4hzglory

2 hours ago, RedRamage said:

On a side note (not an onside note mind you), if the NFL had a relationship with the UFL, this would be one of those things where they could have the UFL "play test" the rule change and see how fans like it, how it worked on the field, and how teams game planned around it.

I believe they got this idea from the XFL or some other league anyway 

5 hours ago, LongLiveMaroth said:

Burnes is obviously a good pitcher but that seems like a lot for a 1 year rental.

By trading for him now, they will at least get a draft pick if he leaves.  (He would obviously get a qualifying offer)

13 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I think it's more that the NFL isn't paying them enough to NOT have to work another job. I obviously have zero inside information here, I don't know how much they pay or whatever... but I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of this:

The employer only needs you to work from January to July and only pays you for those months. They don't pay you as much as you'd like to have year round, so you get another job from August thru December. During that Aug-Dec time you're getting out of practice of your Jan-Jul job... you're forgetting details, you're not remembering all the steps you used to take to complete the job... then you come back in January and have to spend part of the time re-learning the old job as well as learning any new twists.

What the employer should do to get the most out of you is pay your year round and during the Aug-Dec you can be reviewing last year's work, making suggestions for improvements, talking with clients to get a good understanding of what they want, learning the new stuff before January, doing some practice runs in December and be 100% ready to go in January. You'll be a much more productive and accurate employee this way (in theory).

The obvious downside here is that the employer has to pay you for 12 months instead of 7. The employer may not see that as cost beneficial... the added cost of those other 5 months doesn't produce enough better of an employee to make it worth it. BUT: Your clients are complaining to the employer that you're not doing a very good job and could using more training and practice. If the employer is a pretty hard successful company and could pretty easily afford to pay you year round and make the clients happier... it seems like the employer is just a cheap bastard.

The average salary is $205k. 
for comparison, mlb umpires make between $150k and $450k and have 9-10 times as many games 

14 hours ago, TP_Fan said:

It was 12 games.  Now we are down to 9 after tonight.  25 percent of what needed to happen to miss the playoffs has happened. 

Or just win 1 game.  If they lose to Minnesota twice in 3 weeks they probably don’t deserve to be in.

7 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

Stupid to downgrade to Schreve over 2m last year 

They actually upgraded to Holton  by letting Chafin go.  AZ had to waive Holton  to sign him.

4 hours ago, Jason_R said:

 

McDermott is melting down. 

It was from 2019-absolutely terrible statement, but not sure why it’s brought up 4 years later 

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

That program has so much institutional inertia that Brutus Buckeye could probably coach them to 11-1. Jon Cooper had to have been a really bad HFC to have struggled like he did.

Cooper coached them to 11-1, just could never beat Michigan 

24 minutes ago, buddha said:

carolina trading two first round picks and dj moore to get bryce young might go down as one of the worst trades in nfl history.

If they took Stroud, it may have been a great trade.  He was incredible today finishing up with a TD drive with 46 seconds right after TB took the lead.

Rookie yardage record 470 yds and 5 TDs

7 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I don't know if I would have done that deal... I guess it depends on if Sweat seemed interested in an extension. I'd hate to pick up a high(ish) pick for half a season. On the other hand if it was a 2nd round pick... we know our history of those.

Like LaPorta and Branch?

10 minutes ago, djhutch said:

That's interesting.  I think it was the switch to zone that helped us against KC in the first game - but that doesn't mean it will work all the time.  Wonder if AG is trying to cover for some injuries & not put his DBs on an island?

I actually remembered wrong-we played more man against Baltimore than we’ve averaged this season.  38.2 pct instead of 20.8 pct.

we played zone only 52.7 pct compared to 75.4 pct the previous 6 weeks 

31 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

What's the reasoning for Arizona being more competitive than were against the Ravens? Did we just play that poorly and have a bad scheme against the Ravens? Did the Cardinals have a better scheme or learn and make adjustments from our game? We beat a mobile QB in Mahomes and then struggled against both Smith and Jackson, is it a mobile QB issue?

