RedRamage

I was listening to the Locked on Lions podcast yesterday and they had a guest on... can't remember who, but he brought up an interesting point: That the Lions might be suffering a bit by not having a mobile QB on the scout team. The guest mentioned picking up someone like Thompson-Robinson in the draft on the off chance that you could develop him into a star and if not, at least you have someone mobile for the defense to practice against.

Perhaps some credit, sure. But if we attribute much of Brady's success to his development by Belichick, then does it seem reasonable that Belichick should be able to develop other QBs? To be fair for nearly two decades he didn't need to, but for five years wit the Browns he didn't develop a franchise QB. And for three years since Brady has left there are no signs that the next franchise level QB is emerging in New England.

It's also worth considering if we really think this years QBs are bad... would we be helping a divisional rival make a draft mistake? That might be worth something right there.

Remember this is the Lions we're talking about. I'd be thrilled if half of our second round picks amounting to anything!

I very much think Belichick is overrated. That's not to say he's trash, but yeah... without Brady he's been very bad. I think the lack of a good coaching tree could be attributed to just a poor teacher or perhaps someone who's not willing to share his secrets. Both of these things may or may not be considered failings in a HC depending on your perspective, but I'd say it is possible to be a good HC without having a good coaching tree. It certainly doesn't help, but isn't, by itself, proof that you're a bad HC. To me the real damning thing is his record with and without Brady. For the year prior to 2001 and after 2019, plus adding in 2008 the year Brady only played one game, Belichick's record is 77 and 85. Now, if you consider that these were years when Belichick's team did not have a franchise level QB, 77 and 85 really isn't bad... but it's also not good. If you want to make the case that Belichick is the best or one of the best (like, top 5 or even top 10) coaches all time, then this is a guy who should be able to make even "less than" players perform better sub-.500, right?

If the front office looks at Stroud as Goff 2.0, then the only reason to consider taking him is if you feel there's a very good chance you're not resigning Goff and you don't expect to be in a position to get a "Goff level QB" in the next couple of years. However this seems like an unlikely thing given that Holmes and Campbell and praising Goff and Goff seems to like it here. I don't see the FO thinking they'd be unable to sign Goff. However, if the front office looks at Stroud as a significant upgrade over Goff, then there may be a reason to do it. If they think Stroud is very capable of being better than Goff then it might very well be worth drafting him. If Stroud could be the next Rodgers (without the crazy) or Brady... you take him even with Goff on staff. However this also seems unlikely as no one seems to value Stroud quite that highly. (Though, 23 teams didn't think Rodgers was worth it and 32 teams repeatedly didn't think Brady was worth it.) Finally, you might try to play 4D chess here and if Stroud is available and no one will trade with you because no one thinks you'll actually draft him, you might try drafting him and trading him once you have control like what the Chargers did with Eli Manning. However, this seems REALLY risky as you might not be able to moving him as Stroud doesn't seem to have nearly the same level of excitement that Manning did.

You know what's going to happen right? The Lions are finally gonna have their greatest season in the SB era... make it all the way to the SB and face Aaron Rodgers and the Jets, who will knock them off with a Hail Mary because of a bad penalty call.

He's alright for a cheesehead.

That more than I think GB should get for a aging, flaky QB who may retire after next year, but less than I feared that GB might get, so I guess it's not too terrible.

I think you're missing what most of us are saying about this. First, I at least (and I suspect others) fully understand that gambling on games in the league in which play is a very, very bad look and very much damages the integrity of the game. Super bad. In my humble opinion gambling on any sporting event for a player should be banned because it skates so close to gambling on your sport. It's not a question of not understanding the dangers that gamble presents from an image stand point. Second, I fully understand (as do others) that these are the rules and JaMo broke 'em and he has to pay the price. We're not questioning if he's guilty or if he should be punished. So what am I questioning? This: Why is something that a player is allowed to do when "off campus" punished so severely when he is "on campus" but not engaged in active work*? What liability does betting on games AT work create that betting on games when NOT AT work NOT create? That is the ultimate question. According to the NFL one is fine, the other is a 1/3 season suspension. The best answer I've seen is: A headline saying: "players are routinely betting at practice" sounds bad. And I agree, but a headline saying: "players are routinely betting on games, just not at work" doesn't really sound better. *I'm assuming that he wasn't actively engage in a team meeting or working out or practicing. I'm assuming he was on a lunch break or whatever. If he did do this while in a meeting or when he was supposed to be doing something else, that's another situation entirely and then it's a case where the Lions should be punishing him for not doing his job.

