Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content Count

    22,465
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

107 Excellent

About RedRamage

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 12/05/1971

Converted

  • Location
    GR, MI

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This would have been a great idea for August when the Tigers are all but eliminated from the playoffs... when fan involvement is waning as football gears up... This would be a nice gimmick to get me to watch a game that I might otherwise not be that into. For the two or three week into the new season? Terrible idea.
  2. If you feel like you're seeing a lot more strike out by Tigers' pitchers early on in this season than you're used to see, you're not wrong. So far in 10 games Tigers' Pitchers can accumulated 99 strike outs... very nearly 10 K's per game. I looked back thru the first 10 games of previous seasons to 2013 and every one had lower -- often much lower -- K's per game: 2018: 7.2 Ks per game 2017: 7.4 2016: 6.9 2015: 5.9 2014: 7.7 2013: 9 As you can see we didn't even get close to the current rate until 2013. Now, part of that, you might say, is because of the one awesome strikeout game by Boyd. And that's true. 13Ks by Boyd, and another 2 each from Farmer and Jimenez, plus one more from Greene. 18Ks in that game. But even if we wipe out that game and just look at the other 9 the Tigers are still averaging 9Ks per game, which ties the previous high in the last 6 years. Please note: I'm simply reporting on the numbers here because it seemed to me that strikeouts were way up and I wanted to check if that was really the case. I'm certainly not saying that I expect (nearly) 10Ks per game average to extend through the whole year. Nor am I trying to indicated that this is a good or bad thing. I think you could make the argument either way.
  3. It's interesting, but it doesn't sound like they were even really close to anything. My guess is that it was something like: "Hey Patricia, would you be open to trading Stafford if we came up with the right package?" "Hmm... ya know what... yeah, I'd entertain offers. Lemme know what you're thinking." "Well, we're just check who would be willing to trade right now, we'll get back to you if we decide to make a push for him."
  4. That seems to make no sense to me. If "no one" liked Patricia you'd think the guys who knew him the best (ie, former Patroits) would be the least likely to want to sign here.
  5. So here's the question: Has there every been a game where a pitcher threw a complete game and only faced the minimum number of batters, but did NOT get a perfect game? In other words, the pitcher either walked or allowed hits, but any base runners were erased off the bases (like caught stealing, thrown out trying to stretch a hit into extra bases, double play, or picked off). My guess is given the huge number of games played that this probably happened at some point, but just curious.
  6. And almost every team doesn't win the super bowl each year as well. Maybe it's time to NOT be like every team!
  7. Well, sure... but do we really believe that anything any NFL teams says this time of year is 100% truthful?
  8. Ziggy would actually be a decent depth guy for a team... I mean a team other than the Lions. I don't want to sign him, but if I was another team I wouldn't be afraid to sign him to a low contact as a depth guy. He'd be a nice guy to have like low second or third string level... potentially lots of talent if he stays healthy, but not someone you were considering a major building block if he doesn't.
  9. Points 1&3: But again... they HAVEN'T used a ton of 1st rounders on TE... it's only when you include OL that the number jumps really high and we're not talking about OL here... just TE. If we include DL and TE we get to the same number. TE alone has been selected twice in the first round in the last 13 picks. That's still higher than I'd like, but I'm not sure why you keep lumping in OL and inflating the numbers. Point 2: Let me put it this way: If you could go back in time and draft Gronk in the first round, would you? I totally agree with your comments that Quinn should look at past history as a guide and see that good TEs are regularly found later in the draft and that it probably isn't wise, or necessary to use the 8th over all on a TE. But I also believe that some TEs were probably worth of an 8th over all pick, even if they didn't get it. Again, a hypothetical question: If some weird space-time fluke happened and Gronk, fresh out of college, were entering this years draft and was available at number 8th... given that we KNOW how successful he was in the NFL (which, granted, was in part because Brady was throwing to him), would you spend an 8th over all pick on him? Even given that the Lions previously busted on Pettigrew and Ebron? This is the point I'm trying to make: IF Quinn and company are convinced that this new guy is the second coming of Gronk (or insert favorite HOF caliber TE here), if they are 100% sure, then they should take him there. Now, I'm firmly of the opinion that it's exceedingly unlikely that whoever they take will end up being that big of an impact player and so I hope they don't do that. BUT: I'm also not a NFL GM. I want Quinn to make the best moves and the best move might end up being a TE. If Quinn takes a TE at 8... well, I'll certainly hope that I'm wrong. If I'm not, I will absolutely use remember this as a time that he got it very wrong and it will drop my opinion of him and potentially lead to my wanting him fired (not that Martha's regularly checking my opinion, but anyway). But I will have this opinion because he picked a player with a very high draft pick that didn't pan out. I won't have this opinion because he picked a TE when the two previous TE picks the previous Lions GM selected in the first round didn't work.
  10. Not sure if commenting on my scathing rebuttal or my complete destruction of the English language.
  11. Blue part: Disagree for a number of reasons: The Lions HAVEN'T done this. They've taken a TE twice in the first round in the last 12 first round picks, with the 12th one being Pettigrew. They haven't their 1st round on the same position over and over. Even allowing for the fact that 1/6 of first round picks is still a pretty high chunk, the two previous picks were made by a completely different front office and the current front office shouldn't make their decisions based on what previous front offices did. You certain can and SHOULD spend on the same position over and over *IF* it makes sense to do that. *IF* the front office firmly believe that this is the next Gronk, then they absolutely should if TE is a need (which it is). This part I agree 100% with you on and it's why I hope they DON'T use the 8th over all on a TE. In my humble opinion, this is a much more compelling argument and one with discussing far more than trying to paint people who might want (or at least not be upset by) a TE as "Ebron" or "Pettigrew" lovers. Well, we might need to avoid drafting DL then... if we draft a DL player that'll mean we spent 4 of our 13 1st round picks on since the Stafford Era started on just ONE position group.
×
×
  • Create New...