Jump to content

John_Brian_K

Pregame: Lions -v- Falcons Sunday 1:00pm on Fox

Recommended Posts


17 hours ago, Jason_R said:

“I know you are but what am I,” he replies. Playground argument, indeed.

You did exactly what you accused me of doing.  Like it or not, you did.  No need to be crabby because I pointed out what begged to be pointed out.

To clarify, I didn't respond to your text in full because I received an important phone call and was texting on my cell.  I didn't have a chance to finish my edit.  Apologies if that irritated you.  Sincerely.

To summarize my thoughts on your post had I completed my edit:

a. Not starting off fast in the first quarter/half thing was premature and it is still premature (meaning maybe it will be an issue).  Fans as a group tend to read too much into things early in the season probably because it is the only data they have.  I think I said the same thing at the end of week one.

b. Caldwell might not be back next year and I do think it an interesting topic.  That written, I don't think that was driving any of the conversation in this thread, or much, if any, of the conversation about how lucky they have been on turnovers of the punt return or whatever in the last game thread.

c. Your third paragraph, suggests you haven't read what I have written, which is fine, but frankly misses the mark as a consequence.  Obviously game performances helps predict future game performance, but it seems odd to me that a number of fan presume the negatives will continue but the positives will not.  That is all I am saying.  That just feels to me like waiting for the shoe to drop.  Take the whole thing in, apply context, etc.  Consider the Lions strategy was to run down the clock on the Giants in the 2nd half, for example.

17 hours ago, Jason_R said:

Listen, if you don’t want to hear people talk about what the team does right, what the team does wrong, and how it matches up to other teams, the simple solution is for you not to read the forum, not to try to tell people what they are and aren’t allowed to say.

At no point have I suggested what people are allowed to say or what they are, whatever that may mean.  That is just rubbish.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NYLion said:

No, last year was smoke and mirrors where they constantly fell behind and depended on Stafford to bail their *** out in the 4th.  These 2 wins weren't perfect by any means but they outplayed these teams by minimizing mistakes and capitalizing on their mistakes. I never felt that they were in danger of losing these games even when they were losing to the Cards once the Lions shook off the early cobbwebs whereas last year, I came away from those wins feeling  surprised and wondering how in the world they pulled that off.

Also, very few "clean" wins in todays' NFL where parity rules.  Outside of the Patriots who seem to cruise through every regular season, most teams have to fight tooth and nail for wins outside of the odd mismatch.

With that said, I don't know if they are "for real" or not or if they will even make the playoffs and I do think they were somewhat fortunate to run into two impotent offenses run by creaking old QBs but thus far, this looks like a more balanced team at least.

Pretty much where I am at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to add to my previous post to RR, the fact that they won despite Stafford only throwing for 117 yards is a good thing, a very good thing in fact.  It just illustrates that the Lions are capable of winning in multiple ways and in this game, they won it with defense, special teams and the running game in the 4th.  To beat the Giants on the road playing the Giants style of ball (defensive slugfest) is a good sign IMO. 

It's something the Lions can build off of at the very least as this is a team still in the building stage even though their best player is in the stage of his career where it should be win a playoff game or bust.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no insider information or knowledge, but the game plan against the Giants seemed very much like, 'get a double digit lead and run the clock down because they are more likely to score off their D than their O'.

I think that is at least part of the reason Stafford's numbers were low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back on the years again to make sure I had my years right etc...has there ever been a worse 10 year stretch for a sports team in history?  Maybe sports is too broad and most likely there has been, but how about NFL stretch of 10 years?

Not one season over .500, the 0-16 immediately followed by 2-14.  

39-121

Millen

With the 2nd pick in the 2003 NFL draft the Detroit Lions select...

With the 7th pick in the 2004 NFL draft the Detroit Lions select...

With the 10th pick in the 2005 NFL draft the Detroit Lions select...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done this exercise and while the time frame is a little different, I recall 2000 - 2014 Browns were not much different than the Lions, with the 0 - 16 sinking the Lions.  Take that season out and the Lions were marginally better than the Browns over the timeframe.

