Shinzaki Posted October 14 Posted October 14 Branch did something EVERYONE wants to do..slapped those stupid Chiefs upside the head Quote
Motor City Sonics Posted October 14 Posted October 14 10 minutes ago, Shinzaki said: Branch did something EVERYONE wants to do..slapped those stupid Chiefs upside the head he had a whole game to get away with ways to do that. Absolutely idiotic. This could REALLY hurt this team next week. Already thin back there. Quote
Motor City Sonics Posted October 14 Posted October 14 For anyone freaking out over the Lions losing to the Chiefs. The Bills were the best team in the NFL 3 weeks ago. Nearly unbeatable, right. They just lost 2 straight. To the rebuilding Patriots and to a Falcons team that lost 30-0 to the Panthers a few weeks ago. The Eagles just lost 2 in a row - including to the lowly Giants with a rookie QB. I guarantee you that the Eagles and Bills will be on top of their divisions by season's end. It can be an up and down thing. The idea is that the Buccs are red hot coming into this Monday night game, but I have a feeling that the Lions are going to look like they did against Baltimore on Monday night. The Brian Branch thing sure doesn't help, though. Quote
Jason_R Posted October 14 Posted October 14 One thing I do not like about the offense this year is the downgrading of David Montgomery. I believe he is one of the team’s tone setters. If there is a team you really want to bully, you need to have him in the lineup early and often. He only got four rushing attempts against KC. This is not enough. 3 Quote
RedRamage Posted October 14 Posted October 14 2 hours ago, Jason_R said: One thing I do not like about the offense this year is the downgrading of David Montgomery. I believe he is one of the team’s tone setters. If there is a team you really want to bully, you need to have him in the lineup early and often. He only got four rushing attempts against KC. This is not enough. Yeah, it's a bit of a mystery to me why DMo isn't being used as much... now, I will say we don't have a great sample size, so it's possible it's just a matter of the game plan... thinking Gibbs is more effective against this defense. However, the early numbers definitely favor Gibbs. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted October 14 Posted October 14 Before there was Trey Hendrickson, there was Kendall Fuller. Quote
Mr.TaterSalad Posted October 14 Posted October 14 Excellent! The offseason when they had signed Carlton Davis, I was onboard with signing Fuller. He had a better, more productive year than Davis did. Unfortunately, he ended up in the abyss that is the Miami Dolphins franchise and his career went south like a lot of guys do playing for Stephen Ross' franchise. Is Fuller the same player he was? Clearly not. Is he an upgrade over bringing a guy like Vildor back for the 300th time or your average practice squad guy? I think so. 1 Quote
Motown Bombers Posted October 14 Posted October 14 Considering they waived Strickland and didn’t sign anyone to the active roster, it seems to indicate McNeil is coming back this week. Quote
1984Echoes Posted October 14 Author Posted October 14 I still want to trade for a key cornerback. It doesn't even have to be a guy worth a 1st rounder or two. Just someone who is effective in the Lions scheme... Oh, and healthy. I'd rather our season not slide into a downward spiral because we have no secondary left. Just my 2 cents. 1 Quote
Shinzaki Posted October 15 Posted October 15 On 10/13/2025 at 9:54 PM, Motor City Sonics said: he had a whole game to get away with ways to do that. Absolutely idiotic. This could REALLY hurt this team next week. Already thin back there. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPzStnFESxC/?igsh=ZXdoeTF6bzY5bjNz Quote
Jason_R Posted October 15 Posted October 15 54 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: This is a Sheila to Roger call now. Quote
Mr.TaterSalad Posted October 15 Posted October 15 49 minutes ago, Jason_R said: This is a Sheila to Roger call now. That's what I couldn't stand about Martha, Caldwell, WCF, and this organization as a whole before. They would constantly get jobbed and boned by the league and do nothing about it. The batted ball in Seattle, the picked up flag in Dallas, the process of the catch with Calin in Chicago, the 10 second runoff against Atlanta. The coaches, Caldwell in particular, never blew up after those incidents. There was also no indication that the front office or ownership ever went to the league and demanded an explanation, answer, or read the league office the riot act. They just took it and limped along. I think Sheila and Rod need to be demanding answers from Goodell and Ramon George the head of NFL officiating. They need to explain to the Lions organization how and why the call was made the way it was. It need be backed up with evidence to, as much as humanly possible. Quote
Jason_R Posted October 15 Posted October 15 Agreed, but it is one thing to have bad calls go against you. It is something entirely different to have the league office call down to the sideline and, apparently, violate the league’s own rulebook to change a call in favor of a team that is already suspected of getting preferential treatment by the league. This weird $500k bet that the guy thought he won, but then lost, is another very odd factor, especially now that the league is accepting massive advertising money from bookies. This does not smell right at all. Quote
RedRamage Posted October 15 Posted October 15 On one hand: If this was buzzed down to the officials (and this seems more and more likely after it already seemed probable), then this does seem to go against the rules that NFL has setup regarding what's reviewable and what isn't. On the other hand: If this is truly how the rule is written, then the Lions did break the rule on that play and it shouldn't have stood. I'm very conflicted on this as the Lions certainly have been screwed over in the past on things that should have been called but weren't (example: The ball batted out of the endzone vs. Seattle). I generally want the rules to be called correctly rather than an apology after the fact that the officials got a call wrong. But... This is obviously a very obscure rule. But... still a rule. But... is it? What's the actual text of the rule? Does it define what actions a players needs to make to be considered a QB under center or is that open to interpretation? And if it is then I definitely go back to the refs on the field didn't think it was a foul and shouldn't be reviewable. In the end it's just going to end up as one more footnote in Lions history of another controversial thing that (probably) screwed over the Lions. Quote