There was an article on the Athletic about how we changed our whole defensive ratios for that game.  We played much more zone and blitzed much more against Baltimore (and Seattle) than our season averages.

Seems maybe we focused too much on the opposing offense strengths than our own. 

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I thought Decker was trending towards playing. Did I miss something today?

No you didn’t.  Reports are he, Jackson, and Montgomery are all likely to play

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

And a hobbled Ragnow. Ugh...

Ragnow gets a day off every week.  Nothing new with him.

And  it does look like Decker and Jackson are likely to play.  Won’t know for sure until tomorrow though 

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I'm not sure either are likely to be on the opening day roster as of today. I think they would have to have monster springs for that to happen. Keith especially, he of all of 300 or so plate appearances at AAA, and I think Harris will want to give him a smoother path to onboarding into the majors than just throwing him out there as though he were a 27-year-old non-prospect we need to fill a sudden opening. And since Riley is going to be a full-time DH, I don't see anyplace to put Justyn, either, unless we punt on defense at third, which may not be the best way to onboard him into the majors.

I think Kieth is more likely to for the simple reason that he is a top 100 prospect and has the long shot possibility of netting a draft pick if he would be ROY.   I think they’re likely to bring him north unless he shows he isn’t ready in the spring.  If he shows he is overwhelmed they can always send him down, but they have no chance of the pick unless they bring him north at the beginning or he keeps rookie eligibility through 2024.  If they think he’ll be ready by say June, I think he’s up opening day just because of that caveat.

3 hours ago, casimir said:

 

As for Keith, if he were a serious candidate for next season, why wouldn't they have promoted him for September in lieu of a non entity like Ibanez?  And I guess the same could be said for Malloy, why not he rather than Nevin in September?  I suppose there's still time to promote them, but what are we doing here?  Playing time?  Who is blocking them at 2B and 3B in Detroit now?

I think the bigger thing right now is saving the 40 man spots for flexibility around the Rule 5 time - remember 60 day DL players need to be put back on the 40 in the offseason.  And Harris has shown a desire to have flexibility to claim and then potentially pass through waivers guys as a way to build the organization.  Add that to the few protections we need to make and I can easily see why he wouldn't add 2 guys now who would for sure be staying on the 40 man.

19 minutes ago, NYLion said:

Not like it would happen but if the Jets offer a 5th I take it and run. The Lions are hooped if Goff goes down for a lengthy period of time anyway and Bridgewater is only a couple of month stopgap until Hooker is ready anyway so I'll take the magic bean if the Jets come calling.

@4hzglory you wouldn't take a 3rd for Teddy?  I'd take that and run away laughing maniacally. 

I think some of you value backup QB a lot more than I do. Outside of the one off in Nick Foles, I can't think of any situation where a backup saved the season for a contender. Well, Bridgewater did hold it down for the Saints several years back but they also had a tremendous supporting cast not too different than what the Lions are building.

Sure it's nice insurance to have but if I get something that could potentially be a long term solution in return for Bridgewater, I'm taking it. Go sign Wentz or somebody to replace him, there are proven options out there. This is why I can't see the Jets giving anything of value for Bridgewater, they could sign a similar level guy off the free agent market or just throw all the $$$ at Brady to see if he bites.

Oh, and Garroppolo and then Purdy both saved the SF's season last year.  If Purdy had to come in right away, it is very unlikely they would have been in the position they were at the time he actually needed to play.

13 minutes ago, NYLion said:

Not like it would happen but if the Jets offer a 5th I take it and run. The Lions are hooped if Goff goes down for a lengthy period of time anyway and Bridgewater is only a couple of month stopgap until Hooker is ready anyway so I'll take the magic bean if the Jets come calling.

@4hzglory you wouldn't take a 3rd for Teddy?  I'd take that and run away laughing maniacally. 

