RedRamage

Honestly I'd prefer my team does NOT play on Christmas. Too much other stuff going on then.

The Lions did just get an opening day game a few years ago so it's entirely possible they are just trying to spread the love around a bit.

Ah, I did not realize that... then yeah, that was absolutely the right call and not any sort of generous gift from the refs.

Both teams are winning on about an average of once a week.

I want to say that they got a little help from the refs on the clock there... but I think you could reasonably make the claim that they did get the Timeout in. Plus I thought the refs hosed them on some calls earlier in the game. Panther's secondary did NOT look good though.

The only thing I hate about the super challenge is how specific it needs to be. For example, last week Nolan challenged DPI on a play. The defender was not flagged so Nolan was challenging that the defender should have been flagged. They reviewed it and said: Yep, defender was holding...but the defender was holding only BEFORE the pass was thrown, once it was thrown the defender wasn't holding anymore, so it was only holding, not DPI. But because Nolan specified that he was challenging the no-DPI call, the challenge failed. I like the idea of a super challenge, but I think it needs some tweaking. Now obviously you can't Challenge the whole play and have the replay booth review the entire 22 players on the field for the entire play... that would take forever and end up with a LOT of ticky-tacky penalties that had no outcome on the actual play. What I'd like to see is that you challenge everything that happens in, say, a 5-yard circle at a specific point: Refs/replay looks at the 5 yard zone at the time in question and reviews everything that happened in that area. A bad flag thrown? Pick it up. Something not called that should have been? Flag it.

Just a guess obviously, but I'm thinking this is a more accurate way of asking the question.

Can we just let it die instead of slapping a new face on it?

It is, unfortunately, where the money is right now. And even more unfortunately it is almost-kinda-sorta-maybe related to the game itself, so it's entirely out of place for broadcasters to talk about it and for production to show the odds on screen. That's the really insidious component. I think back to the 90s when it seemed like every other commercial during a sports broadcast was a beer ad. It was annoying, but that's where the money was at the time. But... can you imagine if during the broadcast they'd cut to a beer expert who'd talk about what beers were available and which had the best taste? Or the announcers referencing the beers that they were drinking? Or beer prices being shown on screen? Especially in the 90s there would have been a revolt. They would have pointed out the obvious ads and how it ruined the broadcast. Now? Well first we've been conditioned with more and more ads showing on screen during the broadcast. Then, as I mentioned, you can almost masquerade the betting talk as something your doing because the viewers want it vs. it just being ads.

Have you watched any of the UFL games? The broadcasts can be overwhelmingly bad at times for a number of reasons, but one is certainly that they are updating betting odds throughout the game. It isn't so bad that I find it the most annoying thing, but that may simply be because other aspects of the broadcasts are worse.

For what it's worth (I haven't read the article, just the summary of it) I appreciate the the author here is trying to find an objective method of grading the draft. And apparently the author even calls out himself saying it's risky to call out the Lions drafts given their past success. That said, I think the methodology needs some tweaking. I think there are too many subjective aspects built into the formula before the objective grades are determined. Supposedly they're looking at positional value for example. Well, sure you assign value and then objectively grade the positional value of the pick based on that value. But the assigning of value is subjective. How do you determine that a TE might be less valuable than a DE for example? Because most teams say that? What if this team uses TEs much more? What if this team has a full DE room but only one decent TE? How do you know how the coaching staff values their players? Honestly there just may be no way to objectively grade a draft except looking back after 3-5 years. (And even then there are variables that effect grading. You think Caleb Williams would have had as poor a rookie season if he was behind the Lions OL with our RBs to support him?) This attempt by the Athletic might very well be the best method out there to try and determine an objective grade, but that doesn't mean it's a good method. Time will tell.

I eluded to that earlier as well. I'm perfectly fine with getting Cs, Ds, and Fs in draft grades if the Lions are still perennial SB contenders. But better than getting As and Bs and getting bumped out of the playoffs in the first round (if we made the playoffs). I almost wonder if we need to worry about the reverse. This is JUST speculation here so take it for what it's worth. But in the early years of the Holmes tenure the Lions were a joke. If you take a swing at a long shot and don't get a touchdown (how's that for mixing metaphors!) no big deal... it's the Lions. No one expects greatness. Now the Lions are legitimate. Does that make the front office more cautious? Do they take safer picks because missing a draft pick will be directly linked (fairly or unfairly) with lack of SB appearances/wins? I mean there is a VERY REAL probability that the Lions regress somewhat this year. We lost both our coordinators after all! If that happens you KNOW that there will be people who point to the "F" grade and say: "See! Bad draft makes the Lions a lessor team."

Very valid point. Pre-draft grades are determined by people who are not NFL GMs or in NFL scouting departments. Now, to be sure these graders are getting tidbits of info from teams and scouts and supplementing it with there own opinions/views, but that's not the same as being an NFL GM. I think it's extremely common for players to move up or down a bit based on what happens draft day... if there's a run on DEs and your team desperately needs a DE, you might reach. But yeah, if there's general agreement by 32 teams that someone is a 3rd round talent he's not slipping to the 6th round. He might slip to the 4th, but no way to the 6th.

