RedRamage

Little bit of a side point here... the Lions don't own Ford Field... at least not technically. It's owned by the Detroit/Wayne County Stadium Authority. Now this is probably for various legal or tax or whatever reasons. The Lions are listed at the operators of the stadium so I'd assume it's something like: "You own it, technically, but we're leasing it for x-number of years and have full control over it." Just wanted to point out that technically the Lions don't own their stadium either... and being technically correct is the best kind of correct.

I kinda don't want the Packers to trade him. I mean, on one hand I'd love to see him out of the division... even an old Aaron Rodgers can still be dangerous. But what I don't want to see if the Pack getting a lot of value from trading him.

Okay, first... if every single streaming service loses money... why are there streaming services? That makes no sense that they would keeping making more and more services if everyone of them loses money... I mean I can see that a service will lose money initially but I can't understand why a service would start up with the idea that they will always lose money. What's the point? Second, if company A start doing X and it saves them money and consumers eventually just accept it, then company B is gonna start doing X too. I don't believe for a moment that every other service is watching netflex very closely to see what happens. If it bombs, they'll avoid it. If it doesn't, some of them will adopt it as well. Others might purposely NOT adopt it specifically to stand out.

Remember when everyone was talking about how horrible it was that Apple stopped including a charger with iPhones? Now (mostly) everyone is doing it. Once Netflix does it in the US and people don't start unsubscribing in droves the rest will follow. Here's the biggest thing: There will ALWAYS be ways to share/pirate/get around the official method of paying for service. No matter how secure you trying to make anything, there will always be some way around it. The way to reduce this is to make a product that is attractive enough that people really really want it and affordable enough that the hassle of finding the "external" methods of getting it is more of a hassle than just paying for it. From what I understand Bally failed in both areas. I didn't use it last year because the price was just way to high for me to justify it (especially with how horrible the team was). My brother, who's also a huge RedWings fan, used it and hated it because the service was very temperamental and buggy.

I was actually think 5-10 years in my head when I was writing my reply.

Here's the thing for me... I think I'm on record as being unsure of Goff. He had a great 2022, no question. But How much was him and how much the system? I freely admit that I just don't know. I'm not in a position to be able to make a far evaluation on that. So... either A.) the Lions system is really good and plays to Goff's strengths, or B.) Goff is really good and makes the Lions system look great, or C.) somewhere in between. If the Lions think it's A, then in theory they don't need a superstar QB, just a good QB that they can scheme around. Drafting a QB early on a class that isn't highly thought of seems like a silly idea if they can plug and play with any decent QB. If the Lions think it's B, then drafting a QB early (1st or 2nd round) is "wasting" resources that could be used on players having and impact in 2023 or 2024 and potentially getting the Lions deep into the playoffs. If the Lions think it's C, then yeah... try to upgrade. But are any of this years guys an actual upgrade? The only way I see the Lions going after a QB is option D and E: Option D, the Lions think Goff really held the team back and was below a replacement level player. Not sure how anyone could look at the Lions last year and think this. Option E, there is a generational talent in the draft and the Lions would be stupid to pass on a guy who looks to be a sure fire franchise QB. I don't think any of the guys are this type player, and even if one or two of these were they'd be gone by pick 6. TL;DR: I'll be SHOCKED if the Lions take a QB in the 1st or 2nd round.

I tend to agree. I mean, how much better would it have been if instead of: "And then her work really to kind of tear apart the culture that she inherited with Matt (Patricia) and Bob (Quinn) and how do we get this right?" He'd said: "And then her work to really get the culture of this team right. How to really dig in and get the place working together and pointed forward?" No need to specifically throw shade at Matt and Bob... no reason to call out past sins... just focus on the good stuff going forward. Honestly, given that you were responsible for bringing in Matt and Bob... you probably shouldn't focus too much on how they failed and set the team back.

I suspect MLB's audience is still skewed away from the streaming trend.

