Mr.TaterSalad

Holding, but a nice pass by Goff to get that first down back.

BIG WIN by Jake Browning and the Bengals. Glad to see things working in our favor.

Damn what a grab by Tee Higgins after Browning just through that up.

TJ Lang and John Jansen gave what I thought was a great breakdown of what went wrong for the Lions in the Bears game. TJ I thought had some interesting critiques of Ben Johnson and the play calling both in that game and throughout the season. He raises some interesting points and questions about Ben Johnson's use of both Jamo and Gibbs.

One of my favorite shows on TV, Austin City Limits, with one of my favorite artists in music today, Jason Isbell, performing one of the best songs of 2023, King of Oklahoma. Yes, Isbell is country-ish but if you like good music, great songwriting, and incredible guitar playing, King of Oklahoma live on Austin City Limits is for you.

Bill Belichick is OUT in New England after the season and will not return as Head Coach.

Guy was an interior decorator.

Oh I listen to them both. Valenti has bothered me a lot lately though with his "Michigan should get the death penalty" hot takes. Matt Dery's Locked On Lions podcast is another good listen.

First off, comparing what Hamas did, as brutal and barbaric as it was, to the scale of what Hitler did is not comparable. I do believe Hamas should be stopped and I don't want them to exist. But October 7th and the holocaust are not on scale with one another. Hitler was out to exterminate an entire ethnic and religious group of people. The United States and allied forces had to stop the holocaust and the civilian lives lost there were terrible, but it was done in the name of saving millions of people from being erased from the Earth. You can point out that's what Hamas wants to do to Israel and that is true. But the response have to involve some level of proportionality to the war crime committed. Second, I would have never invaded Afghanistan and tried to occupy the country as we did. That was a mistake in my mind. I would have gone after the Al-Qaeda camps and key figures behind the 9/11 attacks. But I would have not tried to topple the Taliban and spend 20 years trying to force a government onto people that don't even identify themselves fully as Afghani people and identify more with their tribes and religious sects. Occupations throughout history have often failed, like the Soviet one in the 1970s. Third, it's my understanding that when Japanese Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki took office in April 1945 he and Emperor Hirohito wanted to surrender, but several high ranking Japanese military generals did not. It is also my understanding that Japan wanted to keep its empire but Truman did not want that. I'm not enough of an expert or historian to concretely know whether or not the bombs should or should not have been dropped. There is a part of me that wonders if the US had negotiated to let the Japanese Empire stay in fully place, not just keep figurehead status, could that have ended the war without the bomb being dropped. Could we have demonstrated the power the the bomb nearby Japan without dropping it on densely populated areas. Again though, I'm simply not enough of an expert or historian to answer that question concretely.

The point I'm trying to drive home is that you can both condemn Hamas and at least hope for some what of a proportional response from the IDF. You can't sit ideally by and blame all civilian causalities on Hamas, just as you can't blame them all on the IDF and Israel. I don't think you can simply say if they would simply surrender this would end. We all know it isn't that simple. I believe at some point that there gets to be a number of civilian casualties where we have to universally call for a cessation. It isn't just the far left that believes this either. Emmanuel Macron and the French government believe this as well. They too called for a ceasefire in Gaza. Are Macron and the French government wrong? They aren't a bunch of far leftists.

I think what Hamas did is brutal and barbaric and have stated that here a dozens of times. I asked this question earlier and it went unanswered. How many civilian deaths is allowable as a proportional response to what happened on October 7th. Please give me a number. 20,000? 40,000? 60,000?

I'm not going to respond to this in the way I want to respond because it's just going to turn this into an ugly conversation. No sense in either one of us resorting to that kind of a conversation as it won't solve anything and will just get carried away eventually.

Why can't we place conditions on military aid to Israel? We can condemn Hamas and work with Israel to defend itself while not writing them a blank check to do anything they want. Why is that so taboo?

I want all of what you said to happen and happen ASAP. I want Egypt to open it's northern border. I want Jordan and Lebanon to take in Palestinian refugees. I want our government and the Biden Administration to continue to place pressure on those countries to open their borders up to Palestinians. In-regards to the idea that we can't do anything, I disagree there. We know damn well when this is all said and done that Netanyahu and his government are not going to allow for a two-stale solution. We know they aren't going to let the PLO or any entity govern Gaza as a Palestinian state. We know he isn't going to stop his military campaign either until he wipes out Hamas, no matter the count of civilian causalities. The one thing we can do is place conditions on the military aid we offer to Israel. Conditions around a two-state solution, more targeted campaigns, allowing for more humanitarian aid to get in, etc.

Sure, I would love it if Hamas unconditionally surrendered. That works for me, but of course we know that won't happen. So in the meantime, what do we do as the US government? Do you believe we should keep sending military aid over to Israel without conditions placed on that aid? Sending aid over knowing that Bibi won't support a two-state solution when the IDF is through with its campaign. And if we should keep sending Israel military aid without conditions, how high do we let the death toll get before we start placing conditions on that aid?

Well great, Bibi is going to do what he wants. And in response to Bibi, how high is the United States going to let the death toll get in Gaza before we put conditions on military aid to Israel? 20,000? 30,000? 40,000? 50,000? 100,000? Think I'm being snarky or sarcastic with those numbers, just look at what we did in Iraq, to Iraqi civilians. That shock and awe, bomb them to rubble, then fight them door-to-door approach is exactly what the IDF is following here. And the death toll will continue to escalate quickly, just as it did in cities like Baghdad and Fallujah.

