RedRamage

Well what do you expect? Patullo has lead his offense to an average of 24 point a game this year. So far Morton's offense hasn't even been able to score!

I agree... I just think it's also a immature thing to do. Spitting in general as some sort of dominance display is stupid. I also expect Parsons to make a comment about it. Something like: "Trying to get your opponent ejected is for the weak, it shows you can't beat them straight up."

Apparently Dak spit first... kinda. It's very clear that Dak deliberately spat towards Carter. It landed near his feet, which was what I suspect Dak intended to do: Now this is in NO WAY trying to excuse Carter's actions. Instead I just wanted to point out that Dak also had the maturity level of a little boy by spitting towards Carter.

"Trick plays are for people who can’t beat you straight up." Running that through google translate and I get this: "I'm not a very smart player and easily fooled." Is there anyone here who speaks "little bitch" and confirm if that's an accurate translation?

Yeah, this should be the default response to any article from him.

If this is intended to be a response to my post, then you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I said it's not fair to ask if Goff can be elite without Johnson. It's not fair because Goff has had at least some level of success under two different coaching staffs. In a worst case senario (ie, if I was trying to give Goff as little credit as possible) this implies that he as at least basic skills and he can be taught/trained by multiple people to play at an elite level. At worst Goff has great talent and great ability to learn and follow instructions. I went on to further say that Morton has been handed an load of talent. If Goff and/or the offense faulters it's on Morton, not Goff. I'll say straight for the record: I was definitely one of the ones who was questioning Goff when he first came to the Lions. Even after the amazing finish in 2022 I still had doubts. Straight up: I was wrong. My post was not questioning if Goff is good... there's no question there. Goff is very good. Would he have the same success without the great players around him? No, of course not because football is a very interconnected sport. Would AMSB have the same success with a lesser QB? Would Gibbs has the same success without a great OL? No, because football is interconnected.

The QB is very important to an offense, but the QB is only part of it. A big part, yes, but only a part. How much of Goff's success with the Lions is Goff and how much of it is elite RB, elite OL, great WR, great play calling? It's hard to say. Everything is far more connected in football than in many other sports. Is it fair to ask: "Can Goff succeed in an offense without Ben Johnson?" I don't think so no, but it's clear Goff has had some level of success under two different coaches/OCs. Add in that the RBs and WRs are the same and much of the OL is the same... it's up to Morton to keep the offense - which is KNOWN to be elite level - going. If it fair to ask: "Can Ben Johnson succeed without Goff?" I don't think so no. Because he's going into a whole different org with different RBs, WRs, OLs, etc. etc. etc. If Ben fails it isn't necessarily because no Goff. Heck, it may not even be the offense. Ben could fail because he's not a good HC instead of because he can't win without a great QB.

I hope it's true because it'll be bad for the Packers, but I'm not going to assume it's true until we see evidence of it beyond merely Jones crying souring grapes.

Not to bad mouth your chiro, but... that's seems a bit like saying: "Oh, look: clouds in the sky. That might mean rain or it might not mean rain."

There's no question this makes the Packers better and I don't like that. It's debatable how much better of course, and what the long term lack of first round picks in the next two years will do to their ability to maintain a great team. I definitely think this makes the Packers more dangerous, but I don't know if I think this makes them the favorite in the division.

I absolutely agree. I thought it was a good pick at the time and I still think it was reasonable. Let me try to explain my thoughts another way: There's a $1M lottery with 2 million tickets available for sale and tickets cost $1 each. I'm gonna spend $10K on tickets... oops, none of them won. That was a bad decision and a waste of money. You, on the other hand, spent $3 on tickets and oops, none of them won. That was a bad decision and a waste of money, but it was a low waste. In hindsight we know that you didn't win and if you had that knowledge ahead of time you could have saved yourself $3. So it's still a bad decision, but it's a minor bad decision. Nothing like my $10K bad decision. The reward was high, the risk was relatively low... but in hindsight it was a bad decision.

So are you saying you get good value from a lottery ticket that doesn't win? Look, I fully understand that most draft picks don't end up becoming productive NFL players and even fewer become star players. I'm also not saying that it was a bad gamble. I thought it was a good pick at the time and I supported it. But in hindsight the production we got from the picket was zero. It was a relatively low value we spent on what could have been a very high return. But it didn't work out and therefore it was, ultimately, a bad pick. That doesn't mean Holmes suck. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take risks. That doesn't mean anything more than we put some value into the pick and we got zero out of it. Even a non-impactful player who is a ST guy would have given us more value than Hooker. There's no shame in look at the pick 2.5 years later and saying: "Yep, it was a reasonable gamble, but it didn't pay out so in hindsight we should have done something different." It's okay to call it a bust without saying that Holmes is a bad GM or that he's making bad decisions.

Probably so far. I'm sure there will be bigger busts at some point, but right now Hooker has to be considered the biggest given where he was selected (3rd) and what production we got out of him (zero). I know a number of people have said he was only a 3rd round and not many of them make it and Brad has lot of other successes... which is all true, but I think that is some what besides the point. And I may have read the tone of the question wrong but in my mind the question of whether Hooker should be considered the biggest bust of Holmes tenure is a compliment, not a slight. EVERY GM is going to have busts that they draft. If the biggest one Holmes has so far is a 3rd rounder that many people considered 1st round talent except for the injury, that's not bad at all.