I thought I read a blurb about this somewhere but can't find the article now. There was something about teams have x-number of days to pull back their rights. I'm just guessing here but I would assume that they have the option to pull back their rights prior to bankruptcy and if they did then the rights debt that DSG owes would go away as well. If they didn't, then the rights would go as an asset under bankruptcy. I suspect a team would prefer to have their right back, but if they did this then DSG is under no requirement to air the games and the teams would need to scramble with only a month to go before opening day to get broadcasts lined up. If it goes under bankruptcy then there's probably incentive for DSG to still air the game to get the revenue, but the teams may not see all (or any?) of their rights payments come through.

They could "split the difference" I would think... just have a production crew at each stadium and only fly the talking heads around. I suspect the broadcasts would be better with a dedicated crew for each team, but this would probably save a decent chunk of money while still given teams they home town announcers. Honestly I think I would hate having a "national" broadcast for each game. It's one of the things I hate about NFL games is that announcers don't know a ton about the team and they end up telling the same stories every week because they don't know that the crew last week covered the exact same thing. Whenever the Dodgers were making a playoff run the announcers had to at least twice talk about Stafford and Kershaw.

Well, in a perfect world... Bally, er I mean Diamond Sports Group, had huge debt and only two income sources, which means they needed to pay all their staff, all their broadcast rights, and all their interests on debt based only on ad revenue and subscribers. I would hope that MLB isn't as dependent on subscriber income. Add in that they should get more 3rd party money from the gambling crap shown on screen and I would HOPE that they would be able to charge less than Bally was doing. But of course, that's a just my hope. The reality might be very, very different.

I didn't see the pitch itself, just saw the hitter on the ground. Anyone see the actual hit? Would a "face shield" have helped?

At what point do we start getting concerned about Tork? I mean, I know it's only Spring Training, and I know that it's only 6 games so far for him, but... 2 hits (both singles) in 16 at bats? 6 strike outs, and no walks?

Well... I mean this is just one guy saying it so I dunno if I'd say ironclad that the Tigers are "in front" of other teams, but... regardless it's still very, very cool to see that at least one person is saying that the Tigers are doing more/better than others.

I hate to say it... but I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't. And as much as I don't like that stuff if it means the price is more reasonable, I'd be willing to put up with it I guess.

Definitely sounds like MLB is gonna try and take over. Hope they're able to make it work for a reasonable price.

FWIW, I very much read your original referenced post as say the Lions wouldn't be big players because you felt they couldn't afford to bring in big names with their cap situation.

I wonder if he'll ask for a per touchdown bonus so he can pay the fines?

Stafford made him look good before, maybe he can make it look good again?

Yeah, I sorta think the same thing.

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2023/02/27/rams-jalen-ramsey-trade-peter-king-projection/ Peter King is quoted as saying: I think I'd jump at the option of a 2nd and 4th round pick for Ramsey. If you could do the 55th over all and a 4th from 2024, would you do it?

No, that's incorrect. The definition of not true is NOT a lie. I don't want to go too far down a rabbit hole here in a sports forum, but there are many examples of an incorrect thing being said that isn't a lie. For example... remember the blue and black or white and gold dress? Many people thought it was white and gold. To them it looked white and gold. Was it a lie for them to say it's white and gold? This part I agree 100% with, especially when we're talking about potentially influencing multi-million dollar transactions. What we don't know is how much verifying he did or didn't do. One would hope that he did his due diligence, but the fact that we don't have very many (if any) other sources citing these potentially issues other than those repeating what he said, it does call in to question the validity of his statement.

I would agree with this... Character Concerns connote something far different than not being a gym rat. That said, these "workout concerns" (for lack of a better term) might be even a bigger negative for Campbell than "character concerns." IF it's true that he's not a heavy workout, always trying to improve kinds guy that might be a big red flag for Dan.

Fixed that for you... Also, I don't know I would call it a lie. For all we know McShay has a very reliable, very trustworthy source and 100% believe it to be true. That doesn't mean it is true, but if McShay believes it to be true then it's not a lie.

I don't disagree. But if I include the Browns then at least the Lions aren't the only team to never make the SB.