I think the Browns now have a worse record in the 2000s than the Lions including the 0-16 season, but have not confirmed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything less than 16-0 would be a failure, and people accepting it just shows that the Lions have beaten them down throughout history and they're now setting unfairly low benchmarks for the franchise

In my opinion

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm imagining in my head an editorial cartoon in which a formerly cowardly lion rises up and bites the neck of a tiger and a red wings logo and drains them of all their goodness, then the lion bends over and sprays the carcasses of the tiger, red wing and pistons with all his smelly crap from years past. It's like there has been a transfusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My quick internet search says the Lions have 12 more wins than the Browns in the 2000s.  15 fewer from 2000-2009, 27 more 2010 - present.  The Lions are 56-58 from 2010 to present so going 8-6 the rest of the way gets them to .500 on the decade.

The Browns need to win 14 or more games from now to the end of 2019 season to pass the Lions 2000 - 2009.

If the Browns win 12 or fewer in the next 3 season, they will have won fewer games in a decade than arguably the ****tiest team over.  Of course, the Lions did go 0-16 whereas the Browns avoided that dishonor narrowly.  I could see the Browns winning fewer than 4 this year.  I think it will be close.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm imagining in my head an editorial cartoon in which a formerly cowardly lion rises up and bites the neck of a tiger and a red wings logo and drains them of all their goodness, then the lion bends over and sprays the carcasses of the tiger, red wing and pistons with all his smelly crap from years past. It's like there has been a transfusion.

Can Bob Quinn handle the Tigers in the NFL offseason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article at the Detroit Lions website: 

Quote

Atlanta could easily be 1-1 heading to Detroit Sunday night after narrowly escaping defeat in Chicago Week 1. The Bears had a 1st and goal from the Atlanta 5-yard line trailing 23-17 in the final thirty seconds of the contest, but couldn’t punch it in. A dropped pass by running back Jordan Howard on second down most definitely could have been the winning score.

So, what did Chicago do to put themselves in an opportunity to beat the defending NFC Champions Week 1?

1. The Bears were very dedicated to putting defenders in the box, and stuffed Atlanta’s versatile ground attack. Devonta Freeman had just 37 yards rushing on 12 carries. Atlanta had just 64 rushing yards as a team with a 2.8 average.

2. On the flip side, Chicago was able to dictate the pace of the game by running the football. They averaged 6.6 yards per carry, and totaled 125 yards on 19 carries. As a result, Chicago ran more plays (63) than Atlanta (55).

3. Chicago didn’t give the Falcons any short fields or extra possession by turning the ball over. No turnovers for the Bears.

4. The Bears won the red zone. They converted touchdowns two of the three times they got into the red zone. They held Atlanta to just 1-for-3 in the red zone.

1. Lions are certainly demonstrating they can bottle up the run game, including a pretty good back in David Johnson.

2. Lions grounded and pounded it out last week against a very stout NYG defense.

3. If the Lions can do #2, and stay out of obvious passing situations (like last week's comical 1st and 30), they have a good chance of avoiding QB pressures and hits that lead to turnovers. Also, no Vic Beasley.

4. Lions are leading the NFL in red zone efficiency. They have a lot of weapons down there, and Stafford knows how to use them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I frankly dont understand being jaded, for any reason in life.  And to be jaded about football, how?  

The Lions look good, they have good coaching and management.  Who cares what happened in the past. Some of ya all really cling to bad memories.  Let it go.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jason_R said:


Do you feel most at home on a playground, making playground arguments?

I’ll just take this as an indication that you are unable to understand, let alone answer, the points I raised in my response to you.

So funny to see someone suggesting Biggs brings a playground argument.  You can't be serious.  

Now, Biggs needs no one to come to his defense, but dude, get a grip.  Especially when you follow up with "ahahahahah."   

Lions fans might be some of the worst fans in sports.  Some of ya all just can't enjoy a win.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dick-vermeil-retired-a-decade-ago-will-you-please-stop-using-his-damn-2-point-conversion-chart/

Wasn't sure where to put this but I found it an interesting read and note that according to the table at the bottom of the article, so far this season the Lions went for 2 points both times they absolutely should have, whereas the rest of the league has only went for two points in 2 of 14(!) times when they absolutely should have.

