Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content Count

    22,522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RedRamage

  1. Without necessarily agreeing with Sports Freak, a bad HC might still be a great DC or OC. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but... a player who would be considered a poor defense SS might be a superb defensive 1st baseman. To piggyback on SF's comment about putting players in a position to succeed, the same could be said about coaches. Now, having said that I don't know that I agree that the Eagles coaches are much better. I think it's easy as fans of any team to rip on your coaches because you see them all the time and you know the players well. You see all the little "mistakes" while missing the opposing coaches mistakes. It's too early for me to say if Patricia is a good HC or not. He's definitely made mistakes, but every coach does, especially rookie HCs.
  2. Thoughts, opinions, rants? I'm not high going in, but the Eagles have had a lot of injuries.
  3. https://www.thepowderblues.com/forum/forum/los-angeles-chargers-forum-nfl-forum-padres-forum/the-los-angeles-chargers-forum/828239-bolts-vs-lions-ugly-analysis-week-2 This is an interesting thread on the site. I've only read the first couple of pages, but what I find interesting is that the fans there are talking about the mistakes that the Chargers made with little credit given to the Lions for the good execution then did on those plays. For example: Now, I'm not trying to call out the author here because we, as Lions fans, do the same thing... and probably fans of any sports team the world over do the same thing. We all have a tendency to blame bad plays on our guys messing up without giving credit to the other team for doing well. Maybe Davis didn't stay clean to shed the blocker because our guys just did a better job this play? On the flip side of this, some times we might just need to tip the cap to the opposition when the Lions get beat on a play too. Obviously there are legit instances where the Lions obviously screwed up too, but sometimes it wasn't that the Lions didn't do their job well... just that the other team did it better.
  4. Week 20: Vikings: 7.3 Raiders: 6.8 Giants: 6.5 Cowboys: 6.3 49ers: 6.2 Chargers: 5.7 Ravens: 5.5 Bears: 5.3 Titans: 5.1 Colts: 4.9 Jags: 4.9 Seahawks: 4.5 Bills: 4.4 PAck: 4.4 Texans: 4.2 Rams: 3.8 Broncos 3.8 Pats: 3.6 Falcons 3.4 Lions: 3.3 Bucs: 3.2 Saints: 2.9 Dolphins: 2.8 Washington: 2.8 Eagles 2.3 Panthers: 2.1 Cards: 1.8 Chiefs: 1.4 Bengals 1.3 Steelers: 1.1 So, 3.3 is on the low side of average. Not as good I guess as I thought 3.3 is bad, but not terrible either. I mean, if you can get 10 yards on three carries, that's good enough to keep moving the sticks
  5. It's obviously early yet, but I agree. I think it's been decent. I'm enjoying the play-action more and even throwing in the occasional designed Stafford rush to keep the defense guessing. We'll have to see how it develops over the year, but right now it's good.
  6. Here's another positive: Passing attempts: 30 Rushing attempts: 28 I like to see that balance. Now, the average isn't great, but 3.3+ ypa isn't horrible either.
  7. Normally I'd say no... but when it comes to the Lions and obscure NFL rules... I wouldn't put it past them to get themselves into a situation like that.
  8. I'm purely guessing here... but maybe Harrison was being subbed out because they needed/wanted faster DLs who could contain/chase Murray? I 100% agree on your second point. One more 1st down in the 4th qtr seals the game.
  9. If the Lions declined the penalty it would have been 4th and 1. They accepted it so it was 3rd and 14, but then got a "Big Play." This was beginning of the 4th qtr, Cards down 24-9. The only think I can think of is that they assumed the Cards would go for it on 4th and 1 and figured they would have a better shot 3rd and 14. EDIT TO ADD: I think I see the confusion... When I said it was 4th and 2 (which actually it was 4th and 1) I meant that was what it would have been if they DIDN'T accept the penalty... not that that was down-distance at the start of the play. Yeah, there's no reason in the universe to accept the penalty if they didn't convert on 4th down.
  10. While I personally agree, I'm not going to fault anyone too much. TDs are rare-ish things (especially for Lions players!) so if they wanna celebrate (and "ball dropping" is a form of celebrating) then I don't have anything too much against it.
  11. I thought the coaching staff made a number of mistakes yesterday. There was at least one (and I think there was another too) where the Lions accepted a penalty that gave the Card's another chance. The one I'm remember had them at 4th and 2, but there was a formation penalty which pushed them back 5 yards, but gave them another chance, which they promptly converted. I also feel like both defense and offense went into "prevent" mode too soon in the game. But I think the biggest problem was the OL. Not enough protection for Stafford often, and very look push in the running game, especially short yardage situations.
  12. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27559625/raiders-release-brown-tumultuous-tenure For the record, I do NOT want the Lions to pursue him, at least not right now.
