RedRamage

I mean... it's not really surprising. Stafford was a "franchise QB" and was more than good enough that he didn't need to be replaced, so from the time he took over the starting position he would have been the starting QB for all the time. Any time he wasn't the start we'd have our backup in and the team was often not good enough to win with their starter. Any NFL team will struggle with their backup in and especially the Lions. So it isn't a statistic that would be terrible startling. But it is still interesting to think about. Maybe the most interesting thing about it is that we had a very good QB for a long time. The last time we had the same QB starting for 5 years in a row? Bobby Layne. Yikes!

Not on defense. That happens quite often.

You saw an perfect opportunity, you took your shot... and it was glorious...

I don't think (most) people judging him based on that. They're judging him based on the pick location... which is value when evaluating the front office, but not when evaluating the player. As long as we understand that saying: "He's never going to be worthy of where they picked him" isn't saying he's a bad player, only that the front office was bad for picking him there -- then it's it's a fine evaluation to make. I think Hock is, and can be a top 10 TE for a number of years and that makes him a valuable player on a team... especially a team so devoid of talent right now. But I think it would also be very valid to say we're not getting the value from that spot in the draft that we should.

I think he could be worthy of a low 1st round pick, like 23-32 range on a better team. Right now he's the only real receiving threat and teams know that. Combined with Goff as the QB and I don't think we're seeing what Hock can be. I suspect that he'll never quite live up to high first round status.

Fernando Vina? But yeah, you're right... I mean the only people who are coming to Detroit are those who can't get signed anywhere else. Maybe someone who's looking to make a comeback or an aging veteran who's looking for one more pay check. Given the nature of the NFL there's no one who's going to sign a long term deal right now hoping that he can ride the Lions up because any given game can be the last game played in the NFL.

I know we have a movies thread talking about good movies we saw or want to see... thought it might be fun to have a thread for talking about BAD movies we've seen. I watched Shadow in a Clouds this weekend. Wow was that horrible. Seemed like it wanted to be three different movies all in one and pretty much failed at all three. I didn't think it was going to be a great film, but thought it would be much better than it was. Horrible... and not even in a campy way, just plain bad.

I honestly liked going for it on 4th down. The team needed a major spark and I didn't think going into half time 17-3 was going to make them think: "Hey, we're in this... just keep getting those FGs and we'll lick them Eagles!" On the other hand, if you convert that 4th down, and then you push and get a TD, that's something to build on. Then it's 17-7 and you can say: "Hey, we had a horrible half... we let them push us around too much, but we stood up tall at the end... let's go out and do more of that!" A FG consolation prize at the end of the half just doesn't seem like a motivator to me. Having said that, I HATED that they went empty backfield and shotgun. That lets the defense automatically not have to worry about a heavy push at the line. That I thought was a big mistake.

Well, it depends on how the analytics are done of course. Are you looking at all teams or just the Lions? Are you looking at more modern era or older games? And of course, the more narrow the focus, the more accurate it might be in terms of matching your team/situation, but it also means that there's more room for noise causing the results to be imperfect. And I think we also need to know how much value is being put on analytics vs. observation. Is Campbell looking at a situation and letting analytics overrule all other advice from his staff? If so, that's bad. Or is it just one more data point used in the decision making? If so, that's probably good... depending on how much weight that data point is and how good the analytics team is.

I still think the Lions will luck into at least one win... but I'm not going to be surprised at all if they go 0-17. I was talking with my brother last night and it seems to me that the Lions are going into games where they should have a chance too uptight and worried. It feels like in games where we just don't have any realistic shot that they play loose and free and make plays and don't worry about losing because there's no way they're supposed to win. But so of their worst games this year have been against teams we thought they might have a shot of winning against: The Bears, the Bengals, and the Eagles.

Did you look it up or was that just a guess? You are correct either way.

Trivia question based on career TDs... Who is the QB who's thrown the most TDs for the Lions and only for the Lions? That is, he didn't throw a TD for any team other than the Lions. (This means Stafford isn't qualified obviously because he's thrown a TD for another team. )

Eh... Not to take away from Brady's amazingness... but honestly that list is of older era QBs when the pass wasn't as all important as it is now. Comparing Brady to some more modern era guy and while still impressive isn't as "shocking." Rodgers: 447, Favre: 508, Manning: 539, Brees: 571... in fact the first person on this list, Elway, is ranked 13th on the TD all time leader list. All that said, I am surprised at how much higher Brady is than the great Kyle Orton. I suspect that the NFL will be breaking into coverage in other games when Brady is close to TD number 607... there by passing Orton by more than 6x as much.

I think it's far to say that some of that is on the super weak WR crew... part of it. A lot of it is still on Goff... most of it.

Okay, not exactly. Supposedly Favre was paid around $1.1M for speaking engagements for Welfare Programs in Mississippi that he didn't show up for.

The most disappointing thing in this game, to me, was that it didn't look like there was much fight in the Lions.

That would be a death sentence to that GM's career. I mean... there would be no coming back from that every, would there?

Holy wow... that would be quite amazing. Can you imagine even just getting three solid starters in one draft?

I would say that Wright is worse because you essentially used a 3rd round and a 4th round pick on a guy who you cut a little over a year later. Even if we get nothing out of Benson we spent a lot less on him.

Had to look up the trade cause I didn't remember the details. We gave a 5th and 7th in 2022, picked up Benson and a 6th in 2023, so that isn't a horrible amount of draft lost, but still... you're point is right that if Benson can't earn a starting spot against this roster of receivers, then he's a a crap receiver and any draft assets given up are too much.

Generally speaking, I don't think most teams have a decent backup QB. There are exceptions of course, but I think it's pretty rare these days that any team has a backup that good enough to step in without losing (much) talent. But I do get what you're saying. It does seem like the Lions have rare been even mediocre at backup. Who was the last one that seemed semi-decent? Hill?

It's frustrating that they give up so much on the last drive... too much prevent. But honestly yeah... the Vikings were stupid not to be throwing a LOT more than they did. They could have been up so much more.

Also, while I love the aggressive play on 4th downs generally... I think we were a little too aggressive this game. There is a time and a place, but... there's also times when the FG or punt is a better idea.

My feeling as well. Just looked awful out there, making so many mistakes. Honestly, it felt like Lions were looking past this game, just assuming this was a W and don't worry 'about it.