RedRamage

Stafford's getting a lot of grey in his beard.

Been a GREAT Sunday for Detroit sports!

GOFF!!!!!

Meh... facts are meaningless... we know it's really Johnson's fault.

Shame on Ben Johnson for telling McBride to hit branch like that.

Branch looks blacked out. McBride could have been flagged on that. Branch was already head down and McBride dropped his helmet into Branch's.

Branch is out. Egads!

I don't think I would have minded if they went for 4th down there honestly.

That was a bad spot on 3rd down. Not a good play on 4th, but shouldn't have been necessary.

Scrambling scares me. The DL seems to be getting more pressure, but many they left Mayfield scramble so much last week.

Game 153 is now done. After a three game win streak the Sox dropped the next two. Currently the Sox are 36 and 117. The 2003 Tigers, at game 153, were at 38-115. Game 153 for them was the 7th game of a 10-game losing streak that had most of us convinced they would break the modern "most games lost" record of 120 games. The next three games, all losses, would all but seal the Tigers fate. They stood at 38-118 with 6 games to go. No one really figured they had a chance to go 5-1 and just miss 120 games. Right now the Sox have 9 games left and need to win 6 of them to avoid breaking the record: Next 3 against the Padres Then 3 against the Angels Finished up with 3 against the Tigers. I honestly hope they win at least three of those six against before the Tigers. I would love to be the team that gives them loss number 121.

John Johnson totally sounds like someone had to make up a name on the spot and wasn't creative at all.

Well, the article says that Belicheck credited Patricia for "helping to build the Lions’ offensive line." If I'm bored sometime maybe I'll actually listen to the podcast, but unlikely. Anyway, the Lions offensive line: Decker: Drafted by Quinn in '16. At best Patricia can claim to having coached him for 2.5 years. (18, 19, part of 20) Glasgow: Drafted by Quinn in '16. Patricia allowed him to walk away after coaching him for two years. Ragnow: Drafted by Quinn in '18. At best Patricia can claim to having coached him for 2.5 years. (18, 19, part of 20) Zeitler: Obviously no Patricia connection here, but let's sub in Jackson from last year: Jackson: Drafted by Quinn in '20. At best Patricia can claim to having coached him for half a season. Sewell: Obviously no Patricia connection here. OL Coach: Hank Fraley - join the Lions as an assistant OL coach in 18, promoted to head OL coach in '20. So if we look at the 2023 Lions OL: Patricia, who was supposed to be a defensive guru, can claim to be the head coach for four of those guys. Two of them for 2.5 season, one he left walk away and didn't try to resign, and the four he was head coach of for .5 seasons. He was also the head coach when our current OL coach was hired. To me that's a pretty massive stretch to say that Patricia helped build the OL. I don't recall ever hearing even something remotely like Patricia being directly involved in coaching, assisting, mentoring the OL at all. In fact much of the OL probably underperformed when he was HC. And the super duper dumb thing here is that if Belicheck names a different underling of his, it actually makes sense! If He's said: Quinn was involved in helping build the OL... he'd have been right! Quinn was the one who drafted 4 of the '23 OL.

Yeah, this has all the potential to be a "decade of despair" sort of thing. Whiffing on a high 1st round pick can really hurt your team for a while. But whiffing on a high 1st round pick that you paid heavy future assets to acquire can REALLY damage your production for a long time. At least they should have a high pick for the 2025 draft.

The good news for them is that sack numbers, by themselves, aren't really a complete picture of a player. The bad news is that when looking at other things (like who else is on the the DL, QB pressures, INTs, FF, FR, etc.) Hutch is just as good or better in those areas too. Obviously still early in all of their careers so to crown one of them as the clear LONG TERM winner is premature, but right now it certainly looks like Hutch is the better player. I don't think this is quite a Mandarich vs. Sanders or Russel vs. Johnson sort of thing, but I'm quite happy right now that the Panthers elected to take Walker.

White Sox are riding a 2 game winning streak which leaps their win total in September to 4. Incidentally 4 wins is also how many the Sox had from the All-Star break thru to the end of August, so they're doing much better in September. As Oblong just said: 6 against the Angels, 3 against the Padres, and 3 against the Tigers to finish up the year. Let's generously estimate and say they win 2 of 3 from the Angels twice, 1 of 3 from the Padres and the Tigers. That's 6 wins. 41 total wins for the season and 121 losses. That would be a new modern MLB record in terms of losses. You'd have to go back to the 1899 Spiders for a worse record.