  13. I dunno... I hate to penalize for a lost review because sometimes I think it does come down to a judgement call and the refs can be wrong... but I suppose we're already penalizing to some level because of loss of timeout. And really if it was just the coaches challenges, I don't know that it would be a big deal. I mean, at max that's 6 challenges a game. If we did have central monitoring, held it to a strict 2 minutes of review time, and eliminated many of the "automatic" reviews to just those were it's questionable, and maybe limit those to 30 seconds. I also hate the official review in the final two minutes. Just let the coaches be able to challenge during that time and don't treat it any different.
  14. My guess is because you don't want to have a lot of game tape of what you might do in those situations... make it harder for opposing teams to guess as your plays. The obvious response to that is: "Well then, just run a different play that what you'd do if the game mattered!" Which leads right into the obvious response to the obvious response: "If you're not running the play(s) you would during the regular season, are you really practicing what you'd do in the regular season? And if you aren't, why are you trying a 4th and 5?"
  15. I agree that many of the rules seem to benefit the offense these days. As for replay, I think the biggest problem is that it's not being used as it was originally intended. Replay was supposed to be for those plays where it was pretty clear that the officials blew the call. I don't think it was ever intended to see if a player's foot was 3.7 millimeters out of bounds or if the ball carrier dropped the ball 1/2 a inch before his knee hit the ground. To me, replay should be: "Oh yeah, that call was way blown... sorry 'bout that, let's reverse it." Instead it's become: "Hmm... from this angle it appears that knee ISN'T touching the blade of grass... but from the other angle it does appear that it might be... Can we see if his finger tips are still on the ball after that blade of grass if moved? Let's see if we can get a fifth angle on it..." Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a way to fix it. As cameras get better and we get more angles, fans are gonna complain about nitpicky "maybes" instead of being willing to accept: "Okay, the play on the field stands unless there is a way obvious evidence that it's wrong."
  16. Anyone know what this feud is about? Verlander had the Astros keep Anthony Fenech from getting into the clubhouse for "several minutes" after the other reporters were let in. By the time he came in Verlander had finished talking to the other reports. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/mlb/tigers/2019/08/22/justin-verlander-responds-dispute-tigers-beat-writer-heats-up/2083984001/ Verlander tweeted about it twice:
  17. I was reading the DetNews story on Verlander shutting out the Freep writer from the clubhouse (which is probably another thread worthy discussion), but in that article was this line: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/mlb/tigers/2019/08/22/justin-verlander-responds-dispute-tigers-beat-writer-heats-up/2083984001/ Now I'm sure we've all been guilty of recency bias in the past and the Tigers have been around for a long, long time. But it's a fair question I think... is there any previous Tiger pitcher who have the stats and accomplishments to stand up to Verlander's time in Detroit? Now, obviously there is no WS ring from Detroit... getting it in Houston doesn't count. But this is a team accomplishment, not a personal one. About the only guy I can think of who in the same discussion is Hal Newhouser.
  18. Okay, first off, please read this story: https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2019/8/21/20826925/oday-aboushi-blindside-block-rule-clarification-detroit-lions It's important to understand the new rule and how it's applies and why the NFL is doing it. I understand a desire to make the game safer and I'm generally in favor of that even if it at times does seem to "wussify" the game. And honestly I get why the NFL is trying to do here... blocks where the opposing player can't see them coming can be quite shocking. But, the way this rule is implemented just doesn't make sense. The block in question here isn't what one would normally worry about as a "blindside" type block. Yes, the OL man was going towards his own endzone, but he was completely squared up on the defender who was going almost directly towards his own endzone. This was no more of blind side block than if the two were facing each other across the line of scrimmage. Now, as the author of the article states, the NFL did foresee situations where OL and DL could get turned around... a fast rushing getting behind the line and the OL needs to turn to block him... but they only allowed for this within 3-yards of the line of scrimmage! This doesn't make any sense... many of these times where an OL will have to turn around to intercept a defender will be beyond that three yards. Even a short three-step drop for a QB will be almost to that limit meaning the OL would have to go outside those three yards if he needed to block a DL man. It's asking blockers, especially in the scrum of the lines attacking and defending the QB, to have to determine where they are, if they are pointed the wrong way, if they are inside or outside of a certain yardage. Further, it makes certain blocks that would normally be 100% safe (or as safe as any football collision can be), logical, and straight forward and makes 'em illegal. It also seems to means that a "blindside block" where the player being blocked doesn't seen the block would be legal if the blocker was point at least somewhat towards the opposing goal. It seems to me that instead of this: It should be this: It is a foul if a player initiates a block when his path of attack is behind an imaginary line drawn through the shoulders of his opponent and makes forcible contact to his opponent with his helmet, forearm, or shoulder. In short, if you're coming at the opponent from his "blindside" (ie, he can't reasonably be expected to see you coming) you can't lay him out by slamming your shoulder or helmet or forearms into him.
  19. Yes, I think a Stafford injury buys them both another year. I think Quinn and Patricia are married here in Detroit. If Quinn goes, Patricia goes. I suppose it's possible that Quinn fires Patricia, but I don't see that happening.
  20. Martin has not been looking great.
  21. I dunno if I want STafford out there right now. I mean, look at what's happened so far with the OL...
×
×
  • Create New...