MichiganCardinal Posted October 6 Author Posted October 6 Lions should probably top some power rankings this week. Four straight wins by 8+ points, none particularly close. Quote
sagnam Posted October 6 Posted October 6 1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said: I'm not looking for anything from you. You replied to me. Use the ****ing ignore button if it's that bad for you. I don't give a ****. Same. I’m willing to engage in a conversation though because that’s what this whole thing is for. I’ll continue to call you on your exaggerations too. Feel free to block me if you need. That will only reenforce how fragile you are, given your admitted need for a victory lap. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted October 6 Posted October 6 1 minute ago, sagnam said: Same. I’m willing to engage in a conversation though because that’s what this whole thing is for. I’ll continue to call you on your exaggerations too. Feel free to block me if you need. That will only reenforce how fragile you are, given your admitted need for a victory lap. You're the one getting all bent out of shape with me for some reason. I think the fragile one is you. Quote
lordstanley Posted October 6 Posted October 6 8 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said: Lions should probably top some power rankings this week. Four straight wins by 8+ points, none particularly close. I think they will, yes. But despite the loss to Denver yesterday I still consider a Philly #1, as their 4 wins - while by narrow margins - have been against the Cowboys, Bucs, Rams and Chiefs. That’s more impressive than Bears, Ravens, Browns and Bengals. 2 Quote
sagnam Posted October 6 Posted October 6 9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: You're the one getting all bent out of shape with me for some reason. I think the fragile one is you. I’m actually not mad. Just pointing out a pattern of false narratives that are being put forward. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted October 6 Posted October 6 The Eagles offense is not good. Barkley is only averaging 3.2 yards per carry, they are 31st in passing yards and 25th in rushing yards per game. Their receivers are not happy. This Eagles team looks the one from two years ago that went 10-1 and then finished the season 1-5 and lost in the playoffs. Quote
sagnam Posted October 6 Posted October 6 3 minutes ago, lordstanley said: I think they will, yes. But despite the loss to Denver yesterday I still consider a Philly #1, as their 4 wins - while by narrow margins - have been against the Cowboys, Bucs, Rams and Chiefs. That’s more impressive than Bears, Ravens, Browns and Bengals. Agreed. The Ravens are objectively bad. This team can beat those same teams the Eagle have, but they have to do it first. Quote
Nate7474 Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Just now, lordstanley said: I think they will, yes. But despite the loss to Denver yesterday I still consider a Philly #1, as their 4 wins - while by narrow margins - have been against the Cowboys, Bucs, Rams and Chiefs. That’s more impressive than Bears, Ravens, Browns and Bengals. We haven’t faced a team outside of week one that is playing good football right now. I want to see how we match up over the next couple weeks against the Bucs and Chiefs before I say we are a Super Bowl contender this season and that week one was an early season fluke. Mind you I think it was a fluke and we are legit but I understand the hesitancy on these power rankings to put us at 1 right now. Quote
lordstanley Posted October 6 Posted October 6 18 minutes ago, Nate7474 said: We haven’t faced a team outside of week one that is playing good football right now. I want to see how we match up over the next couple weeks against the Bucs and Chiefs before I say we are a Super Bowl contender this season and that week one was an early season fluke. Mind you I think it was a fluke and we are legit but I understand the hesitancy on these power rankings to put us at 1 right now. Same here, and expanding that to the next 5 games - broken up by the bye - should be even more revealing. In order of difficulty, in my opinion, the Lions will have to play: - @Eages - @Chiefs - vs. Tampa -@Washington -vs.Minnesota I'd be satisfied with 3-2, thrilled with 4-1, can't see 5-0 happening. Quote
Nate7474 Posted October 6 Posted October 6 37 minutes ago, lordstanley said: Same here, and expanding that to the next 5 games - broken up by the bye - should be even more revealing. In order of difficulty, in my opinion, the Lions will have to play: - @Eages - @Chiefs - vs. Tampa -@Washington -vs.Minnesota I'd be satisfied with 3-2, thrilled with 4-1, can't see 5-0 happening. I always felt like when looking at this schedule that 12-5 would be a good result. We got by the Ravens which I thought would be a loss. I had us going 4-2 in the division which I think should be very doable still. The Packers game was more about how we looked in the loss more than the actual result that raised some red flags for me. Quote
