Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Posts

    22,818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by RedRamage

  1. You should never say never in the NFL... but yeah, these Lions are never going to beat a pissed off GB in GB.
  2. Johnson and Golladay aren't worth looking at... Johnson's career was with Stafford except for two seasons, his first two seasons in the league. I would expect that these would be bad years for rookie and sophomore learning the ropes. Golladay has only played with Stafford. (Edit to add: I should say that Gollaway isn't worth looking a yet. He will be a great one to watch in the future. Will he play as well or better with a different QB? Will he devolve? Give it 3-4 years and this could be a good measuring stick.) Jones is an interesting case because in 2017 yeah...he had a monster year (2016 wasn't bad either). But after that he saw limited time due to all the injuries. 2020 was okay... but hard to fault him or Stafford for the relatively low 12.9 yard per catch because the team was a mess. Tate's probably a good example but one could argue that the Lions had him in his prime and it's worth nothing that the Lions used him much more than the Seahawks did. However, was that because he performed better? Because the Lions passed more? Because Stafford connected more with him? Probably a bit of all, so yeah... Tate I'd say definitely played better with Stafford than other places.
  3. That sucks... I don't know if he every would have played up to the 3rd over all pick label, but he sure would have been worth something to the defense and a bad secondary is now much worse.
  4. I don't think you understood what I was saying... and maybe I'm just not saying it right. I think that a really GREAT player can make other players around him "better." Brady, for example just seems to may receivers "better." I don't think Stafford is that good. I think he's very good, but not GREAT. Again, that's not a bad thing. He's still really good. He's still a QB that most teams would replace their starting QB with (all other things being equal). He's still someone I would prefer was playing for the Lions. And it's certainly not Stafford's fault that the GMs didn't draft/trade/sign better players. Nor is it his fault the coaches couldn't develop/motivate/scheme better. I guess what I'm trying to say is that one measure that I would use to determine if someone was truly GREAT instead of just really good would be that he appears to elevate the game of other players around him.
  5. I think most of us thought Stafford was good... this is easily in the realm of what I would expect from him. Put a great team around him and he's good look fantastic. The only questions was if he could be great... that is he'd elevate those around him. I think it's hard to judge him based on his time with the Lions because often it was crap that we had around him, but I don't know that Stafford would ever be that guy who could carry a team to wins week after week after week. He needs at least something around him. The Lions just never had something good enough around him. So I guess I'd say that Stafford was very, very good. Just not quite "great." That's nothing to be disappointed in. Stafford is clearly the best QB we've had since Layne (and maybe better than him... depends on how you judge it and how you balance different eras).
  6. Yeah, but... feeling a little better is not saying that I think the team is good. I expected them to be bad... but they looked horrendous. The "come back" was equal parts garbage time, luck, and fight... and it's the fight that was good to see and makes me feel a very slightly bit better about the team. At least the tried. And I think it's worth saying that I'm sure the last four minutes or so the 49ers were trying. Again, there was still luck involved, no question. But it wasn't completely garbage time.
  7. Yup. Obviously it's a way too early opinion, but I feel like the trenches are okay. DL, OL... those are okay (or even better than okay). But as you move out from there it gets bad quickly on both sides of the ball. So many key drops... so many big catches allowed.
  8. It certainly made the game entertaining. I really didn't think they had a realistic shot at winning, but was a fun time none the less.
  9. But without film on them, those other teams be able to find those players? Gigantic leap here, but fewer preseason games might help a "minor league" football league. In theory if there's less chance for a fringe player to prove his worth in a game, having a minor league where he could showcase his skills might be a nice option.
  10. Just a thought that hit me this morning: What does a 3-game preseason look like? With 4 games it seemed to be (and yes, I'm grossly over simplifying): #1: Welcome to the season: Starters get a little time, but mostly about getting everyone some actual game time. #2: Welcome, part II: Starters might get a bit more time, might work on some specific packages. #3: Dress rehearsal: Starters play the first half, sometimes more. #4: Garbage time: Starters get very little, if any time. Mostly about bottom of the roster guys. With only three games, what becomes the dress rehearsal game? Do teams just cut out game #2 and do Welcome, Rehearsal, Garbage? Or do they cut out game #4 and just skip the Garbage Time game? As a fan I see no value in game #4, but I wonder if teams view it differently? A chance to see what a guy might do in a live game vs. practice... a chance to get tape not only on their potential diamonds in the rough... but also other teams?
  11. Reports are the the X-ray is negative, so it doesn't appear to be a major injury and he's likely to only miss a few days practice. https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2021/08/03/rams-matthew-stafford-thumb-injury-x-ray-negative/ It's a very feeling I have about this... part of me feels bad for him if the injury ends up being more because I like him as a person and as a player and want to see him succeed. But I'd be lying if part of me did get a little spark of joy thinking that if Stafford misses extended time that means the Lions pick from the Rams will be higher up.
  12. I would tend to agree. Best case scenario right now Miggy is getting about 1 hit per game he plays. It's worth noting that his average has been climbing since a low of sub 100 back on May 5th, but even just looking at July he has 20 in 21 games. Now if you want to look at just the past week, then it looks pretty darn good: In 6 games he has 8 hits. But... that's a pretty small sample size. Maybe... maybe the fact that he's going for the milestones and the fans reactions to him getting hits and homeruns will drive him a bit... it would be wonderful to see honestly, but that's a huge question mark.
