RedRamage

ESPN has started coverage.

Youtube is now saying 2:30.

It's showing in my Youtube TV in the schedule so I think so. I won't be shocked if some silly MLB rule ends up blacking it out, but hopefully not.

I don't think it needs to be as complicated as a smart watch... just needs to be a buzzer tied to the play clock. But I do like the idea. As you said the ref doesn't need to watch the play clock then, s/he can focus on the ball. Feel the buzz while seeing the ball still on the ground? Throw the flag. See the ball move before the buzz? Then you can ignore the buzz.

I get that reporters can only report on what they hear, but this is the season of lies. Anything that comes out of any NFL teams mouths needs to be strictly considered to be in a Schrodinger's Cat situation. It's both truthful and a lie until after the draft when it collapses upon observation to one state or the other.

I'm in the same boat. Don't hold us in suspense anymore @BoomGaspar. Who is it?

Can't say as I blame Bregman for taking the Boston deal at all. Seems like the best move for him personally. I don't like that he's not coming here, but I do like that the Tigers (ie, Ilitch) was willing to offer a big deal for a FA. Obviously this doesn't mean that Harris has full permission to spend a lot whenever/however he wants, but the fact that they apparently were willing to spend here seems encounraging.

Don't forget the right to refer to the offspring of Mike Ilitch as "Ilitch's Kids."

I thought I saw something about Alonzo's deal not being official until a certain date... and I know I've seen other deal announced as "done" but couldn't have been fully completed until a corresponding roster move was done. So I don't think they would need to wait until the official 60-day-DL date to announce something.

Just to add one more thought here: Was CB really that big of a position of need by the draft? Certainly it wasn't a position of big depth, but remember we had traded for Carlton Davis, we'd signed Amik Robertson and we'd resigned Moseley. Certainly there were question marks on Moseley but there was at least reasonable hope that he would contribute in 2024. For depth we had Dorsey and Vildor. You could certainly argue that we should add talent at CB given that Moseley was questionable, but I don't know that it was a bigger need that some other positions like LB or DE or others, and I'd certainly think that after trading up to get a CB in the first round the team could consider themselves good there. But their next pick was also a CB. After trading for a starter and signing a starter and drafting a first round CB they draft another CB?

Sorry... I'm a few days late to the BPA/positional need discussion, but here's my two cents: There is not a team out there who drafts ONLY on BPA or ONLY on positional need. Anyone who solely did this would be out of a job quickly (unless they were working for WCF of course). Every GM, every team will fall somewhere on a sliding scale between those two things. (There's probably many other factors as well... things like Lockerroom fit, off the field issues, etc. etc. etc. For simplicity's sake we'll lump those into BPA as I'd say those help define who the "best" player is at the time of the draft.) So no... Brad Holmes does not draft strictly BPA. No one does, and no one should. Just like no one should draft strictly based on positional need. When I (or others if I may be so bold as to assume what others are thinking) say that Holmes drafts BPA I mean that he leans very far over to the BPA side of things. If we take a 1-10 scale and say 1 = Strictly BPA and 10 = strictly positional need, I'd say Holmes sits at 2 or maybe 3. I'd say most teams are probably closer to the middle and I'd say that most 'talking heads' tend to evaluate who a team should draft much closer to 7 or 8 (not that talking heads matter to teams of course). To @buddha's point earlier: Yes, if you have two players with very similar grades but one fits a hole and the other is an area of strength, you absolutely take the one who fits the hole. Where I think Holmes differs here is where that line is. Using an arbitrary 1-100 scale... if player A is a 91 but player B is 85 and fills a need I think many GMs will take player B. I think most media will say you should take player B. I think Holmes will say: "I want player A." I think player B would need to be closer to 88 or 89 before Holmes would be swayed by positional need.

Here's a lot more info on the movie:

I'm a little surprised there are more efforts at front loaded deals. I supposed owners may not be hugely in favor of them, but I'd think front offices and players would generally be in favor of them. From a front office perspective if you pay more initially you're paying during the years the player will likely be producing more. When the player ages and likely production declines the salary declines with it and it doesn't seem as much like you're "stuck" paying an aging veteran. From a player perspective if I'm going to make (for the sake of argument) $200M over 5 years and the club is going to pay me $55M, $47M, $40M, $32M, and $26M... I'm going to agree to that immediately! If I get more money earlier I can invest it and be making good bank on it.

I'm a little surprised myself. While I was alive when the original Mi Panthers were around I was relatively young and not much into football, so I had to look up some stuff on it. The original Panthers only played two seasons and the original USFL only had three season. This will be the fourth season of the New Panthers. Technically the new USFL only lasted two seasons (before merging with the XFL to become the UFL) so old USFL lasted longer. Doing some wiki-research, the end of the (original) Panthers is kinda interesting. Taubman was the owner of the Panthers. After the 1984 season when the owners were planning to move the season to the Fall, Taubman, a Lions fan and friend of WCF, didn't want to do it. (Side note: The two owners who were apparently spearheading the push to move to Fall were Chicago Blitz owner Eddie Einhorn and NY Generals owner Donald Trump.) Taubman figured the Panthers would never be able to compete straight up with the Lions (if he even wanted to) and wouldn't be able to find a local college stadium to play in anyway so instead merged with the Oakland Invaders. So I supposed for those who aren't Trump fans you have one more reason to dislike him: The fall of the original USFL.

This isn't a knock you TA, but the article is nothing but conjectures, maybes, possiblies, and we-don't-knows. It's just a long article saying: "There probably no real impact, but we don't know." I think it is worth pointing out that the divorce papers were filed in late August, so this isn't any surprise and all off season has progressed knowing that the divorce was in the works.

