Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RedRamage

  1. I can just see the Lions offering a new GM position to someone and the guy goes: "Well... I just don't know. I mean, I like the money, I like the city... I think I can really build something great here.... everything is good for me... but... geez... not having a 6th round pick in the 2021 draft? That's sorta a deal breaker. Sorry..."
  2. The difference here is clear evidence that the ball carrier did not intend to go further. (Don't ask me how we have clear evidence... it's my hypothetical... I can make the rules!) In your examples it's all cases where the ball carrier welcomes the additionally yardage. Edit to add: The crux of the question might be the intent though and the inability to determine it. My hypothetical is perhaps a fun thought experiment, but the reality is that it's rarely ever each to know the full intent, or to determine what should happen as a result of intent. It's easy to say the ball carrier did not intend to go backwards, so defenders picking him up and carrying him 5 yards in the wrong direction is obviously not what he wanted. But forward progress is a different animal. 99% of the time (if not more) the offense wants forward progress. Trying to determine in those rare occasions when the player may NOT want progress is pretty darn hard, so instead of intent, just look at what happens. Did the player put his knee down? Yes? Okay... he's down. Did he not? Okay, then forward progress is marked where the ball or knee did come down.
  3. What I'd like to know if how Golladay wasn't ruled a defenseless receiver on the catch at the 1-miunute mark of this video.
  4. That brings up another interesting questions.. does the NFL have a rule about this? I mean, obviously you can't pick up a guy and carry him backwards... the ball carrier gets forward progress. But what happens if Gurley, for example, stopped at the endzone... I mean clearly wasn't trying to go over, but before he could take a knee a defender "tackles" him from and pushes him into the endzone? I don't know if we've ever seen that in a game, but I'm SURE there has been instances were defenders shoved/tackled a ball carrier out of bounds when he was trying to stay inbounds to keep the clock running.
  5. I don't think that's necessarily true. The "good news" if you're looking for the Quintricia to get the ax is that we end up against GB, Tennessee, TB, and Minny. It's entirely possible that we end the season with a 4 game losing streak. Now, if we'd faced this "lowly" section of teams at the end, then maybe, but there's still time for the team to fail.
  6. Honestly, I can't remember seeing it that often or paying attention enough so my memory of events is not a good source of information here, plus I wouldn't put it past the NFL to have different rules in the final two minutes. Look, I don't want to make too big a deal of this. I assume that they would put the time on. It seems the logical thing to do and I feel like I've probably witnessed it in games. I'm not trying to say that the NFL won't do it. I was just wondering out loud. Given my status as a Lions fan nothing surprises me too much anymore. In my jaded state it wouldn't shock me if the NFL has some weird rule that in this exact circumstance time was not allowed to added back on.
  7. Well, it shouldn't be in imho (putting time back on the clock if they reverse a catch to an incomplete catch), but just because I think a certain rule makes sense doesn't mean the NFL does.
  8. You are correct. They couldn't challenge that. Still would have been fun to see. (And on a side note: I hate that the coaches aren't allowed to challenge in the final two minutes. I'm fine with allowing the replay booth to challenge plays, but I think coaches, if they have challenges left, should also be allowed to do that.)
  9. I remember that... thinking why the heck are you mentioning this? A FG does no good.
  10. Giving credit where due... I think this was handled the right way. I understand the necessity of the replay booth having to wait until the last second to buzz in as you don't want to give the offense an extra TO. And I think it was explained correctly why a 10 second run off what's done. That's only done with an overturned ruling changes a stopped clock to a running clock. Now on a side note: I wonder if they have overturned this call... would they have put time back on the clock? I think they should have as the clock should have stopped as soon as the ball would have been called incomplete.
  11. I honestly expected to see Atlanta challenge the call. How odd would that have been? Seeing a team challenge their own TD to try and get it reversed?
  12. -- as a Professional. Because... I dunno... maybe he played some game between when he finished college and the Lions drafted him?!?
  13. Yes please!! Same thing every week. Either the ST coaching staff is unable to get Agnews to stop doing, or they are too stupid to tell him not to do it. This is just unacceptable to me. 2nd Qtr: 2 yards deep, tackled at the 21. 3rd Qtr: 3 yards deep, tackled at the 14. Two run out attempts that risk fumbles and/or penalties for a net gain of.... negative 13 yards. Just cause I felt like, here's Agnew's season summary: Week 1: Two times taking it out of the endzone, net +10 yards. (Yes, actually passed the 25 twice!) Week 2: One attempt: -2 yards Week 3: Two attempts: -7 yards Week 4: Two attempts: -5 yards Week 5: Bye Week 6: No attempts Week 7: Two attempts: -13 yards I mean if he was breaking for a big gain every now and then... doesn't even have to be a TD... just a good 20 or 30 yards beyond the 25 once every other game, then it's probably worth the risk and the few lost yards on the other attempts. But this isn't happened. Except in the first game against the bears he has NEVER even gotten tot he 25! He's got a net +/- on kicks offs this year of -17 yards. I wouldn't say that's awful, but it's still negative which means over all he's hurting the team when he tries to take it out of the endzone. Now add in the risk of a holding penalty and the possibility of a fumble and it goes from a bad idea to a horrible one. Unless the opposing team is known for giving up lots of yards on kick offs I would tell Agnew to never leave the endzone with the ball.