Even dismissing that this is Aaron Rodgers who's more than a bit of a diva, I'm never too keen on forming an opinion of a contentious event based on one side of the story. It's human nature even if the best of us to think that we were in the right and that we said the right words and acted the right way. We've only got Aaron's side of things. We don't know if it's accurate or what the mood was or the mannerisms involved. I will say this: I think we all pretty much assume that Saleh was fired at the instance of Rodgers, and if that's the case I think Glenn went into this wanting certain "concessions" from Rodgers. Essentially he wanted Rodgers to defer to him, and that's 100% reasonable. I'm guessing that Rodgers didn't defer to Glenn in the way he wanted and Glenn wasn't willing to risk getting undermined from a old diva QB. I'm also guessing it more body language/mannerism/attitude vs. what was actually said.

The salary cap is becoming more complicated than Federal Taxes. But it's nice to see the Lions taking advantage of the details to make it work for them.

I mean, I get what they're saying here and I also would probably somewhat agree with it. But the data and math are basically looking at trends over the last few years and saying "statistically it plays out like this." But a good GM is the one who finds the outliers and sees the trends BEFORE they become the trends. So a GM who can foresee what the NFL is going to be 3 years from now instead of what the NFL was 3 year before now is probably going to be successful and probably will look odd with draft picks. Disclaimer: I'm NOT saying all odd draft picks equals forward looking GMs who will be proven right. I'm just saying that a grade based on history and trends does NOT account for changing aspects in the NFL. My final thought is that I remember quite a few times in the past 20ish years where the Lions got excellent draft grades, and yet it amounted to nothing more than the occasional first round playoff loss. Brad and Dan have definitely bucked some trends in the draft and so far it's worked out. I'm perfectly fine with the Athletic using data and math to give the Lions an F every year for the next 10 years if we're also a legitimate SB contender for the next decade.

I dunno... I worry (for his sake) that faster/stronger/bigger NFL defense would be making the tackles that he's breaking/evading, but then you'd also have faster/stronger/bigger OL protecting him too, so I dunno. Beyond that, though, if you're not watching Michigan Panthers football, you are definitely missing out on some entertaining games. No, it's not NFL caliber, but Perkins has been a LOT of fun to watch this year.

Anyone else think that McKinstry is probably getting "randomly" tested a lot this year?

While I agree that Hooker is a miss, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it. Hooker was a high risk, high reward person at a time when many (with notable exceptions) were unsure that Goff was the long term answer. Hooker was potentially first round talent that fell because of injury. We could have easily gotten a franchise-level QB in the 3rd round. Again, end of the day it's a miss*, but I count it a little different than if we, for example, drafted a RB or DE in the 3rd round and that player never saw more than single digit snaps in a regular season game. (* It's not out of the realm of possibility that Hooker is a late bloomer and he might end up being a solid player for a third round pick, but the fact that Bridgewater was the primary backup when we needed a backup seems to imply that the Lions aren't comfortable with him. Add in that he's already 27 and there may not be much time left for him to really show that he's a good NFL level player.)

I'm still surprised that no one has done a study yet of all draft picks... even something as simple as "For everyone picked at this spot, Y-% are still in the league after X-number of seasons" I suspect the percentage of success in the draft is much lower than we general think. But it would be nice to know what the "average" is as a baseline, even an imperfect one, to compare to. As for the TeSlaa pick... I honestly couldn't careless anymore where the pundits say a guy should be slotted. Okay, that's not quite right. I kinda care, but not much. I remember in 2019 then Tavai was drafted by thinking: "Well, I hope he proves all the talking head wrong!" But it was sorta like me thinking: "Well, I hope I stumble across a multi-millionaire winning lottery ticket on my way into work this morning." After the TeSlaa pick I'm more leaning towards: "It'll be nice when TeSlaa proves them all wrong." You're right that Holmes isn't infallible, but dang if he hasn't proving other wrong more often than not. I'm gonna trust him and accept the occasional swiiing-and-a-miss until his OPS+ drops below 100.

On one hand you figure that your family has gotta be trustworthy... but on the other hand I have a hard time believing that this is the first incident with Jax and maybe dad should have known better. But I dunno... I'm also a parent and I know that kids can do stupid, unpredictable things sometimes.

I think they should be sent to play for the Bears. That's gotta be one of the worse punishments imaginable.

Quick side note: I'm not clutching at pearls here. I'm not saying Jax is evil or literally Hitler. I'm not calling for this being a major national scandal that demands a blood sacrifice. I'm just saying it's a pretty lousy, disrespectful thing to do and I wouldn't accept the apology as I don't think Jax is sincere. I wouldn't demand a more sincere apology or anything, I'd just be like: "Dude, I don't want to talk to you, I don't want anything to do with you. Leave me alone."