RedRamage

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

the bears SHOULD do that, but wont.

the lions shouldnt do that, and wont.

For the record, I agree with you on the last part for the reason stated.  But, purely as hypothetical thought experiment...  what if:

1.) Jared Goff announces his surprise retirement.
2.) Ben Johnson, Dan Campbell and the rest of the coach staff come up to you (playing the role of Brad Holmes) and say: "We know what's stopping Fields from being a better passer and we can, at the very least, make him a league average passer in 2023."

Now... assuming that the coaching staff is telling the truth... do you do it?  I mean in our silly scenario you're probably going to spend one of your first round pick on a QB anyway.

6 hours ago, buddha said:

not reading that.

Here's the proposed trade:

Now, looking JUST at the trade... nothing else... not looking at if the Bears would do it would the Lions actually be interested in Field as their QB... looking at just the assets being traded... it's intriguing.  I was expecting some weird way over the top trade but this is "reasonable"  I think for the Fields.

If I was a team in a need for a QB and I felt that Fields would improve as a passer with a better team around him, I would probably be willing to spend that draft capital on him. BUT I'm not sure I believe that Fields will be a better passer and I don't believe that QB is a need for the Lions right now.

24 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Glenn is in the mix for the Cardinals job. They gave him a 2nd interview. With Ryans and Payton off the table, Glenn could be a front runner there. I kind of thought Glenn would be a fit for Houston given he used to play there. 

I hope not.  Just like with BenJo, I hope he sticks around for another year at least to help with consistency.  

8 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Brock Purdy's career is in jeopardy.   He will be out 6-8 months, but it could take longer.   A feel-good story went sour quick.  

I get this strange feeling that Brady is gonna go to 49ers and play another year while mentoring Purdy.  Who better than a former 6th round pick to mentor a 7th round pick?

On 1/26/2023 at 4:49 PM, Motown Bombers said:

 

WTF?!?  Does someone actually think this is a good deal for the Jets? The likely defensive ROY from last year, Williams and TWO 1sts for an aging QB??

I mean, if I'm the Packers I'm doing that deal instantly.  No question at all.

Looking at Ford Field's website:

There's no other dates listed other than "several weekends."  Again according to Ford Field's site, the next scheduled event is 6/9 (Taylor Swift show) so I don't see any potential conflicts for a while.

25 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

a healthy Vaitai seems to be a better guard than Evan Brown, but Brown is more versatile, and Ragnow has consistently missed some games. I would pick Brown over Vaitai, but maybe that is not the right question. Is the assumption they won't bring back both?

I suspect that Brown could easily be a starting center for a lot of team and if there's a team that needs/wants him, he'll get a lot more money being a starting center than a backup guard/center.  He'd probably get more money being a starting center than even a starting guard.

2 hours ago, Hongbit said:

The mythical NFL salary cap.

 

 

I love how they said it's a record $224 million.  Like duh... it goes up (nearly) ever year.  Each new year is a new record except twice in the history of the NFL salary cap.  Since 1994, when it first started, there are only been two years when the cap was less than what it was before.

In 2009 the cap was $123M. In 2010 there was no cap. In 2011 with the new CBA in place the cap was put back and it was set at $120.6M.

In 2020 the cap was $198.2M but in 2021 it dropped to $182.5M because of impact of the pandemic. In 2022 it went up to $208.2M, surpassing the 2020 number.

On 1/26/2023 at 2:41 PM, Shinzaki said:

I dated a girl who drove a VW Golf in the late 80's.  It was a nice reliable car...she was also nice and reliable and built like Jessica Rabbit....VW also made the Rabbit

I'm kinda built like Jabba the Hutt, and VW make the Jetta, so... that's kinda close, right?

28 minutes ago, chasfh said:

There might be guys early on doing what you say, but once a few of them get picked off for their foolishness, I would bet that would stop. So I see this as less an incentive to steal bases than it is to limit endless throws to first which, I agree with you, happens hardly ever anyway.

You might be right, I dunno... I suspect (at least initially) that some might push the envelope a bit.  I can see some runners maybe dancing a little bit to try and distract the pitcher more.  It might very well be that in a year (or less) this all settle down and has virtually no impact on that game because runners aren't doing things different and pitchers aren't doing things differently.

However, even if that happens I think it's worth noting that rule doesn't effectively "get in the way" of the game in any meaningful way, at least that I can see.  It's very possible, even likely, that at the end of the season we'll say: "Eh... it fixed a very minor problem without making the game worse."  If that's the worst that can be said of it at the end of the year that's still a win (a minor win) imho.

On 1/24/2023 at 4:09 PM, mtutiger said:

Talk about an easy decision...

I wonder if Ausmus might not make a decent GM. Obviously he wasn't a great manager, but GM is obviously a very different position to that of the guy on the field.  He was always supposed to have good baseball smarts, what's he?  Maybe it just didn't translate well on the field.
 

That said I don't think he has real extensive experience in the front office.  I'd be a little reluctant to hand him the keys with out more of a track record.

According to wikipedia:
2011-2013: "field executive" for Padres
2018: Special Assistant to general manager for the Angels
 

On 9/30/2021 at 9:22 AM, John_Brian_K said:

These were my thoughts.  I really do not think you should adjust it...make it the exact same for each player and it takes out the whinging from the players about their zone not being as big as X player or not "right" or something.  Make it static and let the players adjust.