So I talked to my mom about this whole situation last night at dinner with her. My mom is your run of the mill Democrat. She always votes in every election and always votes for Democrats. She's progressive, but not socialist or DSA. More in the Warren lane of the party. She consumes her news primarily from MSNBC, the Today Show, Meet the Press, This Week on ABC, 60 Minutes, Time Magazine, and through articles online. She doesn't read or get content from any of the super lefty news sites like Democracy Now, the Intercept, Jacobin, Counter Punch, Salon, etc. She's not on Twitter ever and rarely on Facebook. Keep in mind that her first husband and his family, not my father, were Palestinian and Arab-American. I asked her what she thought about the situation, trying to limit my opinion and bias as best I could, to gauge how she truly feels as a run of the mill, mid-70s, white democratic women. She believes all of the following . . . 1. What Hamas did on October 7th was wrong, barbaric, and was a terrorist attack that should be strongly condemned. 2. Isreal has a right to fight back against Hamas but they have gone too far and are becoming an occupying force like the United States was in Iraq. 3. Israeli settlements are a significant concern that don't get the attention and condemnation they should. 4. Isreal is bordering on a genocide and needs to pull out of Gaza to allow humanitarian relief to come in. 5. While Hamas is cowardly and uses human shields she believes that the Isreali government is not being discriminate enough with their bombing campaigns. She's also upset at them bombing southern Gaza now after declaring that a safe haven weeks ago. 6. She doesn't understand why Joe Biden won't call for a ceasefire and why we give aid with out condition to Isreal. 7. She'll vote for Joe Biden but feels he has handled this situation poorly and with not enough regard for Palestinian life. She is saddened at the massive loss of life and feels that Biden won't call for Isreal to back down. She feels this is the worst moment of his presidency far and a way. I asked her if she thought this was a failure on Biden's part and she said a fairly stern yes to that question. 8. She understands why people call this a genocide and are angry at Biden but that in the end, Trump would make the situation far worse. She feels Biden is trapped in a box but could do more all at the same time. As a progressive, but not leftist, older, suburban white woman, I think that mom is fairly representative of a big portion of the average democratic voting block. She thinks Biden is increasingly on the wrong side of his party on this one and needs to show more concern overall to the Palestinian cause. She said dating back from the years she was married to her first husband Esa, whose family was Palestinian, opened her eyes up to their side of the story more than normal.

I like Ben Johnson a whole heckuva a lot. He has been far and away the best Offensive Coordinator we have had since I've been alive. I believe this Jared Goff and this offense have and will continue to thrive most of the time under Johnson's playcalling and leadership. So this isn't a slam Ben Johnson post. But he isn't immune from criticism either. I've noted earlier in the season, in previous gameday threads, a bit of my frustration for them surrendering early downs on occasion by running in second and long. By going for a more conservative run play or a pass that doesn't or barley reaches the chains instead of stretching it out vertical a bit more. I don't think this is quite the problem some people seem to think it is. All and all, I agree with a large majority of what Ben Johnson calls and gives this offense to work with. He's done an outstanding job at times and at minimum been a good play caller all around. You mentioned though that they need to figure out how to spread the ball around more to other weapons. Isn't that on Ben Johnson though, at least to a point? Him not getting Jamo more touches and worked into this offense in different ways? Johnson is designing and calling plays for where he wants the ball to go. Jamo doesn't seem to be getting a lot of looks. Maybe there is still a trust issue with the coaching staff, maybe timing with Goff, maybe Goff doesn't feel he has adequate time in the pocket lately to allow plays to develop and Jamo to go deeper. We were also told and lead to believe Gibbs would be an offensive weapon, not just a strict bell cow RB 1. A guy who is moved all around the field, set in motion, and lined up out wide. Isn't it on Johnson too for not lining Gibbs out wide or in the slot more often? I guess there have been 3 games this year where Johnson did line Gibbs up out wide and they targeted him at least 6 or more times. Isn't it on Johnson for not utilizing more two back sets with him and Montgomery in the game at the same time? What is the snap count where we see two back looks where both Gibbs and Montgomery are in on the same play? It doesn't have to be both men in the backfield, but put Montgomery in and send Gibbs in motion or line him up out wide. And to the apparent fact, at least according to what the Pride of Detroit guys said on their podcast, isn't it on Johnson that the Lions have the 4th fewest passing attempts on early downs?

They were talking about it more in the context of the Bears game and recent games I believe, not the totality of the season. To add to this, they also mentioned the Lions apparently have the 4th fewest passing attempts on early downs. Which to some, highlights a more conservative nature and playcalling approach. In the end though, all is not lost and the sky is not falling. This has still a 9 win team after all. This is still a team that has yet to lose back-to-back games this season. This is still a statical top 5-10 offense in the league. This pillars of a good team are still there and I do expect them to bounce back quickly next week and shake it off, even if it seems like many of us are fretting and doubting this team and coaching staff a lot these past few weeks.

I was listening to the Pride of Detroit Lions podcast today and they brought a good point that is similar to what TP always bitches about. This offense uses 1st down and 2nd down in hopes to make 3rd down more manageable so that it's easier to get the 1st down then. They don't seem to like to be aggressive and go for the 1st down shot on 1st down itself. Things have to be more methodical and conservative to help set up 3rd down. They were expressing their frustration with the lack of creative playcalling on early downs and the inability to stretch thy field with Gibbs, Jaymo, etc. Goff and Ben Johnson seem far more comfortable, to the point of detriment at times, going dink and dunk and making 3rd downs manageable as opposed going for the kill shots and stretching it out on early downs. This isn't them or anyone saying Goff can't go deep, but a point I think that I agree with and one that lines up with a lot of TPs complaints.

I'm a huge fan of almost anything A24 Films puts out. I watched Good Time over the weekend and really enjoyed it.

I guess Tommy DeVito had the makings of a varsity athlete.

That's a pretty big advantage to have when one team can threaten to have a ref clipped if he makes the wrong call or reverses a TD call.