Week Seven: Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5-1) @ Detroit Lions (4-2)

[sagnam]

Baker Mayfield let the ref know he was frustrated with “questionable” calls

 

As he should be. There were some weird sequences out there. It’s frustrating that the makeup calls came against the Bucs. The Chiefs were the beneficiaries of the BS last week, they should be the ones to pay the price.

[sagnam]

That’s being said the interception was in interception. And they review should have automatically looked at the spot even through the challenge was for possession. Shouldn’t have need a second review to get it right.

[Hongbit]

How many pass plays did we run last night where Goff dropped back and easily looked to his first option because the call was ideal for the situation?   It’s the NFL and the percentage of this happening is probably only 30% normally but they were way below that last night.   

Edited October 21 by Hongbit

[Jason_R]

49 minutes ago, sagnam said:

Baker Mayfield let the ref know he was frustrated with “questionable” calls

 

As he should be. There were some weird sequences out there. It’s frustrating that the makeup calls came against the Bucs. The Chiefs were the beneficiaries of the BS last week, they should be the ones to pay the price.

I thought the ill-fated Evans pass was a catch. Was surprised replay didn’t rule that way.

I thought the Wheat sack was probably a trip. But these things are hard to catch in real time and what’s the difference between a trip and running while being shoved by a 300 pound OP? I am not in favor of giving Park Avenue more latitude to intervene in calls like that, just like I am OK that they did not intervene on the illegal contact not called on the 4th down throw to TeSlaa. Win some, lose some. 

[Tigeraholic1]

53 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

I thought the ill-fated Evans pass was a catch. Was surprised replay didn’t rule that way.

I thought the Wheat sack was probably a trip. But these things are hard to catch in real time and what’s the difference between a trip and running while being shoved by a 300 pound OP? I am not in favor of giving Park Avenue more latitude to intervene in calls like that, just like I am OK that they did not intervene on the illegal contact not called on the 4th down throw to TeSlaa. Win some, lose some. 

He will get fined for the trip, bad no call for sure.

[KnoxP]

4 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I complained about Glenn back in 2022. I didn't necessarily want him fired back then, but I did feel that Aubrey Pleasant got scapegoated for a lot of Glenn's defensive breakdowns and coaching mishaps. Glenn's risking being a one and done in New York if he doesn't get a win here soon. His team looks like they are immature and undisciplined. He looks the same way as a Head Coach. As bad as the early Lions teams were under Campbell, I don't think you could say those things about Campbell or his team. It was simply an issue of talent on the field.

Glenn’s also in a significantly different position than Campbell was when he got here. It was SOL and acceptance that Quinntricia did much more harm than good. We knew the huge job that was needed. NY is a different animal and expectations were for some immediate “success” even if the roster is as bad as ours was back then. Signing Fields and now benching him looks like he’s clueless. He took the job and told A-Aron to pound sand. He owns this.

[Dan Gilmore]

Did Glenn, or the front office get Fields? I know an incoming coach can have some bargaining power in determining players, but that would usually be to an established coach, not necessarily to a first time one.

[Motown Bombers]

Jets fans all say it was Glenn. Probably because Fields used to torch the Lions defense on the ground. 

[Sports_Freak]

On this 4th down play, not enough credit was given to St. Brown for giving Gibbs a tush push like boost to get the 1st down;

 

[KnoxP]

57 minutes ago, Dan Gilmore said:

Did Glenn, or the front office get Fields? I know an incoming coach can have some bargaining power in determining players, but that would usually be to an established coach, not necessarily to a first time one.

Hey DG, I can’t answer your question, although I would like to believe it was a shared decision since he was signed after the infamous ARogers meeting.

[Jason_R]

3 hours ago, sagnam said:

Baker Mayfield let the ref know he was frustrated with “questionable” calls

 

As he should be. There were some weird sequences out there. It’s frustrating that the makeup calls came against the Bucs. The Chiefs were the beneficiaries of the BS last week, they should be the ones to pay the price.

I listened to moving the chains earlier on SiriusXM. They had Todd Bowles on and asked him if he feels he has been getting clear communication from officials. He said, basically, we are getting whatever communication they are getting from New York. He did not seem to pleased about the state of officiating these days, but then again he was not too pleased about the loss.

[sagnam]

I don’t mind the assistance if it’s all the time. I do mind if it’s inconsistent. Either have someone with replay ability to help all the time or stay out of it. There is no in-between.

[MichiganCardinal]

Paralysis by over-analysis is a natural consequence of the degree to which the NFL has chosen to rely on replay. The point of replay should be to fix obvious mistakes, not re-litigate every single play.

