Detroit Lions Offseason Thread 2023

[buddha]

Just now, 1984Echoes said:

Bridgewater is probably holding out for a starting spot, even if he's a (pardon the pun) bridge to another QB like Richardson just for example. Even though the Lions look playoff bound, I think we are a second choice "type" of team compared to a starting gig, if he can get one.

the only way he gets a starting job is if someone gets hurt in training camp.

[1984Echoes]

12 minutes ago, buddha said:

the only way he gets a starting job is if someone gets hurt in training camp.

Who's the starter for the Colts' while Richardson learns?

[buddha]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

Who's the starter for the Colts' while Richardson learns?

richardson.

[KL2]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

Who's the starter for the Colts' while Richardson learns?

Minshew

[Mr.TaterSalad]

If Bridgewater wanted to start isn't staying in Miami his best option given how fragile Tua is?

[MichiganCardinal]

The problem with him wanting to be a starter is that he’s not exactly durable himself.

[Motown Bombers]

The Lions showed interest in Mason Rudolph before. He's a free agent now. He was 5-4-1 as a starter for Pittsburgh. He's perfectly adequate. Bring him to compete with Sudfeld. Problem solved. 

[KL2]

2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

If Bridgewater wanted to start isn't staying in Miami his best option given how fragile Tua is?

they signed mike white

[RedRamage]

17 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Lions showed interest in Mason Rudolph before. He's a free agent now. He was 5-4-1 as a starter for Pittsburgh. He's perfectly adequate. Bring him to compete with Sudfeld. Problem solved. 

I think I'd prefer Bridgewater to Rudolph... but we're talking backup so it probably won't make a huge difference. Honestly I'm not two knowledgeable on either guy so I'm talking a little out of by butt but I feel that Bridgewater is closer to being an NFL starter, so I'd prefer to have him just in case we need him. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[RedRamage]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Hmm... odd that they made that request.  Maybe there's a good percentage of Bears fans who travel to KC?  Southern Illinois ain't too far from KC.

[RandyMarsh]

23 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Hmm... odd that they made that request.  Maybe there's a good percentage of Bears fans who travel to KC?  Southern Illinois ain't too far from KC.

Idk I think the Chiefs draw monster crowds regardless of traveling fans but I have no reasons of my own so I guess it's possible.

You would think it would be in their best interest to have the "home" game that is being played on a neutral field be the easiest opponent possible since you are less likely to need the actual advantages of playing at home against them. 

[KL2]

2 hours ago, RedRamage said:

Hmm... odd that they made that request.  Maybe there's a good percentage of Bears fans who travel to KC?  Southern Illinois ain't too far from KC.

Maybe they think they can easily work over the Bills and believe a better team would be the optimum choice oversees hoping jet leg gets em. 

[Motown Bombers]

Drafting Hooker will change these rankings. 

 

[Motown Bombers]

By the time he's ready to be a starter, he'll be the same age Goff was this past season. 

[Shinzaki]

I was hoping for Jacoby Brissett...but he signed with Washington.  Back up QB and K are the really glaring issues...K less so

[RedRamage]

55 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

By the time he's ready to be a starter, he'll be the same age Goff was this past season. 

Just to be 100% clear here... I'm am NOT saying that the Lions are or should be grooming Hooker as Goff's replacement. However, I think it's worth noting that in just about every discussion I remember seeing here the talk of getting another QB was because:

• a new QB might be more mobile in a league where mobile QBs seem to be increasingly important.
• a new QB would be cheaper than what Goff is projected to make in a couple of years
• a new QB would provide depth in case there was an injury to Goff or a regression of Goff's play

I don't recall anyone saying that Goff is too old now or would be too old in a couple of years to be an effective QB. I anyone did argue that I'd say they were dead wrong. We've seen very effective older QBs so I'd say worrying about Goff being too old at just 28 is silly. Now if he was 35 or so then you might start worrying about regressing skills or that he might be thinking retirement. But not at 28.

[Motown Bombers]

24 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Just to be 100% clear here... I'm am NOT saying that the Lions are or should be grooming Hooker as Goff's replacement. However, I think it's worth noting that in just about every discussion I remember seeing here the talk of getting another QB was because:

• a new QB might be more mobile in a league where mobile QBs seem to be increasingly important.
• a new QB would be cheaper than what Goff is projected to make in a couple of years
• a new QB would provide depth in case there was an injury to Goff or a regression of Goff's play

I don't recall anyone saying that Goff is too old now or would be too old in a couple of years to be an effective QB. I anyone did argue that I'd say they were dead wrong. We've seen very effective older QBs so I'd say worrying about Goff being too old at just 28 is silly. Now if he was 35 or so then you might start worrying about regressing skills or that he might be thinking retirement. But not at 28.

I never said anyone said anything about his age. I'm remarking how old he is and in that article Campbell mentioned his upside was being a starter. Based on the time table Campbell set, that likely won't happen until he's 27, the same age Goff was at the beginning of last season. 

There was an odd obsession for a backup to a QB that missed zero playing time and Hooker won't even solve that problem. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

I know we drop random names every time there are perceived "contract troubles" or "cap issues" with a team and ask should the Lions go after X player. Lamar Jackson, Tee Higgins, DeAndre Hopkins, Jeffery Simmons, etc. This one though, I'd consider very seriously if I were the Lions and that is Jets DT Quinnen Williams. I'm sure the Jets won't be trading him anytime soon, but in the off chance they were, I'd absolutely give up a boatload of draft capital to get arguably the best interior pass rusher in the league not named Aaron Donald.

It won't happen, but I can dream.

[TP_Fan]

PFF blows. 

[Motown Bombers]

At least they got the Detroit -Seattle debate right. 

[RandyMarsh]

I don't get the Giants love, I didn't look into their offseason that closely so maybe they added pieces that I'm forgetting about but even so it would need to be alot in my eyes cause I felt they were one of those teams that wasnt nearly as good as their record. 

Yeah you could say the same about Minny too but the bottom line is atleast they won 13 games where as NY only won 9.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[MichiganCardinal]

Probably means Detroit will have to sacrifice a home game next year to go international.

[RedRamage]

<Tinfoil Hat Time>

I had a thought this morning. What if the reason that the gambling companies "ratted out" various NFL players was because they were winning too much? Oh, you're going to take a bunch of our money? Fine... maybe we'll just leak to the NFL where you were placing those bets. Let's see how you like that, shall we?

</Tinfoil Hat Time>

Obviously this is just pure conjecture on my part. I have ZERO evidence that this is why it happen. I was just trying to figure out why a betting company would actively try to remove customers. I suppose the other very plausible reason is that it's part of their contact with sports leagues that they will monitor and report on players activity.