RedRamage Posted October 15 Posted October 15 2 minutes ago, Jason_R said: This weird $500k bet that the guy thought he won, but then lost, is another very odd factor, especially now that the league is accepting massive advertising money from bookies. This is the least troubling of things in my opinion. I suspect bets like this happen all the time and 99.99% of the time we never hear about them because they don't pay out and/or it's just a off hand news item: "Oh wow, that person was lucky!" It's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that Goff could have the first score. The Lions are a known "trick play" team. They've passed to Goff twice, one leading to a TD. Goff has also rushed for two TDs with the Lions. I think it's far more likely that someone saw the potential huge winnings and took a flyer on it vs. someone leaked that the Lions were gonna try this play. (I mean even if you accept that a leak happened, someone betting on it was still taking a HUGE long shot... Even if the bettor 100% knew that the Lions would try this trick play if they got within 5 yards of the end zone, there's still long odd against: You have to have the Lions get the ball first or prevent the Chiefs from scoring on their first drive. You have to have the Lions get close enough to the EZ, but also not get into the endzone. You have to have the Lions run the play successfully. None of those things are gimmies at all.) Now, the other questionable side of things might be: Did the gambling house call up the NFL and ask them to overturn the play so they didn't lose half a million dollars? Imho: No. First, half a million is probably not a huge amount to a gambling house, and it would likely off set, at least partial, on the far more numerous bets placed on any other player to likely score first. Second, if the gambling houses are in cahoots with the league enough to make calls like these I doubt the risk the exposure on a bet that again seems relatively lowish to me. Third, the NFL didn't just make up a rule on the spot to appease the gambling house. Granted, they may have stretch the interpretation of the rule, but there still has to be some rule that they could fudge this on. And finally, it seems unlikely that the play happens, the gambling house checks and sees that they're going to lose a bunch of money, calls into the NFL, the NFL reviews and then look up the rule book, and decides there's at least enough wiggle room in this obscure rule to overturn, and then buzzes in to the refs within 120 seconds. Quote
Jason_R Posted October 15 Posted October 15 Does anyone know when the bet was placed? Like, was it placed after Campbell’s pre-game conference with the officials? Quote
Jason_R Posted October 15 Posted October 15 “Item 3. T-Formation Quarterback. It is legal for a T-Formation Quarterback to go in motion, whether he has placed his hands under center, on his knees, or on the body of the center. However, it is a false start if the action is quick and abrupt. If the player fails to come to a complete stop for at least one full second prior to the ball being snapped, it is illegal motion.” This rule is confusing and poorly written. Boomer Esiason was confused about it. He made the point that Goff did not put his hands under center, which is one of the three criteria listed above for establishing that you are a T-formation QB. Goff did not do any of those three things. He did remain behind center for a second but never established himself as a T-formation QB as stated above. Was he required to? 1 Quote
4hzglory Posted October 15 Posted October 15 7 minutes ago, Jason_R said: “Item 3. T-Formation Quarterback. It is legal for a T-Formation Quarterback to go in motion, whether he has placed his hands under center, on his knees, or on the body of the center. However, it is a false start if the action is quick and abrupt. If the player fails to come to a complete stop for at least one full second prior to the ball being snapped, it is illegal motion.” This rule is confusing and poorly written. Boomer Esiason was confused about it. He made the point that Goff did not put his hands under center, which is one of the three criteria listed above for establishing that you are a T-formation QB. Goff did not do any of those three things. He did remain behind center for a second but never established himself as a T-formation QB as stated above. Was he required to? He did pat Glasgow on the rear to signal he was going in motion - that would be "on the body of the center". I think it is poorly written, but I think the Lions did violate the rule. The issue IMO is the officials didn't get it right at the time (Like the block in the back on Branch), they conferred and were placing the ball for the extra point, and then conferred again - clearly getting a call from NY which is against the rules also. Quote
RedRamage Posted October 15 Posted October 15 6 minutes ago, 4hzglory said: He did pat Glasgow on the rear to signal he was going in motion - that would be "on the body of the center". I think it is poorly written, but I think the Lions did violate the rule. But the wording of the rules doesn't seem to define what a T-formation QB is. The stuff about touching or hands under center, etc... that's all after the fact. The rule to mean, reads like this: A T-formation QB can go in motion even if he's put his hands under center or touched the center, etc... I do not think this defines or establishes a T-formation QB. There may be some other rules somewhere else that define this and Goff may or may not have been a T-formation QB based on those rules, I dunno. Assuming he was a T-form QB, yes, they broke the rule. However, I would actually argue that the Lions were guilty of a False Start before the play happened. I think Goff's actions were absolutely abrupt and quick, which the rules define as a False Start if done by a T-form QB. Quote The issue IMO is the officials didn't get it right at the time (Like the block in the back on Branch), they conferred and were placing the ball for the extra point, and then conferred again - clearly getting a call from NY which is against the rules also. I think I've said this once here already, but I suspect the NFL would just say: "We didn't review or overturn the call. We did call in to remind the officials what the rule was, but then we stepped back and allowed the refs to make the call as they saw it. It's a technicality imho... even if the replay officials didn't tell the refs: "It's foul, flag it." they certainly gave the impression to the refs that they should flag it. Any time the replay booth is going to buzz in to remind refs the specifics of a rule they're doing it because they thought the rule was called wrong. Quote
Motor City Sonics Posted October 15 Posted October 15 Doesn't matter what was legal or not. IT WAS NOT A REVIEWABLE PLAY AND IT WAS NOT NEW YORK'S CALL TO MAKE IN THAT SITUATION. Not the reason they lost, but it feeds that narrative that the league favors that team. 2 years ago their left tackle false started at least 7 or 8 times and it never got called. it never does with them. penalty-free game, my arse. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.