Not sure what it means or that it proves anything, but I suspect it illustrates a number of head coaches are doing things less than optimally from a game strategy standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dick-vermeil-retired-a-decade-ago-will-you-please-stop-using-his-damn-2-point-conversion-chart/

Wasn't sure where to put this but I found it an interesting read and note that according to the table at the bottom of the article, so far this season the Lions went for 2 points both times they absolutely should have, whereas the rest of the league has only went for two points in 2 of 14(!) times when they absolutely should have.

That's an interesting read.  I've often thought that 2-pt conversion attempts are unreasonably low, but I kinda understand that most coaches tend to be conservative when it comes to points.  You look like a hero when you risk something for more points and make it, but it's probably the first thing attacked when you risk it and DON'T make it.  Multiple that times a 100 when it comes to a situation where that risked point ends up being an important factor in the end of the game.

Also, I think a good coach would need to temper this chart with the situation... has your defense been playing really well the last quarter or so such that you're pretty confident of a stop?  Is the offense gassed and on it's last legs?  How many TOs are left?

Those are some factors that can't been turned into easy numbers on the chart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also also... if I'm reading the chart right, if a team is down by 4 points after the TD, late in the 4th quarter (like 5:30 left in the game), then the chart is is STRONGLY in factor of going for two... which Bobby Ross did in '98: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199911140crd.htm

This is routinely touted as one of the stupid Lion's Coaching moves as it necessitated the Lions getting a TD on their final drive for a while while a FG would have been enough to send the game to overtime.

Now, obviously this is just one instance, and to be fair it was from nearly 2 decades ago when the conversion percentages might have been a lot different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, T&P_Fan said:

So funny to see someone suggesting Biggs brings a playground argument.  You can't be serious.  

Now, Biggs needs no one to come to his defense, but dude, get a grip.  Especially when you follow up with "ahahahahah."   

Lions fans might be some of the worst fans in sports.  Some of ya all just can't enjoy a win.  

And his legion grows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, T&P_Fan said:

I frankly dont understand being jaded, for any reason in life.  And to be jaded about football, how?  

The Lions look good, they have good coaching and management.  Who cares what happened in the past. Some of ya all really cling to bad memories.  Let it go.  

There is a good quote about this out there somewhere, but basically everyone has there thing...the thing they get REALLY happy about or REALLY sad about depending on the outcomes of certain things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Also also... if I'm reading the chart right, if a team is down by 4 points after the TD, late in the 4th quarter (like 5:30 left in the game), then the chart is is STRONGLY in factor of going for two... which Bobby Ross did in '98: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199911140crd.htm

This is routinely touted as one of the stupid Lion's Coaching moves as it necessitated the Lions getting a TD on their final drive for a while while a FG would have been enough to send the game to overtime.

Now, obviously this is just one instance, and to be fair it was from nearly 2 decades ago when the conversion percentages might have been a lot different.

I strongly suspect the biggest difference back then was the point expectancy out of a PTA was a little higher then because the kick was shorter.

I understand the desire to leave the out to go to OT, but OT is a 50/50 proposition, whereas making a 2 pt conversion and then kicking the field goal is a 100% win.  Going from 50/50 -> 100% is a big deal.  I think that is why the 2 pt conversion in that circumstance is so valuable.  Plus, even if you miss, you still have the possibility to score the TD later.

Getting to OT feels great but from a gaming theory perspective, the benefit isn't as great as that feeling.  Which makes it a sort of market inefficiency that could be exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John_Brian_K said:

There is a good quote about this out there somewhere, but basically everyone has there thing...the thing they get REALLY happy about or REALLY sad about depending on the outcomes of certain things.

I think from a psychological stand point it might a very interesting discussion/research project...  And I get the points from both sides of the fence...

On one side:

  • What happened years ago or decades ago has little bearing on what the team does this year.  Just because it happened before doesn't mean it'll happen now.  While 2016 or 2015 or even 2014 events might have an impact on how we expect 2017 to go, anything older than that starts to really lose any meaning for the game today.
  • But even if we allow for that to happen, what's the point in brooding? What does it gain a person to expect bad of his/her team? Why not have a positive attitude for life and therefore feel more positive in general?
  • In the end it's just entertainment and won't effect your life one way or the other so just enjoy it for what it is, right?

