RedRamage

I'm honestly surprised with both the destinations for Johnson and Glenn. They obviously have much more knowledge than I but I don't see either of those as good stable places. Now you can 100% say the same thing about the Lions before Campbell came here so maybe these will be the right people to turn both of those franchises around. I'll be rooting for Glenn. I can't say the same thing about Johnson... not because I don't like him, but that I just can't root for the Bears.

If Kelvin Sheppard didn't seem like the heir-apparent already I'd be push hard for Saleh.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Holmes will draft best player available (almost) regardless of position. Honestly, just completely throw out the positional depth chart because Holmes does not care. He does not care if he drafts a position of need or not, certainly not in the early rounds. If the bpa is a DE, great. If it's a Tackle, he'll draft the tackle. If it's a linebacker, that's who he'll draft. Positional need does come into play, but it is much, much further down the list when evaluating players than we've ever see in a Lions GM previously (at least as long as I've been paying attention to the draft). That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't speculate. This is a fan message board after all. It's just that when you speculate look at players, not positions. Does he have a high motor? Does he love football? Does he play hard? Those are the things they are looking for first and foremost. Does he fill a position of need? Okay, that's nice. That's bump him up maybe 1 or 2% on our rankings.

I should have linked the MLB Trade Rumor's story in my first post, but here it is now: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/01/poll-would-you-trade-the-2027-mlb-season-for-a-salary-cap.html They didn't say anything about the players being proud, but they did mention this:

I think that a Salary Cap would limit the west coast advantage. Suzuki is a bit of an wild card here because he was considered part of the amateur pool. If players like him show up more often then they might need to tweak the rules there. But if he was "regular" free agent and the Dodgers didn't have infinite money to throw given that they already spent so much of the hypothetical pool last year, then I think it would have been less certain that Suzuki would have gone west coast.

Browsing MLB Trade Rumors and they have a story/poll on a Salary Cap in baseball. Now, I'll readily admit that being a fan of a mid(ish)-market team obviously is influencing my opinion here, but I'm ready for a cap. Seeing the Dodgers just spend and spend and spend and spend and pick up all the big names is frustrating. It doesn't feel like mid and small teams can compete when they don't have the budget to bid along side the major players. Now, on one had I do think Chris Ilitch could spend more on the Tigers payroll and still make money, but I don't think the Tigers could get anywhere close to $370M and be profitable. I'm not opposed to looking at other options beside a hard cap, but I think it needs to have some more teeth if MLB is going to stick with a Luxury Tax model. I think the tax needs to be higher and perhaps based on a percentage of local media revenue from the "offending" club.

I was very surprised when Goff had to sit out for a bit that Bridgewater came in, not Hooker. I know that Bridgewater has more experience of course, but he also wasn't involved with the Lions offense for nearly a full year. On one hand I don't think you need to be in peak physical shape to be a successful QB and I also doubt that the Lions massively overhauled their offensive scheme and terminology from last year. Still... you have a guy who's been practicing and learning the plays and the terminology and has time spent working with the player in Hooker, and then you've got a guy who just came back to the team like a week ago... and he's the guy the coaches pick to go in? That was surprising to me. Now, calling a 3rd round pick who's barely had any actual field time and has only had about 1.5 NFL seasons of being able to practice/play... calling that person a bust is admittedly a bit of a clickbait title. Still, it just seems odd to me that Hooker didn't get the nod and it makes me wonder if the staff doesn't have high confidence in Hooker.

Well... at least we're not drafting last, right??

They all have NOT been in my kitchen.

Assuming everyone comes back healthy, I don't think you need anymore defensive additions. DL: Hutch, McNeill, Reader, Smith LB: Barnes, Campbell, Anzalone DB: Davis, Branch, Joseph, Arnold Plug in those four players and you'll get much more QB pressure, much better WR defense, and better run defense as well. Obviously you always try to upgrade, but this defense is not a bad defense when healthy. Just way too many injuries to over come.

Just too many injuries on defense. This turned into anti-complimentary football. Defense couldn't get stops, Offense made too many mistakes.

I am SHOCKED... Just SHOCKED!

I used to think that a big part of it was that he retired a year earlier than Trammell. If they'd both retired at the same time they would have been up for HOF at the same time and that would have been a bigger story. But after Trammell was voted in by the committee and Lou wasn't when they both could have been at the time makes me think it was more the petty writers vs. timing.

I remember reading a quote from a voter after that happened which basically went something like this: "What? Wow... I mean I didn't vote for him because he wasn't a first ballot HOFer, but he shouldn't have been dropped off right away." The idea of a "First Ballot HOFer" is dumb and I think definitely has had a lasting effect on Whitaker's HOF chances. Given that I don't think the "First Ballot HOFer" idea isn't likely going away I think they should adjust the rules with dropping players from the ballot. Not that anyone's asking, but here would be my rules: You need to get at least the same same percentage of votes as the years you've appeared on the ballot in order to remain on the ballot. This gives newer players an easier chance to remain around if they happen to either not be "First Ballot" worthy or if they happen to be on a ballot with a lot of really good players. But it becomes increasingly hard to stick around the longer you've been on the ballot as the reasoning you might be been overlooked initially becomes less and less realistic as time passes.

Locked on Tigers podcast had an interesting take on this. He posited (with the disclaimer that he had zero inside info, just his gut feeling) that the Tigers made their "best offer" to Bregman and that Bregman's camp is basically us this as a fall back option... that they are waiting to see if anyone gives a better deal but if not they go back to the Tigers and start negotiating in earnest.