RedRamage

It would kinda be a 'can't lose' situation for the NFL... if the Lions are for real next year and either push the Chiefs or win the game... it's a great story of an up and coming team making a statement on the international stage. If the Lions fall back to earth and end up getting steam rolled by the Chiefs, then it's a great story about how the top team and (arguably) the top QB in the league showcasing the best of the NFL on an international stage.

I hadn't thought of that angle... that could be a very nice little bonus having interviews with St. Brown in German... having him "come home" to visit his mom's birth city... good be some nice PR for the NFL there.

Hell no... Look, y'all know that I'm still somewhat skeptical of Goff. But there is no way I would do that trade. No way at all. That's a larger bounty than Russell Wilson got and I thought that was a way too much for a more prove guy (granted, since then Wilson has dropped off the edge, but at the time I think everyone would have considered him a more proven asset).

Part of that is because they didn't pay him very much this year, right?

https://apnews.com/article/mlb-sports-rob-manfred-business-a4f556cfebff72629036d0b7b3ab220a That's an interesting read. Touches on a few things we've talked about already here like MLB helping team effected, possibly taking over the broadcasts, and ending local blackouts.

Might the NFL outlaw the Tush Push? https://fansided.com/2023/02/16/jalen-hurts-eagles-bring-new-nfl-rule-change/?a_aid=45978&fbclid=IwAR1mG6z8MTGryQ0f-ebDxDEKhuUWL65smgjJ6yKPYxw7EYWmSXwSvS7TN58

That makes sense. Still seems like it's worded weirdly, but yeah... it makes sense. So, now: If a minority coach gets hired as a primary executive, is that compensated for? Or if a primary executive gets hired as a HC?

Yeah, the bolded part is super confusing. I don't know exactly what's going on there. I think part II is trying to set limits on the original team getting compensation. Part (ii)a certain seems like it's a limit: The original club has to have employed the person for two full season. And the later half of part (ii)b is a limit: There can be no break in employment between clubs. So a team can't say: "5 years ago this guy was our receivers coach for two year until he went to the other club as the OC and now a third club hired him as HC so we get compensation." But the first part of (ii)b is super confusing: The minority employee is not the Head Coach or Primary Football Executive of the employer-club and is hired into the same position with the new club. This big thing here is what does "same position" mean? I suspect that it's a reference Head Coach or Primary Football Executive. As in: "The guy can't be the team current HC or GM and needs to be hired by the next team to one of those same positions we just mentioned." This makes the most sense as everything else in both parts if very specifically talking about HC or GM. Additionally, there is no talk about what compensation a team would get for a lateral move of a coach/executive and I can't imagine they intend to give the same compensation for a lateral move like Duce as for a team hiring a minority HC or GM.

At #6: Trade down to the low teens. At #18: Trade up to the mid-top 10 range.

I'd trade our QB for him. I mean... I like our guy and all but honestly I think Fields would be a solid upgrade over Sudfeld.

I think that's a little too short sighted. There's no question that money is a motivating factor... and a very big motivating factor. But I think we've seen plenty of times that it isn't the only factor for FA. Furthermore, I'd say a front office shouldn't want that to be the only factor either.

We just need to find the equivalent of Fernando Vina.

I'm probably talking out of my butt here but it would seem like there's three parts here: The rights, the production, and the transmission of the content. The transmission doesn't seem like it would be hard to do. I'm sure any streaming service would be able to take in the footage and then send it out to valid subscribers. They could easily take in money from customers and forward a portion of that to MLB or whomever. The rights aren't a huge issue either... I mean, obviously they are, but they aren't a technical issue. The problem is the production of the games including the equipment, the human resources, etc. I suppose in theory MLB could buy Diamond Sports Group if they can get a decent price on it that doesn't include all the debt that DSG has. This would give them all the people and equipment to be able to produce the games. What I have no clue on is advertisers. Who would be responsible to getting advertisers on board? Who would get the money from that?

Part of the problem is probably that the Tigers were on the upswing in 2021... .521 wpct after the All Star Break.

