Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content Count

    22,675
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RedRamage


  1. On 10/12/2020 at 2:25 PM, Buddha said:

    the fact that dalton and cam newton got cut rate one year deals tells you what the trade market will be for stafford on his massive deal.  

    as in: Zero.  

    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.

     


  2. On 10/6/2020 at 1:45 PM, Sports_Freak said:

    Is Patricia fired yet? If not, why? Wait until the end of the season?

    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.


  3. 10 hours ago, Buddha said:

    Travis Fulgham with the game winning touchdown for the Eagles!

    The guy we cut to keep Jamal Agnew...because we had to cut Jason Huntley...to keep Ty Johnson...who we just cut so we could keep Adrian Peterson.  Or something.

    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.
     

    • Thanks 1

  4. 14 hours ago, Buddha said:

    the team that turned the ball over 3 times lost to the team that didnt turn it over at all.

    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.


  5. 15 hours ago, NYLion said:

    I know that Stafford had a good QB rating but I felt he was a bit off a lot of the game, the receivers made some great catches.

    Nice win but, my god, that pass rush is unspeakably bad. Murray sort of gave them this game. This win was lipstick on a pig essentially.

    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.


  6. 7 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

    Valenti just said on 97.1 that he has "sources" telling him that Patrica didn't want Okudah at #3 he wanted Derrick Brown. He said that Player Personnel people and scouts wanted Tua or Simmons.

    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.


  7. 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.


  8. 9 hours ago, Buddha said:

    if someone needed a pass rusher, why would they sign ansah?

    Because of the law of averages... I mean, a team can only be so unlucky right?  If they add Ansah to the IR list then sign another pass rusher, it's less likely that that other pass rusher will end up on IR because the team already has people there.  I'm pretty sure that's how statistics work.


  9. 38 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

    I'd be curious to go back and look at their defensive coverage and if they blitzed more or less before the 4th quarter. I get that Trufant went down and that hurt them. But defensively speaking, it feels like they let up and let the Bears back into the game, as much as anything they did or didn't do on offense.

    I would agree.  The offense failed in some key moments, but over all I don't think the offense played horribly in the 4th quarter.  But anytime the defense gives up 3 TDs in a quarter... that's gonna do a lot to kill your chances of a win.

    Credit to the Bears: I think they took advantage of the injuries the Lions had in the secondary.


  10. 48 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

    Kind of funny how people wanted them to be more aggressive and I guess pass more when Stafford threw an interception when he did pass. Guess those runs made him throw an interception. I mean, why hand the ball off to a hall of fame RB averaging 8 YPC in the game? 

    Because it's predictable in that situation.  The Lions are looking to milk the clock, so Bear are going to be looking for runs... and the Lions respond by running up the gut twice for very short yardage, which means you're in third and long and been stuffed twice on runs... I wonder what's going to happen:  What? A pass? SHOCKING!

    The problem isn't handing off to a HOF RB... the problem isn't that Stafford's pass wasn't aggressive.  The problem is two predictable plays right into the type of defense that the Bears are likely going to be playing, followed by a play that that you're sorta forced into after the first two short runs.


  11. 13 hours ago, Aaron said:

    To me the game was lost when they ran the ball two times in a row after Chicago pulled within three.  

    Totally agree... I mean, there were plenty of moments you can point too, but this is certainly one of them.  run-run-pass... very original... very effective.  🙄

    • Thanks 1

  12. 2 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

    So can we start the "Caldwell curse" yet? 

    You know we fired him and said 9-7 wasn't good enough. We haven't come close since. 

    No.  Don't get me wrong, I sure wouldn't mind some 9-7, but Caldwell was never going to get over the hump, unfortunately.  His in game management stunk.

    • Thanks 1

  13. Another observation... and again, this is based on just one game so it's probably too much of a conclusion based on little evidence, but I know I, at least, have long maintained that the OL just sucked at run blocking and that's why none of our RB ever really panned out (well, that and injuries).  Petterson is making me wonder if maybe the OL wasn't really to blame.


  14. Just now, Mr.TaterSalad said:

    So if we bring in another new regime you're forcing them to keep Stafford? You are letting them try and draft their own guy, if that's the direction they choose to go in?

    I think short of a stupendous turn around for the team and an MVP season from Stafford, the Lions will likely be drafting a QB very high this next draft, and that's regardless of whether the front office and/or coaching staff changes.

    I also think that in all likelihood you would not great a fantastic trade haul for Stafford... if that's wrong, I'm not necessarily against trading him as I fear we're headed for another "rebuild" (Yeah, perhaps an overreaction from one game, but still...).  But if you don't get a fantastic haul for Stafford, I think they should keep him, regardless of if the front office and/or the coaching staff changes.  Let the new guy learn a bit on the bench.


  15. 1 minute ago, Buddha said:

    doesnt matter.  thats the rule.

    it was a completely stupid unnecessary play that cost the lions one of their best defensive players and may get him suspended for multiple games.

    Is it the rule that he's ejected?  I mean, if so than that's a extreme but out of the hands of the refs then.

    I really hope the don't suspend him for multiple games.  I mean, I think it's questionable if he was even attempt to make contact and if he was he certainly wasn't intended to hurt.  I think that should come into consideration.


  16. So, any thought on Jamie Collins getting ejected?  I mean, to me it was pretty obvious what he was trying to do.  I don't *think* he was trying to make contact with the ref, but regardless he did and so I think the penalty is justified.  But ejection?  That seems pretty extreme.


  17. On 9/4/2020 at 10:55 PM, tiger337 said:

    My father remembers Greenberg and Gehringer.  If I could go back in time to any Tigers era, it would be the 1930s.  

    Especially the 1935-1936 would have been an awesome time to experience sports in Detroit.


  18. Okay, let's get the disclaimer out of the way:

    1. Yes, I know Power Rankings are just some people's opinion and they don't mean squat when it comes to anything in terms of playoffs at the end of the season.
    2. Yes, I know that the Tigers are only 8-5, that they play in the weak central, and that they hadn't played anyone who's "good" yet.

    Yes still, I gotta say I'm feeling a bit like the Tigers are being under valued at 26.  I'm definitely not saying that they should be top of the heap, but if nothing else I think they deserve to be at least middle of the pack.  Yes, I know they've only played the Pirates (ranked 30th) and the Royals (28th).  But they've also split with the Reds (12th).  So why so low?

    Consider the White Sox.  Who have they played? Twins (ranked 4th, but have a 1-2 record against), Red (1-2), Cleveland (Ranked 7th, 2-4 record against), Royals (2-1), and Brewers (19th, 2-2).  That doesn't exactly look like a wonderful record against quality opposition, and yet the Sox actually went up a spot to 13th place despite losing 2 of 3 over the weekend and having and 8-8 record.

    Here are some other notable teams ahead of the Tigers: The 2-3 Cardinals (14th), the 4-6 Phillies (16th), the 4-7 Nationals (17th), and the 5-11 Angels (20th).  All teams with a losing record who are ranked well above the Tigers.

    Again, I'm not advocating that the Tigers be ranked at the top... probably not even top ten.  But I think they've at least earned a middle of the pack ranking with what they've done on the field.

    https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2020-power-rankings-after-week-2


  19. Part of me says: $15 Million? For an entire league?!  That's crazy cheap.

    And part of me says: You spent $15 Million on a questionable league that still might be impacted by Covid when its' supposed to come back?!?

    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...