Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content Count

    22,444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

105 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. RedRamage

    Lou Whitaker's Hall of Fame Candidacy

    I very much agree with this point, and I think it extends beyond baseball too. If Tram was going to get into the Hall, I really don't see *any* reason to keep Lou out. I think the committee will eventually put Lou in, but why in the heck didn't they do them it together? I don't think one could honestly look at Tram and say "Yes" but then look at Lou and say "No." I'll certainly hear arguments that neither belongs, though I personally believe that both belong. But I think the number of people who would argue that Tram, and ONLY Tram belongs in the Hall are very few and far between. So why did the committee not put both in together? And now on a completely different note: I hate that there's such a thing as "First Ballot Hall of Famer." I hate that a player might be considered Hall worthy, but not the first time he's up for a vote. That's dumb and stupid, but it also isn't going to go away anytime soon, and because of that you have people like Lou who get dropped off way to early. The fix, imho, is to simply make it necessary to get below the threshold of votes two years in a row. Maybe even bump up the threshold percentage a bit if you're worried that not enough players will get dropped off the list, but make it two years in a row that it has to happen.
  2. Neither will I.... because I made a thread about it. *checkmate*
  3. Do you still have the mustard from that game?
  4. No, you're wrong Shelton. 8 year old news, in and over itself does NOT qualify as a RR thread. See a RR Thread is one that goes in depth in minutia of a topic and explores the many different possible motivations or situations surrounding said topic. If this thread were to examine what financial gain Joyce may have obtained by being biased in his call of a game... and how much that gain may or may not have been... and compared it to other possible "conflict of interest" motivations on the league, as well as in other leagues, then it would be more correct to term it an RR thread. But this thread is short, sweat, and most importantly: to the point without a lot of fluff. Honestly calling this a RR Tread is like calling a ferry boat from St. Ignace to Mackinac Island a cruise ship. They are both water craft and they are both involved in transporting people from one plot of land to another, but that's where the similarities end. A cruise ship is MUCH more elaborate, and while is it transporting people, that's only a small part of it's primary mission. In the same way, both this thread and an RR-thread are started by me and are used to pass information to the general readers here, but the similarities end there. This thread was just about conveying an interested factoid that I discovered today. While a standard RR-thread might also include one or more interesting factoids, the primary purpose of such a thread is significantly more elaborate. At this point, I feel it only appropriate that you issue a written retraction and an formal apology.
  5. Just an interesting bit of trivia I stumbled across today. Did you know that there was an MLB rule that barred Jim Joyce from umpiring any game in which team that has Armando Galarraga on the roster plays? But it's probably not for the reason you'd think it might be. The rule was put in place in place June of 2011 after Galarraga and Joyce, along with author Daniel Paisner, released a book called "Nobody's Perfect" that of course deals with the Near Perfect Game. According to MLB this makes them business partners and so to avoid any appearance of impropriety Joyce was replaced with someone else whenever his crew was scheduled to ump a game where Galarraga was on the roster (whether Galarraga was playing or not). http://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=6617450
  6. RedRamage

    What exactly does this team need?

    In defense of the "It takes time" comment, when this was happening there was an important aspect that isn't in play now: Huge rookie wages. That is a very big difference now vs. when the Lions were picking right at the top. I'd say it's easier now to rebuild faster. Now, that's only PART of the conversation of course and doesn't fully explain things. Assuming the Browns really have turned it around and this isn't just a flash in the pan, they probably would still have been more successful than the Lions after their 0-16 season. Likewise, put Mayhew/Schwartz in a situation without huge rookie wages and they probably aren't as successful as the Brown appear to be right now. But, I do believe it's worth pointing out there is at least one big mitigating factor.
  7. RedRamage

    What exactly does this team need?

    I'm not sure that anyone will defend Stafford's 2018 year... he definitely didn't have a great year. I don't think he's significantly over paid right now... but another year or two like last, and I'll very much agree. But the argument is morphing if we're starting to talk about pay in relation to performance on the field. Is 20% of the cap too much for a QB? I'd say it's definitely on the edge if not past it. But I find it odd that you seem to argue this is too much give a QB yet argue that the QB is most important and a significant reason of why a team wins or loses. For the record, I think that... Is Stafford an All-Pro QB? No, but he's better than many other starting QBs right now. Is Stafford the reason the Lions are losing? The easy answer: Because this is a team game, yes, he is part of the reason. But a more nuanced answer: Before 2018 - mostly no. Last year, yes he didn't play as well as he should. Is Stafford overpaid? Right now, I'd say no given that he's only had one bad year. What he's getting is the going rate for 'good' QBs. This will of course change is he has more bad years.
  8. RedRamage

    What exactly does this team need?