That's a valid point. I wasn't really thinking about fitting on the roster.

Grossman in particular seems like a Harris fit. Not sure what if there is any bad blood between Hinch/Tigers and Grossman after the trade though.

I dunno... one thing I think we have to give MLB credit for it understanding that online content is a potential revenue stream. I think MLB was in front of a number of other leagues in terms of making money from online subscription stuff. The potential profit here might be enough to drive them into doing this. The two issue that might prevent this though are: 1.) Not having an easy, non-online method for viewing. I don't know what the average age of baseball fan is, but if the only way to watch games is online you might be alienating some significant percentage of the audience. 2.) Does MLB have the ability to produce the games themselves? Do they have the infrastructure to run it?

Okay... I think, if I'm following your logic... Ex-officials getting major media contracts could lead to officials trying to make sure they are more visible while officiating so that they have a better shot at that lucrative deal after they "retire" from officiating. Is that right? I mean, it's not an argument without merit. To run the risk of bringing up politics here, isn't that part of the problem with politicians and lobbyists? Kind of a conflict of interest? That said, I don't see it as a major issue myself. I don't follow a lot of sports other than the Lions and Tigers so I don't know if this is coming up a lot more but there's just not that many "rules expert" positions, are there? I don't think Fox or CBS or NBC or ESPN are regularly reviewing games to find officials who might make good rules experts. I don't think officials are regularly letting thoughts of the potential big media contract effecting how they call a game.

Okay, as someone who doesn't gamble... what do these numbers mean? I mean I get that the lower number means that FanDuel thinks its more likely that that team will win, but what does this amount to in terms of payouts? Like if I put down $100 on the Chiefs, and they won, what do I win? If I put $100 down on the Cardinals and they won, what do I win?

On the other hand if he's the assistant HC here he might have a legit shot of becoming the OC here in Detroit when Johnson leaves? Obviously lots and lots of variables... Will the Lions be just as good offensively next year so that Johnson gets HC interest again? Will Johnson leave this time? Is there anyone else inline between me and the OC job if Johnson leaves? Will Tampa get a decent QB? Even if the offensive isn't good in Tampa next year, does having a year of OC on my resume look better? What's Tampa offering payment-wise for OC vs. Detroit for RB coach/Assistant HC? Is the physical location of Tampa more attractive to him vs. Detroit? (Weather, family, etc) So, to answer @RandyMarsh's question a bit... I don't think it has to be a bad vibe he had here in Detroit. There are lots and lots of reasons why he might consider going or staying.

I guess I'm struggling to know exactly what you are upset with. You acknowledge the crew chief didn't throw the flag so he wasn't personally trying to get into the spot light from it. You seem to acknowledge that the call was at least technically correct if maybe you feel that it was minor enough it shouldn't have been called. You acknowledge that the reporters probably sought him out rather than him trying to get his name out there by seeking them for a story. You seem to be putting the "sins" of Blandino on this guy, which isn't terribly fair in my humble opinion. Leaving aside, for the moment, whether a flag should have been thrown or not, did the crew chief do anything wrong?

Not that I would ever condone such a thing, but when you make something not only quite expensive, but also make it very cumbersome and buggy... well, people will find ways around it. If I'm going to be paying a decent chunk of change each month to be able to access something, it better work reasonably well.

Ah, okay. I see what you're saying. Imho this would fall under the 'technical issues' you cited earlier and should not have been allowed. Again, ideally we always get the right answer but not at the cost of an unwatchable product. Again, just my opinion but I think the times actual technical issues come into play are so low that I prefer the "anonymity" (and therefore hopefully less danger of bias) that central reviewing provides. I would like to see it codified that technical issues can not override the next snap, but I'd also like to see that coaches be allowed to challenge in the final two minutes. I'm fine with officials being able to review in the final two minutes, but I dislike that coaches can't.

Was that the one where the receiver ran "behind the bench" after the catch?

I thought it was relatively well done, until I saw the fine print at the bottom: Coming Late 2024