RedRamage Posted October 6 Posted October 6 1 hour ago, sagnam said: Same. I’m willing to engage in a conversation though because that’s what this whole thing is for. I’ll continue to call you on your exaggerations too. Feel free to block me if you need. That will only reenforce how fragile you are, given your admitted need for a victory lap. 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: You're the one getting all bent out of shape with me for some reason. I think the fragile one is you. I think both of you need to take a small step back here. Nothing wrong with spirited debate but we're very, very close to crossing the line into insults here. 1 1 Quote
RedRamage Posted October 6 Posted October 6 1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said: The Eagles offense is not good. Barkley is only averaging 3.2 yards per carry, they are 31st in passing yards and 25th in rushing yards per game. Their receivers are not happy. This Eagles team looks the one from two years ago that went 10-1 and then finished the season 1-5 and lost in the playoffs. Jalen Hurts certainly hasn't been fantastic on my fantasy team this year, but I'm still with Stanley here... they've beat better teams, overall, than the Lions have. Combine that with being the SB champs, if it's the 4-1 Lions vs. the 4-1 Eagles I'm siding with the Eagles until I've proven wrong. That NOT me staying that the Eagles are a better team than the Lions because we don't know at this point. There aren't even any "common opponents" to compare... which of course can be a flawed way to compare teams, but it's at least some data points to go with. Quote
Motor City Sonics Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Win/Loss is less important to me than finishing in the postseason with a 3 or 4 game winning streak. 1 Quote
Motown Bombers Posted October 6 Posted October 6 The Eagles don’t pass the eye test. They can’t run the ball with Barkley and they can’t pass. They had no business beating a Rams team who just lost to a depleted 49ers team. Quote
RedRamage Posted October 6 Posted October 6 1 hour ago, Nate7474 said: We haven’t faced a team outside of week one that is playing good football right now. I'll add in that we played some sloppy ball against some of those teams too. I think we were mostly solid against the Bears and Ravens, but definitely did not play our best ball against the Browns and Bengals. If we play solid against the Chiefs I think we can win because they aren't quite playing top notch either, but if we play sloppy the Chiefs will make us pay. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted October 6 Posted October 6 The Lions beat a Browns team by 24 points that beat the Packers the week before and that was sloppy and hanging 52 points on the Bears is solid. The Eagles, who had to beat the Rams on a field goal block, are the team to beat. Quote
RedRamage Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Looking at the stats from the game on NFL.com and 13 Bengals are credited with at least one solo tackle. 34 total solo tackles are given out. Ja'Marr Chase accounts for 8.8% of the solo tackles. Quote
RedRamage Posted October 6 Posted October 6 5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: The Lions beat a Browns team by 24 points that beat the Packers the week before and that was sloppy and hanging 52 points on the Bears is solid. The Eagles, who had to beat the Rams on a field goal block, are the team to beat. If you want to play that game: The Lions lost to a team that lost to the Browns! If beating a team that beat the Packers is a good sign, then losing to a team that lost to the Browns must be a bad sign, right? Opponents records: Eagles: 14-9-1 Lions: 9-14-1 This is imperfect of course, but if you look at that it certainly seems like the Eagles have faced stronger opposition. Add in that they are the previous seasons SB champs and that seems to me that it's fair to say the Eagles appear to be the better team right now. On the flip side: The Lions, on offense, have more passing yards, a higher completion %, higher yards per pass attempt, rushing yards, and yards per carry. However the Eagles and allowed fewer passing yards and ypa passing but the Lions have few rushing yards allowed and fewer yards per attempt... so the stats seem to favor the Lions. But then you and look back at the opposition faced and question if the Lions better stats are just because they've played lesser teams so can run the score up more? All in all it's hard to judge when they haven't gone head-to-head... even worse that they're no common opponent and that they have identical records. Right here, right now at this moment... yes, I'd say the Eagles are the team to beat. 1 Quote
RedRamage Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Did any one see or hear what the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on the kicker after the safety was for? The announcers made it seem like it might have something to due with where the kick landed and that it was "outside the setup zone," but I don't think those rules apply on a free kick after a safety. It was very confusing to me and I didn't hear any real explanation for it yet. Quote