But, there's another side to this as well:

  • After decades and decades and decades of being mediocre at best, we've all been conditioned to think/feel a certain way.  While it may not be logical to bring past baggage into the current year, it also is very understandable why we as Lions fans might feel the way we do.  Just because the bell was rung every time before dinner doesn't mean that dinner will always follow the bell... but are we're not surprised to see the dog start salivating, right?  And just saying: "Don't be jaded" is as effective as telling the sad person: "Cheer up, don't be sad."
  • And it's not brooding... it's talking about or team and trying to predict what we think might happen in the future.  If we have a less than favorable outlook, it isn't brooding, it's just stating what we think is going to happened based on x, y, and z.  This is a sports forum after all right? We're here to talk sports and if that happens to be in a negative way (as in: I don't think the Lions will win Sunday), that isn't brooding.
  • Yes, it is entertainment, and no it doesn't effect me beyond what I choose to do with my time.  But just because it's entertainment doesn't mean I can't have an emotional connection to it.  We cry at sad parts in movies, we laugh at comedians' jokes even though we know they aren't true things.  We cheer when the bad guy in a TV show gets his well desired comeuppance.  So let me have my emotional connection to my entertainment.  As long as I don't let it effect the important things in life like friends and family and job, etc., why does it matter if I get a little wrapped up in my team?

I think either side is an equally valid approach to sports and each person it going to choose their own path here.  If you lean one way or the other... good for you.  I don't find it necessary to tell someone that their particular method of being a fan is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RedRamage said:

I think from a psychological stand point it might a very interesting discussion/research project...  And I get the points from both sides of the fence...

On one side:

  • What happened years ago or decades ago has little bearing on what the team does this year.  Just because it happened before doesn't mean it'll happen now.  While 2016 or 2015 or even 2014 events might have an impact on how we expect 2017 to go, anything older than that starts to really lose any meaning for the game today.
  • But even if we allow for that to happen, what's the point in brooding? What does it gain a person to expect bad of his/her team? Why not have a positive attitude for life and therefore feel more positive in general?
  • In the end it's just entertainment and won't effect your life one way or the other so just enjoy it for what it is, right?

But, there's another side to this as well:

  • After decades and decades and decades of being mediocre at best, we've all been conditioned to think/feel a certain way.  While it may not be logical to bring past baggage into the current year, it also is very understandable why we as Lions fans might feel the way we do.  Just because the bell was rung every time before dinner doesn't mean that dinner will always follow the bell... but are we're not surprised to see the dog start salivating, right?  And just saying: "Don't be jaded" is as effective as telling the sad person: "Cheer up, don't be sad."
  • And it's not brooding... it's talking about or team and trying to predict what we think might happen in the future.  If we have a less than favorable outlook, it isn't brooding, it's just stating what we think is going to happened based on x, y, and z.  This is a sports forum after all right? We're here to talk sports and if that happens to be in a negative way (as in: I don't think the Lions will win Sunday), that isn't brooding.
  • Yes, it is entertainment, and no it doesn't effect me beyond what I choose to do with my time.  But just because it's entertainment doesn't mean I can't have an emotional connection to it.  We cry at sad parts in movies, we laugh at comedians' jokes even though we know they aren't true things.  We cheer when the bad guy in a TV show gets his well desired comeuppance.  So let me have my emotional connection to my entertainment.  As long as I don't let it effect the important things in life like friends and family and job, etc., why does it matter if I get a little wrapped up in my team?

I think either side is an equally valid approach to sports and each person it going to choose their own path here.  If you lean one way or the other... good for you.  I don't find it necessary to tell someone that their particular method of being a fan is stupid.

I only do that when attacked first.  I am trying to even let that fly these days as even spending 5 seconds getting pissed at someone for being attacked for something so trivial...in words only no less, is too much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John_Brian_K said:

I only do that when attacked first.  I am trying to even let that fly these days as even spending 5 seconds getting pissed at someone for being attacked for something so trivial...in words only no less, is too much.

I've noticed you've been much more chill and I like it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×