Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content Count

    22,724
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RedRamage

  1. So, for the first time I think in forever I was actually rooting, during the game, for the Lions to lose. Normally I always want a win, at least during the game. Afterwards I can always think logically and accept that a loss is been when looking for a better draft position, but in game it's just so hard to do that. Given that, it's a bit odd to bring up the two horrible calls in the game which would have helped the Lions had they been called right, but man were these bad calls. These are the types of calls that make it hard to debate conspiracy theorists. The roughing the passer call is obviously a judgement call but I don't see how Walker could have done anything different. QBs are so heavily protected and I get why, but defenders shouldn't be required to defy the laws of physics in order to make a tackle. Walker didn't throw him to the ground, he didn't hit too high or too low. He didn't lead with his helmet. He didn't drive him into the ground... he tackled him and... shockingly... landed on top of him. It was a textbook tackle in a critical situation in a game and it was the blatantly wrong call. As for the the "non-TD" ... there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the ball hit the ground. Yes, the ball absolutely moved after he hit the ground, but there is no clear evidence whether the ball hit the ground or the arms. If anything I think there might be slightly more evidence that the forearm cause it, but it isn't clear either way. This 100% should have been a case of "No clear evidence on replay, the call on the field stands." If it had been called incomplete, that call should have stood after reply. If it was called catch (as it obviously was), it should have stood after replay. Now again, I don't want to complain too loudly because I wanted a loss here, and honestly, it give me a chance to have my cake and eat it too. The Lions played well enough to win, and arguably should have won had it not been for the refs bad calls, but we also got the loss to improve draft position. Still these are yet more examples of the Lions getting just screwed over by bad, bad calls.
  2. Given the news that Cleveland is dropping Indians... what do you think the new moniker should be? I kinda hope they go old school and become the Cleveland Spiders.
  3. I watched just a bit of the Steelers game last night... Didn't watch it long, but happened to be watching at the right time to see a drop by Eric Ebron. I was shocked.
  4. Logically I agree that a better draft pick is good, but realistically, what does he want the Lions to do? Tell the players to tank? Lots of issues there. A few vets might be okay with tanking on purpose, but many of the young guys aren't going to want to play bad because they might be looking for their next contract in a few months. Why would they want to put up bad film to help a franchise that isn't going to help them? Tell the coaching staff to tank? Same problem! You tell Bevel to not call good plays or to not use his best players and it's going to look bad on him. He wants to make a good impression because he might be looking for a new job in a few months. Why would he intentionally try to be bad to help a franchise that isn't going to help him? Tell Ron Wood (or whoever is filling the GM shoes) to tank? Here's about the only spot you could do this. Assuming Ron Wood's job is secure (or whoever is playing GM), you could do things to prevent the team from having success. Things like keep Golladay and/or Swift on IR... maybe trade away any decent assets. This might **** off players and/or coaches and/or fans, but you could reasonably expect this to happen. However, even doing this doesn't guarantee a lose come Sunday. Look, for all the world the Lions should have lost that game. One fluke play changed the likely outcome. Short of super blatant obvious tanking, there's always a chance for a win without buy in from the players and coaches, and they have no incentive to tank here. EDIT TO ADD: I know that you're not necessarily advocating tanking Tater... I'm responding to the Radio dude here.
  5. Lemme guess... he's screaming that it was a fluke victory, that they didn't deserve the W, and they should treat it as a loss?
  6. Well... I was trying to decided if I actually wanted to watch this game or play some SW Squadrons... guess I'm playing Squadrons.
  7. Yup, it's important to remember that even if Quintricia was a problem, the team is still bad.
  8. I remember that play... so many Lions memories like this.
  9. Watching on delay here... but can we just cut Agnew right now? On that 4th down play on the first drive he could have EASILY had the first down if he kept running. Instead he stops, right to juke the defender to make a big play, and gets stopped. Horrible, horrible, horrible.
  10. 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..."
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.)
  18. I remember that... thinking why the heck are you mentioning this? A FG does no good.
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. -- as a Professional. Because... I dunno... maybe he played some game between when he finished college and the Lions drafted him?!?
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...