RedRamage

Honestly, I hate when the Lions aren't on 1:00pm on a Sunday. I get that having prime time games means that the team is probably doing well and the league views the team as a draw... which is a good thing. But I like my Sunday afternoon routine. I'm okay with a 4pm time on occasion, but night games aren't nearly as fun for me. I have to stay up later, and if they lose I'm upset and it's hard to go to sleep and if they win I'm excited and it's hard to go to sleep. Honestly nothing would make me happier than for them to have 1:00pm games all season long, except for T-Day of course.

Well I mean sure... if you want to look at it logically. But that takes all the fun out of it.

The thing is that the player are already circumventing the rules. They know they're not supposed to do this and did it anyway. Yes it's possible to put in various complex network or device/location blocks, but these wouldn't be super simple AND would be very easy to get around with a VPN. The amount of extra effort put in to try to electronically block people from break the rules would probably only stop the accidental situation where a person just forgot for a moment. Any one who wanted to get around the tech block could do it easily.

<Tinfoil Hat Time> I had a thought this morning. What if the reason that the gambling companies "ratted out" various NFL players was because they were winning too much? Oh, you're going to take a bunch of our money? Fine... maybe we'll just leak to the NFL where you were placing those bets. Let's see how you like that, shall we? </Tinfoil Hat Time> Obviously this is just pure conjecture on my part. I have ZERO evidence that this is why it happen. I was just trying to figure out why a betting company would actively try to remove customers. I suppose the other very plausible reason is that it's part of their contact with sports leagues that they will monitor and report on players activity.

Just to be 100% clear here... I'm am NOT saying that the Lions are or should be grooming Hooker as Goff's replacement. However, I think it's worth noting that in just about every discussion I remember seeing here the talk of getting another QB was because: a new QB might be more mobile in a league where mobile QBs seem to be increasingly important. a new QB would be cheaper than what Goff is projected to make in a couple of years a new QB would provide depth in case there was an injury to Goff or a regression of Goff's play I don't recall anyone saying that Goff is too old now or would be too old in a couple of years to be an effective QB. I anyone did argue that I'd say they were dead wrong. We've seen very effective older QBs so I'd say worrying about Goff being too old at just 28 is silly. Now if he was 35 or so then you might start worrying about regressing skills or that he might be thinking retirement. But not at 28.

My understanding is that Stanley Kubrick was hired to film the fake moon landing. However, he was such a perfectionist that he insisted that they film on location.

Any good QBs available at 29?

Hmm... odd that they made that request. Maybe there's a good percentage of Bears fans who travel to KC? Southern Illinois ain't too far from KC.

Through 33 games I'm pleased to say that we're pulling away from the pace of 2003: 2003: 7-26, R=96, RA=164, pW/L = 9-24 2023: 15-18, R=121, RA=162, pW/L = 12-21 It's probably worth noting that at this point in '03 we were under performing out pW/L while in '23 we're actually out performing it. If you compare pW/L the two years are still pretty close, but '23 is still the better year.

I think I'd prefer Bridgewater to Rudolph... but we're talking backup so it probably won't make a huge difference. Honestly I'm not two knowledgeable on either guy so I'm talking a little out of by butt but I feel that Bridgewater is closer to being an NFL starter, so I'd prefer to have him just in case we need him.

It's a shame because the Panthers really looked good in their first two games this season... then they come home to play and Ford Field and lay two eggs. Disappointing and not a great way to build up the fan base. I had better hopes for this one because in the first two games they were definitely a slow start, but strong finish team. Points by quarter this year: 1: 9 2: 23 3: 17 4: 27 Last week they got down by a lot early on and never recovered. This week they were keeping it closer to start off but the offense never got going at all.

Yeah the rookie wage scale is one of the best things to come to the NFL in a long time. I mean, without it we couldn't have endless debates about paying Goff vs. a cheap rookie.

If you're really holding this up as proof that Carter will not be a problem, I'm sorry... but that's a very silly thing to do. Carter's concerns weren't that he would hold out or demand more money. The concerns were if he would do stupid stuff off the field or be self-motivated enough on the field (or workout room) to make his talent work in the NFL. This is kinda like saying that "This guy can't have a drug problem because look: He helped an old woman across the street."

Obviously assuming that this is true... that's horribly, horribly unprofessional. I mean it's fine to think that and it's fine if you want to use that as a reason to not pursue a guy... heck, it's fine to try to cut an interview short if you've decided this isn't your guy (I've been in a few interview processes where we did this... after the first few questions you're like: Yeah, this person isn't who we want... let's just skip through like half the prepared questions...). But you don't say that to the guy's face. Very rude and dumb.

