RedRamage

What's quite impressive here is that the coaching staff was up on the rule book, knew that this was a problem, got the right people in the right positions and even ran a play designed to minimum the patch-work status of the left side. You KNOW that 5 years ago this would have been a situation where the Lions put in Skipper, got a huge positive play, and had it called back for illegal substitution.

I disagree... it was pretty clear Branch lead with the helmet there. That's a clear penalty and Branch needs to do better... and CAN do better too.

Didn't get the +33, but still a solid 18 points, which means we beat the south by more than the rest of the NFCN combined.

Looking at the wiki page more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_draft) this person totally got mixed up and used the NBA contingency plan: The National Basketball Association (NBA) contingency plan activates if five or more players on a team "die or are dismembered". A special "disaster draft" would be held in which other NBA teams could only protect five players, so that quality sixth men would be available. No more than one player would be drafted from a team.

At least according to wikipedia, that's not a real rule. There IS a disaster rule in place but it's different. Short version: fewer than 15 players disabled: The team moves and stays at the top of the waiver wire for the season. If a QB is one of the disabled the team can draft up to QBs from other teams, but each team is allowed to protect two QBs... also that QB revert to the original team after the season. 15 or more: The commish can choose to cancel that teams remaining schedule. This moves the team to the top of next years draft and triggers a special draft (presumably in the off season) where teams can protect 32 players. If the commish does NOT cancel the teams schedule, the fewer than 15 rule applies.

Millen and Mornhenwig tried to do that too. Edit to add: Also we already do that... we've had St. Brown and Montgomery throwing passes, so... ya know.

No experience with SRO... but I just had to react... $277 for standing room only‽‽ Holy ****! I'm over on the west side of the state so it's not easy to get to games between the hours of travel the extra expense of fuel, parking, etc., combined with back issues I've had to many years I've never looked too close at getting tickets so I had NO idea they were so expensive! (For the record I've attended one regular season game and I also went for one pre-season game for the Lions. Plus I've been to one Panthers game at Ford.)

Tigers huh? Hmm... if Dan gets bored after winning the next 3 Super Bowls, maybe he'll want to coach the Tigers??

Hey, this is the obscure trivia about stats thread not the -- um... wait, sorry, my mistake. Carry on.

Okay... now that y'all got me going down this rabbit hole I decided to go all out... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passer_rating Go read that page for all the nitty gritty details, but short version is that there are 4 calculations made. Each calculation is weighted to give a result between 0 and 2.375. When the formulas were created a result of 1.0 would be league average based upon data from 1960-1970. I don't know why 2.375 is considered the "cap" but that's what they picked. If the result of any one of those four calculations is negative, it's set to 0. If it's more than 2.375, it's set to 2.375. Then you do this: It seems the inventors of the formula wanted 66.7 to equal average while 100+ was excellent and presumably 33.3 was awful. Still seem super dumb to me, but whatever. Obviously as passing has become a bigger and bigger part of the league the numbers have shifted up. In 2020 League average of 93.6. I will say that I don't think the designers ever intended that someone who hit the highest possible score had a "perfect game." I think they were just trying to set a cap to prevent a QB having one aspect of their game be super good and skew things because of that. So we shouldn't (imho) be using it to say that a QB had a perfect game. It would be more accurate to say his game was so good it topped the rating measurement system. But that doesn't really roll off the tongue. Here's the mark you need to hit for each equation to meet that 2.375 cap: 77.5% completion percentage 12.5 yards per attempt 11.875% TD/ATT (1 TD/8.421ATT) No interceptions It's also worth noting that fumbles, sacks, and rushing yards/TDs by the QB are NOT included in the calculations at all. A QB who had 18/25, 250 yards, 3 TDs and 1 INT gets a ratting of 126.6 while a QB who had 18/25, 250 yards, 3 TDs and 0 INTs, but 3 lost fumbles get a rating of 143.3. Why? Because this formula was very specifically designed to be PASSER RATING. Even though most of us talk about it like QBR or Quaterback Rating, it's not. QBR is an ESPN stat and it's totally different than this.

Anyone know the actual formula? I played around a bit with it too. 30 for 30, 500 yards, 0 TDs: 118.7... not even close to perfect. You could be zipping the ball all over the place, hitting received on a dime, but the receivers all get tackled just shy of the End Zone so your team runs the ball in. Suddenly your rating drop like a rock. If I increase the TDs to 3 I get to 152...still not a perfect game. Here's another stupid one: My defense keeps getting turn overs giving me great field position. I only need to throw 10 passes to get the win and each pass results in TD, but because we had such amazing field position I only racked up 124 yards pass. 10 for 10, 10 TDs, 124 yards = 157.9. Not a perfect game. What more could I possibly have done as a QB?? So I want to re-iterate @chasfh, while I disagree that individual pitches don't change win probability, I do NOT want to appear like I'm defending the QBR metric or how it defines a "perfect" QB game.