I mostly agree with this... but I think there are a few things your glossing over too much. 1. "It's only 6 games." Yes, but... if this just a glimpse in how JaMo is as a person? I don't claim to have a lot of insight into him as a person/player anymore than anyone else here does. But of course the Lions have a lot more insight than we do. Do they view him as boarding on bust? Do they know about other issues/things that we don't that make them less confident about him long term? If so, they may look to draft a WR higher. On the other hand if this is just a "he's a dumb kid who did a dumb think. No big deal" then I agree that it's only 6 games, don't massively rework the play for this issue. 2. "JaMo wasn’t even part of the offense last year." Yes, but... last season we have Chark. Now Chark also wasn't a huge part of the offense, but he did account for 30 receptions and 502 yards. Yes the offense did okay (great even at times) without Chark or JaMo, but think anyone of us would prefer to have a ARSB and insert backup player here instead of a legit NFL starting caliber WR.

Reggie Corbin with a nice game rushing for over 100 yards... DL dominate... Panthers off to a nice 2-0 start headed to their Ford Field debut next week!

Maybe this was part of his no-sweat-first-bet and he'll get it all back?

Michigan Panthers 1-0 AND (so far) no players suspended for gambling. Looks like there's a new favorite home town team!

To the best of my knowledge, there was no major gambling culture in the Lions before they showed up, so... I'd say they changed the culture.

Good point... it's really splitting hairs there. I'm not sure I can even conjure up some imaginary scenario where a player might be enticed to throw a game while on team grounds vs. when he's not on team grounds. And you can't exactly say that the team/league is just distancing themselves from gambling when clearly they're not. I mean, rules are still rules and you can't disobey them just because you disagree with them. But yeah, taking in his light it does feel like a very stupid rule.

Obviously I'm massively speculating, but it would surprise me if someone who was let go from the Lions (FO, player, coach, etc) snitched. I mean, that's kinda how the whole Astro's think shook out, wasn't it? It might have been someone who help a grudge or maybe it was just someone who felt annoyed that s/he was following the rules but others seemed to get away with it without repercussions. Again: PURE SPECULATION on my part here. Just thinking out loud.

I tend to agree, though I do think it makes WR/TE a more attractive pickup. I don't think they're massively reworking their board, but if it comes down to two names that they like/want equally and one is a position with more depth and one is a pass catcher... I think the pass catcher might get the nod.

If true, then I'm more than a bit PO'd and a bit worried. This feels like it bordering on a "lack of institutional control" and may explain why the Lions seemed to be hit so hard. Makes you wonder if someone who got fired (*cough* AP *cough*) leaked to the NFL that maybe they should check out the Lions and the rampant gambling problems there. Also makes me wonder if gambling is pretty common in the NFL and others just hide it better?

Eh... good point. That means there was enough "other stuff" to make Holmes semi-call out Jamo earlier AND then this too. Not good. To be clear, I do think this is a horrible moral sin on Jamo's part... just kinda stupid that he isn't aware of the rules or is aware and thought he could get away with it.

Different jobs have different rules. For example, I carry a swiss army knife with me virtually all the time and definitely at by job. It's 100% legal and my job has zero issues with it. My wife, on the other hand, is a school teacher and it's banned for anyone to carry a knife on school grounds. It seems a bit high for me too, but gambling is like the biggest sin in sports. Any appearance of fixing games can seriously hurt the image of a sports league. I'm honestly a little surprised that gambling on non-NFL games is allowed outside of team situations.

This might explain the "accountability" comments from Holmes earlier this off season... I mean, assuming that this is something that happened a while ago and the NFL is just finishing up the inquiry into it now.

There's a gigantic difference between suggesting that drafting a QB rather than resigning a veteran could save on cap space (which is an objective fact, btw) and saying: "you can only win with a QB on a rookie contract"

Absolutely no one has said that.