Then don't come at me with close losses. You listed the Lions "almost" wins are prove that they were a good team even when they lost... proof that they were almost there. I merely listed times the lions "almost" losses as proof that you can find negative details if you look for them. Look, I feel like we're arguing over something that's really not that important to argue over. One person has the Seahawks ranked ahead of the Lions right now. That's really no big deal. We don't know how much time this person went into looking at all the details of the teams, what they did last year and again who and with what players... all the off season moves, evaluation of the draft, etc. etc. etc. It's an off season power ranking before all the off season moves have been done (ie, June 1st cuts). It's a minor thing that we really shouldn't be putting this much effort into. I don't find it unrealistic that the Seahawks are ranked ahead of the Lions. You do think it's unrealistic. We each have our opinion on it with our own reasons. Let's not waste more time nitpicking something that's such a minor and unimportant take. I certainly don't think any less of you as a person or a fan because you feel that the Lions should be ranked ahead of the Seahawks in everyone's power rankings. I hope you don't feel less of me because I'm not upset by it.

Because Pete Carroll and John Schneider have a proven track record that included multiple playoff victories two SB appearances and one SB victory. We also saw Geno Smith appear to play much better under Carroll while Wilson regressed significant after leaving Seattle raising the question of how good Carroll might be as a QB whisperer. Compare this to Holmes and Campbell who have a 12-21-1 record in two years. You bring up a whole lot of valid detail points which could be used to bump up the Lions stock. But this is a team that has sucked for years and now has a rookie HC and a rookie GM. And there are plenty of details that you could use to knock down the Lions too. They were close to losing against GB, in Chicago, and in NYJ (without their better QB). I don't think it's out of line at all to want to see a young team with rookie leadership prove it on the field. It's worth noting too that the ranking is that the Lions are trash. They're in the top 3rd of the NFC according to this person. That's good.

Yeah, but the Lions had one good half of a season. I think it's very easy, especially from the national perspective, to wonder if this was a fluke or a real turn around. I think I'd probably rank them ahead of the Seahawks personally, but I'm not going to be too up in arms about someone saying: "Prove it to me the last half of 2023 wasn't the fluke and that the first half was."

Wow... that is... very bad. Just super messed up. I'm surprised the players even put up with it. I'd never heard of the NAL previous so I just looked it up and according to wikipedia, players get around $200 per week. I mean I suppose there's always the hope that you shine enough that one of the bigger leagues picks you up, but man... $200 per week playing a game that could any play could spell the end of your career on the slight outside chance that maybe a scout of a developmental arena league sees you and thinks you can transition to the big time? And then have an owner who hasn't paid you for 2+ weeks?

I will yeet myself into an actual lions exhibit...

Obviously impossible to say unless Holmes is presented with the hypothetical and answers (and we assume he answers honestly), but I tend to think not. I don't think they were targeting a QB. Again we don't know if they had a much higher grade on Richardson but the fact that they didn't draft Hooker until the 3rd... even trading out of their third 2nd round pick... it doesn't feel like they were thinking: "We need/want a QB." I think it was as much of a "Oh, he's still available here? Sure we'll take him then!"

I kinda felt that way too... in might be explained, in part, because of the nature of this draft. Everyone seems to be saying something to the effect that outside the top QBs and one or two other guys, the rest of the "top" talent was just all sort clumped together. If that's truly the way most teams were seeing it, then there isn't as much of a market for another team to move up. If Arizonia is targeting Paris Johnson but would be nearly as happy with Wright and pretty okay with Skoronski... they're not going to offer a ton to make sure they get their top of the line OT.

Do we know that the union didn't also warn the players? The union might simply be looking at this and thinking: Player aren't going to pay attention to us... or at least they won't pay enough attention to just us, but their agents are a more serious source. I work in the higher ed field and I'm acutely aware students don't always read emails sent to them. Some of it is because they don't care, some is because their stressed out and don't really ingest what's said to them, and some of it is communication fatigue: "That's just one more email from the university/college... they send me crap like every other day and most of it's totally unimportant." I can tell you that we'd love to be able to send information to mom and dad at times (along with sending it to the students) because mom and dad will be more likely to read it and if they do they will harp on the students to make sure the message comes through. This could simply be the union understanding the players will listen to the agent but not necessarily to them. On a side note: If agents get a percentage of the players contract... if players get suspended and lose a paycheck, do agents then lose that money too? If so, that's another reason to get the agents involved.

@Longgone Not sure if there were more, but this is the one I remember, and I remember a bit wrong. Apparently it was a national writer speculating that a beat writer quoted.

There was chatter from some beat writer(s) who heard that if Witherspoon was there the Lions were going to stay at 6 and draft him, but because he wasn't they traded out. Obviously this depends on believing the source(s) that the writer(s) referenced.