There has to be a balance between wanting to get the calls right and understanding that if a fraction of an inch seen only by a 8x zoomed super slow motion replay costs someone a game, they didn’t do enough anyway.

I’ve said before, I’ll say again. There needs to be a hard cut-off point on replay. After a challenge is thrown and the Referee goes to the monitor, Replay gets 60 seconds to review the play with him. Don’t even make it a full media timeout. When those 60 seconds are up, all feeds to both the monitor and replay cut off. If you don’t have definitive evidence that it should be overturned, the call stands.

[sagnam]

1 hour ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Paralysis by over-analysis is a natural consequence of the degree to which the NFL has chosen to rely on replay. The point of replay should be to fix obvious mistakes, not re-litigate every single play.

There has to be a balance between wanting to get the calls right and understanding that if a fraction of an inch seen only by a 8x zoomed super slow motion replay costs someone a game, they didn’t do enough anyway.

I’ve said before, I’ll say again. There needs to be a hard cut-off point on replay. After a challenge is thrown and the Referee goes to the monitor, Replay gets 60 seconds to review the play with him. Don’t even make it a full media timeout. When those 60 seconds are up, all feeds to both the monitor and replay cut off. If you don’t have definitive evidence that it should be overturned, the call stands.

I actually prefer the expedited booth review. No need to stop the game at all. It just needs to be consistent. And I agree with the fraction of an inch. We only care about placement when it’s near the first down marker. I really want the chip stuff to be operational.

[MichiganCardinal]

1 minute ago, sagnam said:

I actually prefer the expedited booth review. No need to stop the game at all. It just needs to be consistent. And I agree with the fraction of an inch. We only care about placement when it’s near the first down marker. I really want the chip stuff to be operational.

Yes agreed. No issues with that at all. A lot of the time those can get fixed without disrupting the flow of the game at all. Thats a-ok with me.

[sagnam]

10 hours ago, Jason_R said:

I thought the ill-fated Evans pass was a catch. Was surprised replay didn’t rule that way.

I thought the Wheat sack was probably a trip. But these things are hard to catch in real time and what’s the difference between a trip and running while being shoved by a 300 pound OP? I am not in favor of giving Park Avenue more latitude to intervene in calls like that, just like I am OK that they did not intervene on the illegal contact not called on the 4th down throw to TeSlaa. Win some, lose some. 

He didn’t survive the ground as they like to say. He caught it and would have kept possession sans injury. As it was, when he hit the ground the ball got dislodged. It’s just not a catch with the rules today. I’m actually not against it either. I’d prefer this version than allowing anyone with two hands on the ball to be considered in possession. Same with the bobbles going out of bounds. Make it a requirement that they have it firmly before granting possession.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motown Bombers]

It seems like Sheppard is better at scheming than Glenn was. 

 

[Sports_Freak]

Campbell admits it was a bad challenge;

[4hzglory]

30 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Campbell admits it was a bad challenge;

I wonder if he's being coy, as if he came out and said "Our guys needed a break and this gave us longer than a time out with a microscopic chance of something being found to overturn the play" the league would begin to look into the policy.

[MichiganCardinal]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

With all the talk about trading for an edge rusher, I’m far more worried about this. I wouldn’t be shocked if they put him on IR, hoping they can get him right before the playoff run. But even that’s probably not a guarantee.

My honest guess is that he needs surgery, has needed it since before the season, but getting it done would knock him out the rest of the year. So he’s putting it off and has X number of games he’s able to play in until his body gives out and it absolutely has to be done.

I wonder if Orlando Brown Jr. (Bengals) or Kolton Miller (Raiders) or even Andrew  Thomas (Giants) might be a surprise deadline trade.

[Motown Bombers]

Miller just signed an extension so I don’t see him as a fit. The Bengals still fancy themselves as a contender so I doubt they move Brown. The Giants will probably want to keep Thomas with a rookie QB. 

[Sports_Freak]

2 hours ago, 4hzglory said:

I wonder if he's being coy, as if he came out and said "Our guys needed a break and this gave us longer than a time out with a microscopic chance of something being found to overturn the play" the league would begin to look into the policy.

They should look into these challenges that take 5 minutes or more. I thought there was a 1 minute limit on the replays?

[Motown Bombers]

 

[holygoat]

On 10/22/2025 at 12:39 PM, MichiganCardinal said:

With all the talk about trading for an edge rusher, I’m far more worried about this. I wouldn’t be shocked if they put him on IR, hoping they can get him right before the playoff run. But even that’s probably not a guarantee.

I agree, but teams generally don't move good O-linemen. If they can even get a serviceable-to-good older vet, though, I'd feel much better going forward.