I think some of you value backup QB a lot more than I do. Outside of the one off in Nick Foles, I can't think of any situation where a backup saved the season for a contender. Well, Bridgewater did hold it down for the Saints several years back but they also had a tremendous supporting cast not too different than what the Lions are building.

Sure it's nice insurance to have but if I get something that could potentially be a long term solution in return for Bridgewater, I'm taking it. Go sign Wentz or somebody to replace him, there are proven options out there. This is why I can't see the Jets giving anything of value for Bridgewater, they could sign a similar level guy off the free agent market or just throw all the $$$ at Brady to see if he bites.

If the Lions valued Bridgewater as only a 5th round pick, they wouldn't have signed him.  They had all offseason to sign Wentz, Ryan, etc but didn't view them the same way as Bridgewater.   Bridgewater now has a month plus in the system which any new guy would have to learn.  A quality backup that can give the team a reasonable chance is critical to a team with deep playoff hopes/expectations. 

And people need to stop thinking Brady is a viable option for anyone but the Raiders.  His ownership share basically eliminates every other team from signing him unless he sells/foregoes his ownership.

As I said in another thread, it would be so old Lions to trade Bridgewater in the year they are contending only to watch Goff go down and their season be over.

The best the Jets could offer is a 2024 3rd round pick.  No way am I considering trading Bridgewater for that.  Hopefully he never sees the field for the Lions, but they need the insurance this season. 

I guess if the Jets offered Garret Wilson our Sauce Gardner I'd be interested, but there isn't a realistic offer I would trade him for at this point in the season.  Now if Hooker is back by the trade deadline and they are comfortable with his development (I'd be shocked if that was the case so quickly), then I might listen to offers, but the point is to have a viable backup if Goff would go down for an extended time so the Lions' hopes aren't ruined like the Jets are.

14 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Let's be real, there is one QB out there worth the Jets time, that could be expected to both be productive on the field and possibly want to play. And it isn't Carson Wentz.

One who owns a share of the Raiders.

15 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Either do I, I was sorta being tongue and cheek since I know the Lions have no interest in trading him but Im also curious to know if there would be any legit interest and what they would be willing to give up if there was. 

It definitely wouldn’t be a first or likely even a 2nd or 3rd.  I think the go with Wilson and sign someone like Flacco, Wentz, or McCoy to back him up.  They definitely aren’t going past next week with Tim Boyle as their backup 

2 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Wonder what they would give for Teddy?

It would be so old Lions to trade your experienced backup who has learned your system when you are actually expecting to do big things and then see Goff get hurt and your season be over.

I don’t see any way they even consider trading Bridgwater for any realistic value they would get.

20 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I will say one surprising name that I never expected to make the team was former 3rd round bust Ifeatu Melifonwu. I was certain Ife would not make the cut.

Also very surprised they are only carrying two RBs on this team. You'd have to think they are going to pick someone else up as it would be awful risky to knit carry two backs.

Melifonwu and J Okwara are likely going on IR with Reynolds likely resigned 

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

which is why I don't understand limiting it too arbitrary top 100 lists.  

I believe it’s because top 100 prospects were the most likely to be held down at the start of the season for an extra year of control which is what the union was trying to help solve

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

This is a pitchers’ deadline. Teams aren’t paying for hitting. Either way, I think a “pretty underwhelming return” beats a goose egg every day.

Does it for prorated $7 million though?

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

I just don't see Goff playing 2024 with the Lions without an extension. I don't think he is just going to play the final two years and they depart and go their separate ways. 

Hooker said one of the first people to reach out to him was Goff.  And how much we was looking forward to learning from him.

Holmes had said they’ve been upfront with Goff all draft process so this clearly wasn’t a surprise and they are confident it won’t be an issue.  Goff isn’t Aaron Rogers or even Ryan Tannehill who won’t help the backup.