  14. There was actually some things to like about this game... the defense actually showed up. Of course, this is against a 1-5 team so let's not go overboard with the praise.
  15. I suspect there would be a little higher value for Stafford. Cam Newton is part running back, part QB... so there's going to be some durability questions there. I think Newton had the higher ceiling, but I think teams probably feel his drop off will be higher as well. He's on the wrong side of 30 for his RB portion of his career. A pure throwing QB like Stafford, in theory, can have a much longer career. As for Dalton, he was never considered a high level prospect like Stafford. Regardless of what their actual stats have been, Stafford was a more highly thought of player. Dalton wasn't even a 1st round pick while Stafford was 1st over all, and no one really questioned if he deserved that spot. For that reason I think Stafford will get the benefit of the doubt... some will say his lack of playoff success is a team issue, not a QB issue and with the right team he'll be just fine. Now, having said all this I think the value for Stafford will be higher, but not considerably higher. There's no way we'd get one first round pick for him, let alone two. I think a 3rd is a remote possibility, but probably a 4th honestly.
  16. I think we're all of the camp that Quinn-Patricia are locked in with each other at this point, yeah? I mean, unless Quinn steps up and says: "I was wrong to hire Patricia, I'm sorry... but I need to fire him." -- and I just don't see that happening. When Patricia goes, so goes Quinn. So, what's the advantage of firing them mid-season? I don't see a problem with firing a coach mid-season if the GM is likely to stay on. Then you can do some things like: Evaluate an intern HC (usually one of the coordinators) and see if he might be a viable candidate. See if players respond differently to a different voice. Determine if quality of play changes under a different scheme or if a player still stinks until both options. Let the GM start doing some back-channel discussion with prospective HCs (which of course never happens in real life because it's against NFL rules). But in a situation where the GM is almost certainly gone as well you don't get some of these same benefits... or rather, you could get them, but the observations of the results would not be seen by the new GM (unless that GM came from within the system). You could start some back-channel discussion with prospective GMs I guess... so that would be one advantage... but I don't know how big an advantage that would be. TL;DR: I don't see any real benefit to firing Patricia and Quinn now vs. at the end of the year.
  17. I'm not sure if it's Agnew's fault or the ST coordinator, but I as SOOO sick of seeing him rush out kicks from the endzone. Every time he does that he risks a fumble or a holding penalty and for what? What does he gain by running it out? Twice in the first qtr he ran it out and didn't even make the 25 yard line.
  18. That is probably the most accurate way to of breaking down why one lost and one won. I mean, the Cards didn't punt until how late in the game? If we assume even just one of those INTs turned into a TD than the Lions are driving to tie the game with a TD instead of winning with a FG at the end. Now, kudos to the defense for getting the INTs but given that they had zero INTs in the first two games and now get three, I feel part of it was due to a young QB rather than a good defense.
  19. As a general supporter of Stafford, I agree that he didn't have a great game. He wasn't horrible or even bad, but he did make some mistakes. A number of passes were a bit off. I'd say this was just a decent game for him, nothing fantastic, but would not have been the first place I pointed if the Lions lost this one.
  20. Getting in here first: When the Lions lose this one, I just want y'all to know it's Stafford's fault.
  21. I put little faith in things like this. It reminds me of the whole Joey Harrington situation where supposedly Millen didn't want him, but 'Weg did. And then later 'Weg didn't either, but Ford overruled them both... I very strong suspicion is that various people liked various players to varying degrees. Maybe Patricia really did want Derrick Brown... but recognized that Okudah was better choice. Maybe Player Personnel people did like Tua but were aware that secondary is a bigger need. I find it highly unlikely that Patricia didn't like Okudah at all and that Player Personnel didn't like Okudah at all, but Quinn (I'm guess here... who else would have the say?) stepped in a grabbed a guy that both his coach and his scouts didn't want.
  22. So... how many points do the Packers need to spot the Lions for this to be competitive? Honestly, knowing the Lions, they'll win this one handily, which will get way too many of us excited and hopeful again, only to lose the next 5 games.
  • Create New...