights. We're not gonna have Bob's Tow Truck Stadium. 2. The company has to be one that might reasonably be considered by Tiger's ownership. So we're not going to have *orn*ub Park (or Papa John's Stadium for that matter either). So, given those rules what options do you have? Meijer Park? GM Stadium?

Wasn't trying to say you did have a problem with it at all, just saying that I have zero problem with it.

I have ZERO problem with the Mariners trying to steal signals. It's part of the game, always has been, always will be.

What we need is for Ford to talk over the name rights. But obviously they wouldn't use the Ford name as Ford Field already exists. So instead they'd use their luxury brand, and so it'd become: Lincoln Park

Meh... as I've said way too many times already: Football is the most team sport there is of the major sports. EPA per Dropback, from what I can tell, basically judges if the QB added or lost "points" (not sure how points are defined for this stat) for each dropback to pass. But... how do you judge how much of that is the QBs fault vs. the OL or Receivers or what? I mean the one play where Manu totally whiffed his block and Goff was sacked nearly instantly. Goff I'm sure got a negative EPA on that play when it clearly wasn't his fault. And "Create Rate" seems to judge how well a QB can make something happen if the called play failed. Obviously more mobile QBs are gonna be higher here on average, but this is just one aspect of judging a QB. What if your QB is really good at reading the defense and checks out of plays that he suspects will fail? Should not this be counted? He created an advantage before the play even started. I have no problem with using more stats to try to figure out a players value. The most we have the more we can try to cut through the "Was it him or was it the team?" question. I DO have a problem with looking at two stats, graphing them, then declaring that those QBs who are good in these two areas are MVP worthy.

Yeah, if you're gonna pick one to win and one to lose, pick the Philly game to win. Of course it doesn't work that way but we can dream right?

Well, the talking heads seem to agree with you and not me. This of course means that I'm right because talking heads are always wrong, but... USA Today ESPN NFL Bleacher Report Even Packers Fan Tom Grossi They all have the Lions at #1. So far the only site I've found that agrees with me is SI... and given that SI is nothing but AI and clickbait these days, that's probably not an ally I want on my side.