The more I think on it the more I think this is the answer, but who are we kidding MLB is not doing this anyway...at least not in the next 10 years IMO.

On one hand, I don't like the idea of "penalizing" a shorter player by making him need to cover a larger strike zone (compared to body size) vs. a taller player.  But, on the other hand, taller players already have many advantages.  We don't move the pitchers mound back or forth a few inches depending on the height of the pitcher.  We don't let shorter first basemen be allowed to be two inches off the bag on a force out.  And we don't adjust the height of the outfield fences based on who's playing in the outfield.  So why should we adjust the strike zone based on the height of a batter?

My guess was the original rule was written the way it was because there was no better way for an ump to be able to judge a zone.  The ump would be hard pressed to create an imaginary invisible line in his head and call that consistently without any cue to where that line is.  But if we can electronically measure it accurately, do we really need to adjust it for every batter?

12 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Anybody here ever umpire and call balls and strikes? You have to stray from the rulebook zone for common sense sometimes. Doing youth games as a kid, you get a lot of loopy pitches and catchers too far behind the plate... In other words, called strikes in the dirt.

Obviously that corner case doesn't happen at the Major League level, but the strike zone as defined in the rules will surpise some people.

But shouldn't (in theory) those deviations be accounted for by an electronic zone?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but your 'strike in the dirt' example seems like your saying the ball was in the dirt when it got to the catcher, but was in the strike zone when it passed the plate.  If that's the same an electronic zone would properly call that as a strike.

On 1/15/2023 at 9:19 AM, chasfh said:

Pitcher gets two free throws over to first. On the third throw he’d better get the runner out, because if he doesn’t, runner is awarded second. It’s the possibility of being thrown out on the third throw that keeps him close.

In the end I don’t think this will have any effect on runners’ leads.

This is the first I've heard of this rule... I actually really like it... I mean I like it a lot.  

First, I know it doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen at times when a pitcher will throw over 4 or more times.

Second, I like that it's 3 attempts... 3 is just a very baseball number.

Third, I can actually see this being employed as a strategy by a base runner.  I can see a runner who's been thrown on twice already trying to tempt the pitcher to try for a third pick off attempt.  I think it could actually create some intrigue and action in the game.

This is a very rare instance where I think they are actually solving a problem (admittedly a minor problem) with an upgrade to the game.

WOW!  Games at Ford Field?  That really, really surprises me!  I didn't think there was anyway they would get in Ford Field in the next 4-5 years let alone this year.  I'm honestly kinda stunned.

This does explain why Ford Field accelerated the time table to have the field replaced though.

5 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Here's something to chew on. Goff is the Rodney Dangerfield of QBs. 

 

I wouldn't be opposed to bring in Brady if the price was right.  I mean, it would certainly solve the issue of back up QB for us.

31 minutes ago, Shinzaki said:

Get a cat to kill the rat...get a dog to kill the cat...get a wolf to kill the dog...where does it end?

With the T-Rex probably.

On 1/20/2023 at 1:18 PM, Cruzer1 said:

I need to know what he runs.

Laps around me.

10 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Some viewing pleasure for you today.

 

So what you're saying is that the Lions should add red to their uniform?

This one's for you @Motown Bombers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qDhgLRX4uQ

9 hours ago, buddha said:

true.  i wont shoot myself.  for all of your sakes.

That's very kind of you.  Thank you!

8 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Dare I say she's moved ahead of Illitch and Gores as the best owner in Detroit? 

My first instinct is to say "too early to say for sure" but honestly... it's like the other current owners are doing anything great... so yeah, at this moment I'd say she's the leader.

5 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Yeah, I do remember the reporting about Denise I at the time as well. Was downright Dallas-esque lol

The winning post-2006 papers over a lot, because the Tigers Organization was pretty freaking dysfunctional at times prior to 2006. Arguably more dysfunctional than they are now.

You mean Denise "Don't call me a kid" Ilitch?

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

This team is on the cusp of the division title and just needs a couple players to put it over the top. 

And this is why, even though I'm not 100% sold on Goff, I'd prefer they don't spend a high pick on a QB.  If the team was (more or less) complete, then I'd feel it's safer/easier to draft a developmental/backup QB.  But given the holes we have on defense in particular, I'd rather put the draft picks there.

14 hours ago, NYLion said:

The thing is, Goff is right smack dab in the middle of his prime so he could have another 5 high level years easy so if Goff is your starter leading you to the playoffs regularly for the next 2-3 years and Richardson never gets off the bench outside of mop up duty or the occasional meaningless game like Love, how much value does he have when you realize, again, that Goff is your guy and Richardson needs a fresh start elsewhere? You're certainly not trading a 28-30 year old Goff if he's leading a perennial playoff contender.

And what if Goff falls off significantly or gets injured or Richardson is so talented that the Lions have to play him because he's even better than Goff?  

Just to make it clear: I am NOT saying I want to draft Richards. I generally don't think the Lions should draft a QB in the high rounds this year. But you're argument here is essentially a 'what if?' argument.  What if Goff improves or continues to play at this level for the next 5 years?  Sure, then it was a bit of a wasted pick.  But 'what if?' you don't draft a QB and Goff regresses next year and Richardson goes somewhere else and becoming a stud?

Figuring out what the right answer to these questions are is why GMs get paid huge contracts. I'm certainly going to give my opinion on a message board, but ultimately I'm gonna trust Holmes more than myself... or even all the rest of you.