  13. Just a thought that popped into my head: Who do you think will be leading the Tigers will homeruns by the end of the season? Note: Only homeruns counted in a Tiger uniform count... so if someone is traded or we bring in someone new, it's only the dingers as a Tiger that matter. Current standings: Haase: 17 Schoop: 17 Grossman: 16 Baddo: 10 Cabrera: 8 Candelario: 7 Castro, W: 7 I think it's fair to say that none of us would have predicted Haase, Grossman, or Baddo being the the top 5 Tiger homerun hitters at the beginning of the year.
  14. According to baseball-reference, yes: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=cabremi01&year=2021&t=b#all_hmvis
  15. Well, homers are almost exclusively on the road for Miggy (7 of 8 ) this year, so many not effect him too much there. Hits are also skewed away, but not has significantly (40 of 70).
  16. Chiefs I feel isn't really bad at all. Now obviously that's just my opinion but to me it's not a bad think... it isn't referencing a people as a whole, but rather a title. Granted, the original logo was kinda bad... not as bad as Chief Wahoo, but still not fantastic. But since the 72 they've used the same logo which I feel is perfectly fine. And it fits with the other team names in Kansas City... Royals, the old Monarchs, the Kings when the NBA team was there. Again just one non-Native American's opinion... take it for what it's worth.
  17. I applaud the Cleveland team for thinking of the environment and recycling 71.4% of their old name. Should make it cost effective to change the signs.
  18. Not to bring up the Inge debate yet again... but I get the feeling that Inge would be a great fit for Hinch's philosophy... assuming he could at least be acceptable offensively. I think 2004 Inge would have made Hinch drool: .287/.340/.453 while starting 34 games at C, 58 games at 3B, 6 games at LF, 14 games at CF and playing some RF as well.
  19. So, based on the comments here maybe I'm valuing Candy too highly. However, I'm still interested in people's thoughts re: Best since? @JackPine answered with Cabrera, which is the obvious answer that I should have thought of... I just didn't consider him a "real" third baseman I guess, but he was there for a few seasons so qualifies. So, let's disqualify Cabrera for the sake of argument here as that answer is too easy in my opinion... doesn't make for a good conversation. So other than Cabrera, how far back do we need to go? For discussion purposes, here's the player who played the most 3B stars for Detroit in the past years based on data from baseball-reference: 2020: Paredes 2019: Lugo 2018: Candelario 2014-2017: Castellanos 2012-2013: Cabrera 2009-2011: Inge 2008: Guillen 2005-2007: Inge 2003-2004: Munson 2002: Truby 2001: Macias 1999-2000: Palmer 1998: Randa -1997: Fryman I don't know why I thought Palmer was here longer than he was... I guess that's when I started getting back interested in the Tigers after a while of not really following them.
  20. I know that I'm probably putting too much emphasis on the here and now, but it feels like Candy might be a solid 3rd baseman. Both his defense and offense seem to be at least above average, which is more than we can say for the hot corner in Detroit in a long time. I can't remember the last time I didn't feel like whoever was manning 3rd wasn't either a defensive liability or under performing at the plate for that position. Now, to be fair I'm not trying to say that Candelario is Gold Glove caliber on defense or Silver Slugger on offense. But I'm don't feel like he's a liability either. So yeah... "recentcy" bias firmly in place, but how far back would you go to find a starting 3rd baseman that you would have been more comfortable with than Candy?
  21. Here's why I have low expectations from the Lions in 2021: Rookie HC: Okay, sure he's got some time as an intern HC in Miami, but he's still mostly a rookie. That's not to say he's bad or will be back, but I don't expect a rookie HC to automatically be good. New OC and DC: Any time there's a drastic change in offensive or defensive scheme I'd expect it to be a down year as the team learns the new way of doing this. Just like a rookie HC this doesn't mean it will be bad long term, but I expect there will be growing pain short term as the personnel adjust. Questionable QB: Yes Goff has history of being good, but he also has history of being bad. While I'm hoping for good Goff, I'm not expecting it. Questionable WR: Even if we get good Goff, who's he going to be throwing too? Is there anyone right now at WR that you'd consider worrisome if he was on the Bears or Packers? Anyone you'd think: "Oh... that'll be a problem." Questionable LB: Same as WR... is there anyone that you would worry about if he was facing the Lions from another team? Over all I do think the Lions will probably be slightly better than they are generally projected to be, but I can't honestly blame the national media for their predictions. There's a lot with the Lions that might be good long term, but very little for me to hang a hat on saying they will be good this year. I certainly hope they prove me wrong, but I'm just not expecting good things this year.
  22. Wow... I'm not liking some of the personal stories here. It doesn't sound like Beaumont is a great organization. FWIW I'm have mixed results with Spectrum. Some good, some great, some bad experiences. Over all I'm happy with them. I guess the good news is that if the merger happens Spectrum's CEO will take over the new organization and Beaumont's will be stepping down.
  23. https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2021/06/17/beaumont-hospital-spectrum-health-merger/7722296002/ Just wanted to throw this out there... Beaumont being "bigger" depends on what way it's being measured: So in some what Spectrum is bigger... perhaps in the most important way being the net revenue... though I'd guess that a good chunk of that revenue is from Priority Health, the insurance plan that Spectrum owns. The linked article does say there will be "dual headquarters" in both Grand Rapids and Southfield... however I suspect that after a handful of years one or the other will become the primary and the other will diminish or disappear all together.
×
×
  • Create New...