Without trying to sound like I'm defending QBR "perfect game" status, I disagree a bit here. The count that a batter is in changes the probability of getting on base and getting on base changes the probability of scoring a run and the probability of scoring a run changes the win probability. So I think yeah... a ball outside the zone (assuming the batter doesn't swing at it) does chance the win probability. If you want to argue: "As long as the batter is out, what does it matter if the pitcher threw 3 balls or 0 balls?" then I guess I'd counter with: "As long as the team scored, or even just took a bunch of time off the clock so the opposing team isn't able to make a come back, what does it matter if the QB threw an incomplete pass a few times?" If you want to argue: "A ball outside of the zone could be a strategic move to setup the batter, so even a 'bad pitch' might be a good strategy." Then I'd argue the same could be said in football. A deep pass with a lower success rate might be done to setup a defense for a run play or a screen or whatever. A ball thrown away before taking a sack is better move than tacking the sack or throwing a very low completion percentage pass that could be intercepted.

I honestly have no idea what the calculation is used in passer rating and I think it's insane odd that a "perfect" score is 158.3. Having said that, saying the QB was "perfect" is probably akin to saying that a pitcher who allowed no base runners pitched a perfect game. A perfect game for a pitcher might include many pitches that were less than ideal but the hitter was just bad/unlucky or the defense came up with a great play. There's obviously going to be instances where the pass could have been better, but I guess how ever the calculation happens it's determined that the final outcome was optimal, even if there was a mistake here or there.

So you're saying this is Aaron Rodger's fault?

Assuming football is around for the next 20-30 years, I'd say yes we will. I think there's always a lot of shifting in philosophies and strategies and honestly any sport has a lot of copy cats. If you see a team being super successful doing X, lots of teams will copy that. Eventually Pocket Passers will come back in vogue.

The obvious difference being that in baseball you draft ~15 pitchers per year and they spend 3-5 years working their way through the minors and the average fan only really hears or cares about <5 of them who show some promise and they forget about the other 10+ who flamed out. In football you don't load up on 3-5 QBs per year and spend the new few season developing them.

Yep... Campbell is now has the 8th most wins of any Lions head coach with the 6th highest winning percentage (minimum of 10 coaches games)

I read somewhere that Goff's passer ratings are somewhat negatively effected because much of his passing yards are YAC. To quote myself from just above: If true this is an incomplete picture because football is so inter-dependent. If you have great receivers who can tack on massive YAC each game, you don't need to throw as many passes overall. If you have a great offensive scheme that gets you large early leads so you're more conservative with plays later in the game, you don't necessary get as many deep ball chances. Anyone know if there's a place that keeps stats of JUST the yards through the air?

Football is one area where I think stats can very easily paint the wrong picture. Between the short season and the heavy dependence of each facet of the game on the others, it's never as simple as Player A = bigger number than Player B, therefore Player A better. I don't think there's a football fan out there who would argue that Goff is a better runner/scrambler than Mahomes. Why is Mahomes lower then in yards per attempt? Lions OL is better... opposing defenses plan more for Mahomes to run... Mahomes gets sacked more (22 vs. 18)... There are all obvious factors and combined with a sprinkle of random chance of a short season and it's not shocking that Goff might have better ypa running. Now, just to be 100% abundantly clear: I am NOT saying that Mahomes is a better QB than Goff or that I'd prefer Mahomes or that I'm questioning Goff or any other nonsense.

How much you wanna bet Rodgers retires after this year because he doesn't want to be part of a rebuild. He wanted to go to a contender and now the Jets aren't that so...

Lions need to win by at least 5 points on Sunday. If they do that they will have as high a point differential against the AFC South as the rest of the NFC North combined.

True... again, as long as we keep winning there's no issue. But the other problem with the Eagles is that we can zero control over them. For example, let's say we lose of our games between before week 18 and the Vikings win out. We still face them in week 18 and a win gets us the division so obviously the Vikings couldn't leap frog us to the #1 seed. But if we lose a game in the division and the Eagles win out that we don't have the option of playing them to knock 'em down.

The Lions are in complete control of their own destiny right now... just keep winning and the #1 seed is there for the taking. That said I certainly won't mind seeing some other NFC teams lose to give ourselves some cushion. Our biggest threat right now are the Eagles at 8-2. They're in a weak division with the 'Boys and the Giants. They are playing at the LA Rams for the Sunday Night game. This'll be easy to root for Stafford to win here. At 5-5 the Rams are not a real threat. Right behind the Eagles are of course the Vikings at 8-2. I consider the Vikings a lesser threat than the Eagles because we beat them once already and the next game is in our house. Plus is seems to me the Vikings are dropping down a bit. Yes they've won three straight but it was just an 8 pt win at home over the Colts. At Jacksonville won by just 5 and didn't score a TD. At Tennessee they got a solid 10 point win... but the Titans are bad so just 10 points doesn't seem like a convincing win. Vikings face the Bears in Chicago Sunday at 1. Threat #3 on the list is the Packers at 7-3. Packers host the 49ers Sunday at 4:25. Rounding out the rest of the "danger" list imho are: Commanders at 7-4: They host the 'Boy Sunday at 1:00. Falcons at 6-5: Bye this week. Cardinals at 6-4: Traveling to Seattle, 4:25 on Sunday. So, who to root for this week? Rams, Bears, 49ers, _____ , Seahawks (Sorry, I just can't root for the Cowboys right now... even knowing that it would help us.)