Not that I see it happening anytime soon, but this is where a partnership between the UFL and the NFL could be advantageous for both. Obviously a lot of tweaking and adjusting would need to be made and the UFL season would need to be changed to overlap, at least a little bit, with the NFL to get the best results for the the NFL. But wouldn't it have been nice to send Hooker to a "minor league" last season and this one too so he could get some "real game" seasoning and we get a better idea of if he's really cut out to be an NFL QB? Given his age at this point I think the chance of him being an NFL starter is about zero, but still if he could have shown something who knows? Maybe he even has trade value that we could have gotten something out of him?

I had this thought recently: Could Hooker end up in the UFL? I mean I wouldn't be surprised at all if another NFL team picks him up as a 3rd QB or a practice squad guy, but I doubt he ever moves beyond QB3 (barring a string of injuries). The UFL might be a place him to try to showcase himself.

Obviously it's early (we don't know if some of the stars are gonna have their careers cut short or anything), but it's amazing to think that a team whiffed on two third round picks and it's still probably one of the best draft years of all time.

Just starting a new 2025 general comments thread.

I think the issue with Indy is that close by neighbor's would object. Cubs and White Sox are < 200 miles away. Cardinals are 250, and Cincinnati is just 120. Even Detroit and Cleveland (~300 miles) aren't too far away. Now personally... I won't mind it too much. Add Indy as an NL team, move the Brewers back to the AL, then we can have the AL Central North of Chicago, Milwaukee, Minnesota, and Detroit. That way I can hate on the same cities in baseball that I hate in football. But again I think there's gonna be too many neighbors complaining about losing fans, especially when there are other viable options out there.

According to the SportsLogo.net: 1901-1902 https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/7184/Detroit-Tigers-Logo/1901/Primary-Logo Not sure how accurate that is, but I actually do have a hat with that logo... I mean, a modern recreation, not an original of course.

Totally agree, and he seems to want to be here. I'm just unsure why the Lions don't seem to want him.

Okay, lemme say that first I fully recognize that we're arguing over stats for game. It's a minor thing to be "upset" about. Just want to make that clear before anyone posts: "Why are you going off on a stat that doesn't matter?" Okay, disclaimer out of the way: My contention though is that it DOESN'T do this. Some of the time a Win does that, but like in my example above: How can you say a pitcher throwing 9 inning of 1 run ball most contributed to the loss? Or how can you say a pitcher who gives up a ton of runs, but the offense happens to have a monster night most contributed to the win?

I just think the whole concept of winning and losing pitchers should be dropped all together. I mean even if we look at complete game situations there's still stupid stuff that can happen: Monday Pitcher A throws 9 innings, gives up 8 runs, but the offense exploded late in the game and scored 10 runs. Pitcher A gets a "Win." Tuesday, Pitcher B throws 9 innings giving up just two run, one of them because of a fielding error. But the offense was totally shut down that day and only managed one run. Pitcher B gets a "Loss." Over a full season, and more so of a full career, then a good pitcher will probably end up with a good W/L record and a bad pitcher will probably end up with a bad W/L record, but only in probably and only generally speaking. There are way too many other variables... A perfect example of this is our old friend Jeff Weaver. In 2002 with Detroit Weaver had an ERA of 3.18 and a WHIP of 1.192 but had a 6-8 W/L record in 17 starts. Then he was traded to the Yankees mid season. With the Yanks in 8 starts he had a 5-3 record. Does that mean he got better when he went to the Yankees? Well, the stats say no. His ERA with the Yankees was 4.04 and his WHIP was 1.231. Defense, Run Support, Who you end up pitching against... these are all variables that are way outside of the pitcher's control yet drastically effect the W/L record. It's a dumb stat that at best tells you a good career W/L probably tells you the pitcher was better than average.

A quickie update here but I keep meaning to re-visit this but always forget and I don't have time right now to do a deep dive. Since the all star break the Rockies have been playing much better baseball. It's still bad of course, but not "historically" bad. A 4 game win streak that was snapped last night has helped them play just under .500 since the break (14-16). This puts them at 35-90 and makes it seem very unlikely that they will end up with fewer wins than the '24 White Sox (41) or '03 Tigers (43). Based purely on percentage the Rockies are looking to finish a number of games ahead of the the White Sox and Tigers, and this doesn't include that both the other teams saw a late season surge as other teams where resting players and/or "trying out" new blood. That said, the Rockies do not have a good schedule moving forward. Of the 36 remaining games they have 18 more games against teams battling for division titles (Dodgers 5, Padres 7, Astros 3, Cubs 3). They also have 9 against Wild Card contenders (Giants 6, Mariners 3), leaving only 9 games against teams that probably have nothing to play for right now (Angles 3, Marlins 3, Pirates 3).

Not sure if it's an unpopular opinion or not, but I think W/L record for pitchers is one of the stupidest stats in baseball.

How fitting is it that in a extra innings game with zero runs that it ends of a walk?