RedRamage

FWIW, I would be nice to take a QB and NOT need that QB to be the starter that fall. It would be nice to take a QB either round 1 or round 2 and develop him for a year or so. Even if we take a QB with the Rams pick, I'd love to have that person next year because Goff is playing well enough that we're winning.

Yup. I've pretty much given up on him. He's got the physical skills, I just don't think he's got good decision making ability on the field.

Well, dang... not to shabby there Hongbit.

As someone who's never been personally high on Jiménez, I think the Tigers made a good deal too.

I miss the days and our RBs were Double-A and Double-Z...

Yeah, this as all the markings to me of a Lions team coming in and playing really tight because they are looking at this as a chance to prove they below and just not being comfortable or playing well. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that Campbell and Co. are hammering that this is a chance to go and steal one. They're playing a 10-2 team so no one is expecting a win despite what the media says. A 5-7 team shouldn't be expected to beat a 10-2 team. Just go out and play your best and if they steal one... that's fantastic. If they don't... come back with fire next year.

The key will probably be the Broncos/Rams game. If the Rams lose that they obviously move ahead of the Broncos. Assuming they lose all their rest (as Chicago will probably do), then there's a good chance the rams move up to #2. Looking at current standings all Chicago opponents (past and future) have a record of 118/87/2 (I'm assuming games played against division opponents count twice) while LARams opposition record is 103/104.

While Pro-Bowls aren't always a good measure of the skill of a player, I think they are important for a players HOF chances for two reasons: 1. It's an easy stat to point at and understand (ie, Lazy man research). More Pro-Bowls means better player, right? 2. It's a judgement of how the league sees a player. Players who get picked for the Pro-Bowl are viewed as the better player. The stats may not say that, but the feeling (whether correct or not... insert: unmeasurables comment here) is that that player is better. I would very much agree that Pro-Bowls aren't the best measurement of a player. But I do think Pro-Bowls contribute to the chance of a player making the HOF, meaning they should be included in the discussion of whether or not we think a player will make the HOF. (Note this is a different discussion than whether or not a player deserves to make it to the HOF.)

I watched a little clip of the MLB draft lottery and it looked pretty lame... and I think part of the reason for this is that it's all decided a head of time. There's no excitement. And part of the reason they don't do it live is that if you're doing the lottery and the #1 pick is decided first, it seems anti-climatic. So, why don't they do it in reverse? I'm not great with stats some someone might have to correct me here... but couldn't they do things in reverse is the changed out the number of balls for each team? A simplified example: Three teams: A, B, and C. A should have the best chance of getting the #1 so they get three balls in the bucket. B is next and gets two balls. C is last, they only get one ball. Mix up the balls, and draw out one of them. Because A has three, they have a 50% chance of getting the #1 over all. Here's my reversal: Team A gets just one ball, Team B gets two, and Team C gets three. Now we mix up the balls and draw out for the 3rd pick first. Because team C has the most balls they have the highest chance of getting the 3rd pick, A has the least chance of getting that pick. Would that work?

What's Matt Millen doing these days?

Could you imagine the hell the Rams would be in if McVay left? Stafford's a question mark moving forward (health), you don't have much depth due to giving away all your draft picks, you don't have a HC... man that franchise would be in for a few very rough years. Of course, they'd still probably rebuild and be back in a SB for the Lions made one.

The NFL is such a "what have you done for me lately" league. I mean here's a guy who been mostly a positions coach... he gets one year as an OC... granted a mostly successful year, but one year none-the-less.. and he's talked about as a legit HC candidate. But the league is so focused on the very recent past and I think there's such a fear of missing out on the next great coaching mind that people like Johnson are being poached with a relatively small track record, just in case! I'll also throw in the rant here that I firmly believe that success as a coordinator does NOT automatically equal success as a HC. Just in the last decade we've seen plenty of mostly successful coordinator who've bombed as HCs here in Detroit.

So... if he retired after the 2022 season... is he considered for the HOF? Off the top of my head I'd say no. He played in relative obscurity in Detroit... he had a great 2021 obviously and has a SB ring, but lots of players had one great year. Sure you can point to some good stats from his Detroit days, but I don't think that, combined with 2021, would be enough. Now, does this motivate Stafford to come back to prove that he wasn't just a one-hit wonder? I don't know if this matters to him or not. I think all professional athletes have some level of wanted to prove that they belong. I think they need that to be able to achieve the level they do. But there's also a difference between a 22 year old fresh in the league and a 30+ year old who's abused his body for decades and have a family now.

There was a point in another thread that if the Lions went 4-1 we'd need two other teams from the Seattle/NY/Washington group to only get one more win. That said, *if* the Lions win Sunday, I'd think they'd be favored to win out the rest of their games. @Jets the following week would probably be the hardest remaining game. @Carolina should be winnable. Bears at home should be easy. @Packers will potentially be tough just because it's outdoors in the middle of winter, but still should be winnable. All this said: I do NOT think the Lions are making the playoffs.

According to this site it may not be a hugely serious thing. The devil's in the details of course... how bad is the bruise? How bad are Stafford symptoms? It doesn't sound like a career ender, but then again this is just after 3 minutes of reading on some random medical website.

Given how poorly Stafford performed this year, maybe the Rams will want to trade Stafford for Goff?

On a side note... anyone else think the announcers were using the Jag's running back's initials for way too long?

Now tied for 7th in total receptions. He's 13th in total yards.

Yup... from a playoff perspective, that tie was the worst case scenario. That said, I don't really care about the playoff. All things considered I'd prefer they make them of course, but I would be shocked if they actually win a playoff game, let alone win three of 'em. I'm happy with what appears to be steady improvement through the season and I'm excited to see what 2023 will bring.

Not only will they be must wins, but the team should also lose to improve their draft position.

Highest paid holder for FGs in the league.

Well... you got that one right.

But the stupidity here is that IF the Lions were that high on a guy to make this trade, why wouldn't they do with with whomever has the #1 pick? Why even risk (however unlikely that it is) that the their guy goes #1 overall? The only way this makes sense (which it doesn't for some many other reasons) is if the Lions offered this deal to the tame with the overall #1 pick but that team rejected the Lions AND that team didn't draft the guy the Lions really wanted AND there was serious danger that someone else was going to move up and take the guy the Lions wanted. It's just dumb stacked on top of stupid with a dash of idiotic thrown in. It's horrible deal for the Lions in a totally unreasonable situation.

Ya know... the really, really, really stupid thing here is that these sorts of trades... where you give away the entire house along with the kitchen sink only seem to happen when we're talking a franchise QB, can't miss prospect is available. Let's assume that such a QB even exists at the time of the draft... why would the Lions pay that much to move ahead of the Bears who already have a QB they love? The only possible reason is if someone else is offering a similar package to get this mystery QB. But... if there is a QB worthy of mortgaging the future for, why would the Lions trade with the Bears at #2? I can't imagine a team with the #1 pick rejecting an offer like this. Heck, even if I'm that team and I need a QB I would seriously consider that offer. Move back two spaces and pick up an extra first rounder this year and next year (not to mention all the other picks)? Yes please. This offer is just so ridiculously one sided. If Holmes did this with the Bears... giving a north division rival this kind of haul... it should be fired before he could put in the pick.

It's the age old debate... is it better to be a great team that goes deep in the playoffs but doesn't win it all regularly? Or is it better to have those flashes of greatness and bring it all home even if it means lots of low times between? I think the answer to that is pretty much settled. For example, look at this item for sale online You'll note that there is zero references here to the 2006 season or the 2011-2014 seasons.