It still bums me that there's never been (at least according to baseball reference) a 2nd baseman named Second.

For all you are suffering from the early exit of the Lions like me, remember that there's still football coming up other than that last game a couple of teams are playing this Sunday. Maybe the Panthers will have a stand out edge this season that the Lions can sign?? Here's the 2025 schedule (all times are Eastern): Week 1 - Sun, Mar 30 - 12:00noon @Memphis Showboats - ESPN Week 2 - Fri, Apr 04 - 8:00pm vs. Birmingham Stallions - FOX Week 3 - Sun, Apr 13 - 12:00noon vs. San Antonio Brahmas - ABC Week 4 - Fri, Apr 18 - 8:00pm vs. Memphis Showboats - FOX Week 5 - Sat, Apr 26 - 7:00pm @St. Louis Battlehawks - ESPN Week 6 - Sun, May 4 - 12:00noon vs. DC Defenders - ESPN 2 Week 7 - Sat, May 10 - 1:00pm @Arlington Renegades - FOX Week 8 - Sat, May 17 - 1:00pm @Houston Roughnecks - FOX Week 9 - Sat, May 24 - 3:00pm @Birmingham Stallions - ABC Week 10 - Sat, May 31 - 3:00pm vs. Houston Roughnecks - ESPN The schedule's a little odd with three home games early and three road games late, but I imagine that's based on availability of the venues more than anything. This also appears to be the first year that all teams will play their home game in their home cities.

I can't remember the details on this... did they have the video before it was leaked? Was this a case of: "Well, he said 'x', she said 'y', weren't not sure which is true, but we know something bad happened, so 2 game suspension" but then they see the video and it's 'y' so whoops... bigger suspension incoming. Or was it a case of "Holy **** that's bad, but the public hasn't seen it, so we're just gonna give two games and hope that makes everyone happy."

I wonder if a visible line with influence spotting the ball? I mean, this assumes that refs aren't already influenced by where they THINK the line is, but if you physically see the line when you're about to put down the ball, might this make a ref adjust slightly if he ran out there thinking: "Yes they got it. " or "Oh, they stopped him short!" Just thinking out loud here, not saying the refs are intentionally cheating or that they don't already have biases in spotting the ball. I just wonder if there's be situations where the ref runs out there with his eye on a spot and thinks it's a 1st down, but then sees the spot is just short and his eye unconsciously nudges a bit over?

At this point if I'm a massage therapist or a major sports athlete I'm demanding video surveillance during appts. If I'm the therapist and you're not comfortable with the video whenever we're in the room together, I'm not comfortable working with you. I'm just going to assume that you're expecting/hoping for more than just a massage. And yes, I'm sure there are some therapists who would put up with a bit of inappropriate behavior from the athlete with the idea that the could score a settlement later, but I don't think that's the normal situation. I think most would prefer to just do their job. If I'm the player and you're not comfortable with the video whenever we're together then I'm worried that you might be trying to make a case against me at a later date. And yes, I'm sure there are some athletes who ARE hoping for something more than just a simple massage, but at this point if you go to a massage hoping for that and being okay with that you are seriously opening yourself up for major trouble in the future. There are plenty of safer ways to get that specific "treatment." I have no idea if this is a guy hoping for some "extra" service or if this is a group of women working together for an extra payday. Personally I'm probably leaning towards the former but I don't want to make too strong a stand until we know more details... if we'll ever know more details.

Okay, so if the WNBA comes back... do they re-adopt the 'Shock' name given that the team formally known as the Detroit/Tulsa Shock is now the Dallas Wings? Or do they try to modernize it and go with an EV terms like the Stators?

Well, one could make the argument that they signed Flaherty because they thought they were close on Bregman. Like maybe it's a case of: "If we don't get Bregman we're probably not going to be a 'real' contender, so no reason to spend a lot of Flaherty... better to save our money for next year when we can make a better push." Or it could even be a case of: "Bregman is worried that the Tigers aren't making a real commitment to winning so adding a top end arm like Flaherty will help us convince him that we're making a strong push." Of course, I supposed its possible (however unlikely that it might be) that I'm simply grasping for whatever thin strands of hope that I can possibly find.

2003 was more like needing to roll a 7 on a 6-sided die to win. By like mid-May I started every game with this thought: "Please just don't get no-hit."

Oh look... another few days of Bregman not being the main topic of everyone's news story and another "leak" comes out that Bregman has a 6-year offer from another team other than the Astros that he's sitting on. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2025/01/alex-bregman-reportedly-has-six-year-offer-from-club-other-than-astros.html Surely this is true and not just an effort by Boros to get teams to up their offer, right?

I have ALWAYS thought that teams should and do consider BPA and positional need. For example the Lions should not be in the market for a RB right now. They have stars at spots 1 and 2 and capable backups at 3 and 4. So if their spot comes up and the BPA is a RB and the SBPA (Second best player available) is an Edge rusher, the Lions SHOULD take the edge rusher and I think they would as would 31 other teams in the same situation. But it's rarely as black and white as that. More likely it'll be something like BPA is a WR and SBPA is a LB. We're sitting decent at WR... it's not a need. LB is more of a need, but it's not necessarily a DESPERATE need. I think most teams here would take the LB. I think the Lions would take the WR.* *Even this is an overtly simplistic senario because there will be lots of other factors including age/contact status of current players at various positions, trade options, depth of the draft class at various positions, etc. etc. etc. But I'm trying to present a situation here demonstrating where I think the Lions might behave differently than the majority of other teams.