At least the Bears lost, so we're tied with them and GB. I was really hoping that the Colts would put up a better performance, but it's pretty hard to win when your QB throws up 3 INTs. And Dallas lost big... that's always a nice thing.

Agree with everything you said 100%... but especially wanted to point this out: Remember the last time the Lions started 1-1? That season turned out pretty okay.

I'm watching this on delay so I'm behind but have to say this while it's fresh in my mind: Goff, I sincerely apologize for ever doubting your deep ball.

I suspect part of this also might simply be the fact that we're a better, more talented team that we're used to seeing as Lions fans. In the past early draft picks for the Lions = starters their first year because the veterans regularly weren't that great and/or weren't developed/coached well. The new guy was thrust in the position, maybe before he should be been developmentally, because even as a rookie he was better than what we had.

BUT... there's also the matter of the division winner getting an automatic playoff spot and home field advantage to take into consideration. So you kinda wanna make sure the division winner is really the best team and didn't get lucky in a game or two or have the advantage of playing the good teams at home and the easy teams in the division away. So I don't mind, so much, having a melding of some emphasis on division without too much divisional games. That said I know a lot of people aren't a fan of divisional winners automatically getting a playoff spot so another obvious solution is to simply award playoffs to the best teams in the conference regardless of divisional standing, and then getting some luck in the divisional games becomes meaningless.

I actually have the exact opposite opinion. I LOVED when they went down to 4 team divisions. I thought when it was 5 teams in a division way too much of your season was spent on divisional opponents. When it was just 16 games a season combined with 4 opponents you had to play twice, half the season was just your division. When half the playoff slots were decided by total record (3 division winners + 3 wild card slots) that meant playing in a weak division could give a team a HUGE advantage. Team A, in a weak division, might win 6 of 8, then win only 4 of the other 8 games giving them 10-6. Team B, in a touch division, might win just 4 of 8 games, but even having a better record outside of the division, say 5 of 8 still only ends up with 9-7 and Team A gets the Wild Card.

I just want him to be good this week... then he can suck after that.

But why sudden death after they both get a shot? Why not sudden death before they both get a shot? What's different? In both cases you're saying after an arbitrary point whoever scores next wins. The last second field goal is different because that's ruled by the clock. The game is over when the clock is done. In that situation they're not saying: "Okay, you're tied... next score wins no matter how much time there is or isn't on the clock." To put it another way, let's look at baseball. If after 9 innings the score is tied both teams get an equal chance to score until a full inning is over and one team has more points. The NFL rules used to be (in baseball terms): We flip a coin to see who starts batting, and then the first team to score a run in extra innings wins the game. Doesn't matter if it's the home or away team... first score wins. The current NFL rules are: We flip a coin to see who starts batting, then if that team scores (for example) 5 runs in their inning they win. If they score fewer than 5 runs, the other team gets a chance to bat. If they're still tied after that then next score wins. But also if the first team doesn't get a hit, walk, or even one ball (only strikes thrown) then the other team wins. Ben's plan essentially is: We flip a coin... both teams get one inning to bat. If the score is still tied, then next score wins. My plan is: We flip a coin... Play three more innings, but if at any point one team is up on the other by x-number of runs that's a "Mercy Rule" and that team wins. In my humble opinion I'd prefer a setup where both teams play 3 more innings and then if one is leading that team wins, otherwise it just ends in a tie. But the NFL doesn't seem to want this, so my plan is to try to accommodate a way to finish OT early while still trying to be semi-fair in terms of giving teams a shot.

This one is for you @chasfh At this point as the Lions are driving down in OT to try and get a TD to finish it without the Rams even getting a chance. They had 1st and 10 from the 18 yard line and Cris starts talking about if the Lions should start thinking about kicking the FG. "You start thinking about it right, you start thinking how much do you need before you're going to go line up and kick it. You start thinking about which side do you want your kicker to be able to kick it from. But it's coming so easily right now I don't think you'll see them take big changes. I just think they'll play under control till they get the third down and maybe kick it there."