    Well, lemme open my list if CJ excuses and add that to it... In all seriousness, you are correct in that a QB has more responsibility and therefore more blame for a loss and more credit for a win. BUT... more =/= all... or even most of the responsibility. I dunno if I could even make the claim that the QB is 50+% responsible for the offense's performance, let alone the whole team. There isn't a player on the team who is individually more important to the over all success of a team than the QB, but just like a pitcher on a baseball team, that doesn't mean they are the end all be all. If the OL doesn't block well, the QB won't have time for plays to develop. If the running game stinks, the opposing defense will focus on the QB much more heavily. If the receivers can't hold onto the ball it doesn't matter what the QB does. If the OC is stupid, it makes the QB that much less effective. Is the QB more important? **** yes! But even if he's 15 times more important than every other starter on the field (and discounting coaching) that still means Stafford is about 41% responsible for a win or a loss. That's what we're all trying to say when we say football is a TEAM game. 10 Starters on offense outside of the QB 11 Starters on defense 2 kickers 15 points for the QB 100 / 37 = 2.7% responsibility per unit x 15 units for the QB = 40.54%
  9. RedRamage

    What exactly does this team need?

    The problem is that CJ was HIGHLY overrated. The guy never won a playoff game, never won a division, was never in a championship game, and had a pretty bad record against good (ie, .500 or better) teams.
  10. It's kinda like those jokes about cross-fitters or vegetarians... How do you know if someone posting in a Lions fan forum has "moved past" the Lions? Don't worry... they'll tell you. I don't blame anyone for giving up on the Lions. They probably are the smarter ones than those of us who stay loyal. But I seriously question anyone who has "really moved" on if they constantly post in a Lions forum or talk to Lions fans and make a point of mentioning how they aren't Lions fans anymore. It kinda feels like that ex who has to constantly remind you how over you they are and how much better life is now without you and blah blah blah... if you're over it, great. Why do you keep talking about it then?
  11. RedRamage

    Lions not playing an international game.... GOOD!

    I agree for the most part. Now, *IF* the Lions were on it, would you watch? I think I'd be interested to watch it. I have zero interest in watching it for another team though.
  12. RedRamage

    Lions not playing an international game.... GOOD!

    Maybe... I don't think it would be all that interesting to viewers outside of the hardcore NFL fan, who'd watch the show no matter which team was picked, and Lions fans, which are probably not a HUGE segment of the population. I don't know if there really are any compelling national level story lines with the Lions right now.
  13. RedRamage

    2019 Offseason + Free Agency Thread

    Well, I'd probably "cheat" by looking only at the play in question. I mean, the rule (as I understand it) is that anything the refs see when reviewing a play is "legal" to bring into question. So in this example, the Saints throw a flag and say: This was clearly a PI. The booth then looks at the two people involved in this play around when the play in question happened. If you don't look at the OL and DL smashing into each other, you won't see there there was hold. That might be being a bit intentionally ignorant, but it's not any different than what happens already. If I'm reviewing if a RB fumbled before he was down or not, I'm not looking at the complete play and all 22 players to see if anyone did something else illegal prior to that, I'm just looking at the fumble. Next, is there ticky-tack hold clearly evident? Personally, I'd argue that by definition ticky-tack infractions are NOT clearly evident or they wouldn't be ticky-tack. But, yeah, if they review a play and there's BLATANT PI on a defensive back, but then they notice right before that there's clear evidence that the receiver pushed off (just not as blatant as the PI), then you call off setting penalties. The offense doesn't lose a TO because the call (ie: there was no penalty on the play) was overturned cause now we're calling a penalty. But the offense does lose one of their allowed challenges.
  14. RedRamage

    2019 Offseason + Free Agency Thread

    Reviewing if a penalty should have been called. (Edit to add:) And yes, I agree that there's probably a penalty on nearly every play, but some are more blatant then others. If we can go back to the rules/idea that there needs to be clear visual evidence to overturn a call, then the "probably a penalty on every play" becomes less of a concern because even if you could call one, you won't necessarily because it's probably a penalty, but there isn't clear visual evidence of it. Add in that coaches are limited and they aren't going to throw the flag every time there's a holding and the other team gained three yards because of it. It just isn't worth the risk.
×