Sports_Freak Posted October 6 Posted October 6 3 hours ago, sagnam said: And it was never about glorifying Ben Johnson. It was about questioning the unknown. Wondering if the transition from offensive assistant to offensive coordinator was going to work for Morton. That’s not a dig on him either, lots of people are good at one job and not at the next level. Nothing wrong with that at all. They are different jobs with different responsibilities. Take Schwartz for a Lions related example. Even if he never takes another head coaching job he is a terrific defensive coordinator. Was before the Lions and still is after. He was just an ok head coach. Had some pretty serious flaws but also had strengths. I bet Schwartz would have been a much better coach if he had a Holmes bringing in a massive amount of talent. Campbell is a fine coach who really motivates his team but there are many coaches who could take the talent that Brad brought in and win big. But those two really seem to work really good together and, as fans, we're lucky to have them. Quote
RedRamage Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Should have googled first... Found this article: https://www.prideofdetroit.com/detroit-lions-analysis/144650/detroit-lions-bizarre-safety-kick-penatly-cincinnati-bengals The short version: For a onside kick the ball needs to go AT LEAST 10 yards, but under the new rules it also can't go (untouched) BEYOND the setup zone. There's a minimum distance AND a maximum distance. The kick went to the 46, which is just beyond the max distance. This makes sense as the kickoff rules "lock" most of the receiving team's players into a certain area so it wouldn't be as fair to allow the kicking team to just boot it as far as possible and try to out run the other team. 1 Quote
Sports_Freak Posted October 6 Posted October 6 26 minutes ago, RedRamage said: If you want to play that game: The Lions lost to a team that lost to the Browns! If beating a team that beat the Packers is a good sign, then losing to a team that lost to the Browns must be a bad sign, right? Opponents records: Eagles: 14-9-1 Lions: 9-14-1 This is imperfect of course, but if you look at that it certainly seems like the Eagles have faced stronger opposition. Add in that they are the previous seasons SB champs and that seems to me that it's fair to say the Eagles appear to be the better team right now. On the flip side: The Lions, on offense, have more passing yards, a higher completion %, higher yards per pass attempt, rushing yards, and yards per carry. However the Eagles and allowed fewer passing yards and ypa passing but the Lions have few rushing yards allowed and fewer yards per attempt... so the stats seem to favor the Lions. But then you and look back at the opposition faced and question if the Lions better stats are just because they've played lesser teams so can run the score up more? All in all it's hard to judge when they haven't gone head-to-head... even worse that they're no common opponent and that they have identical records. Right here, right now at this moment... yes, I'd say the Eagles are the team to beat. Agreed. The Eagles are a very solidly team. Losing to Denver doesn't take away from the fact that they are a well coached team that has a very good roster. And Barkley....😅 Quote
Motown Bombers Posted October 6 Posted October 6 2 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said: Agreed. The Eagles are a very solidly team. Losing to Denver doesn't take away from the fact that they are a well coached team that has a very good roster. And Barkley....😅 Barkley is only averaging 3.2 YPC. The Eagles receivers are openly complaining. The offense is not good. They needed a blocked FG to beat a Rams team who hasn’t beaten anyone, and they almost blew it against Tampa. I mean if we are going to say the Lions were sloppy on a 24 point win and solid after hanging 52, do the same with the Eagles. Quote
Sports_Freak Posted October 6 Posted October 6 12 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Barkley is only averaging 3.2 YPC. The Eagles receivers are openly complaining. The offense is not good. They needed a blocked FG to beat a Rams team who hasn’t beaten anyone, and they almost blew it against Tampa. I mean if we are going to say the Lions were sloppy on a 24 point win and solid after hanging 52, do the same with the Eagles. The Eagles are the defending Super Bowl champions. They're the best team in the NFL. Teams playing them bring their A game against them, it's been that way in the NFL for years, teams looking to knock off the defending champs. Quote
sagnam Posted October 6 Posted October 6 3 hours ago, Sports_Freak said: I bet Schwartz would have been a much better coach if he had a Holmes bringing in a massive amount of talent. Campbell is a fine coach who really motivates his team but there are many coaches who could take the talent that Brad brought in and win big. But those two really seem to work really good together and, as fans, we're lucky to have them. I don’t know, maybe? I think Schwartz and Campbell are both super emotional, but Campbell can keep those emotions under control. It’s possible that Schwartz would have just been a little too unstable for a head coach. Maybe. Again, just guessing here. Campbell has fire but he’s somehow got it under control too. That’s a huge advantage for a leader. 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.