RedRamage

I'm not worried about Glenn based on the preseason. You're not scheme for the team, you're not playing your best guys, you're not using your best plays AND you're trying to specifically see how some people handle specific situations. Obviously this does NOT mean Glenn will be good in the regular season. He doesn't have the track record that Johnson does, so I'm not saying that it's a non-issue. But I'm also not going to look at defense schemes in the pre-season and form an opinion of the DC based on that.

While I think it's kinda hard to just a QB when they're: 1.) Slated to be 3rd String at best and 2.) They're playing with the 3rd and 4th string players... I agree that it seemed very much that Sudfeld was locking on to a target and not doing anything else. Such clear "locking on" read 1 is not a product of playing with 3rd and 4th string guys. That's a QB failure right there. Now, I suppose it's possible that the coaching staff was telling Sudfeld to throw to this guy or that guy because they wanted specifically to see how that player handled the in game situation. That seems unlikely to me, but I suppose it's possible. I'm not going to get too bent out of shape if the Lions retain Sudfeld as 3rd string QB. The fact of the matter is that NO 3rd string QB is going to be very good at the NFL level. If the Lions find a way to upgrade over Sudfeld I would expect that QB to still be pretty bad. Don't misunderstand: I think the Lions should try. I'm just not holding my breathe that we'll find a quality 3rd string guy.

I feel a bit better in that this is a 5-man unit vs. 1 or 2 guys... I mean, if one of the 5 goes down with an injury hopefully the other 4 starters + 1 backup will still be decent. Obviously if we start losing a 2nd or 3rd OLmen then we're in trouble.

Did MLB move them because of concerns of danger or the (pretty much) 100% chance of rain out?

Yes, it was contingent on him making the roster. However, even if it wasn't... it's only a swap of 6th round for a 7th round. That wouldn't have been the end of the world.

I wouldn't be opposed to heavily incentive laden contract where we basically pay him league minimum plus big performance bonuses. But don't give him a bunch of money or a long term contract.

But for those of us expressing concern, that's part of the concern! You know the old cliché: The best ability is availability. Look, injuries aren't a players fault (for the most part). The suspension, as I said it's debatable who's fault it is. But regardless of who is or isn't to blame, Jamo has seen very little in game action and won't see anymore until week 7. As of right now we've got exactly 1 catch for 41 yards (TD) and 1 run for 40 yards out of a mid-first round draft pick made last year and that's all we'll get until October, at the soonest. Again, I would love for y'all to come back to me at the end of the season and laugh at my concern. I just have this nagging doubt that we're going to get great production from this pick. I want to be wrong.

The comparison isn't so much that Okudah and Jamo are having the exact same issues... it's more that there's just one thing after the other... With Okudah it was: He's a rookie... he's got a bad coaching staff... he had nagging injuries... Oh wait this year, he's starting to look good-- BAM: Season ending injury. Okay this year he's starting to emerge as a true 1st round pick... and now he's dropping off to much he's a healthy scratch. And now he's traded for a 5th round pick and oh... look at he's injured again. With Jamo: He's coming back from a huge injury. Okay, he's health and look at that a TD on his first catch! Oh, but no he's a non-factor for most of the reason of the season because he's still nursing an injury and he's learning still. But this year it's like an extra 1st round pick-- BAM: 6 game suspension. But we'll at least see him in training camp-- BAM: Out for the rest of camp with an injury. In either case here, I'm not trying to blame the player. Injuries are mostly unavoidable... they can't help it when it happens. You can argue how much the gambling is the NFL's, the Lion's, or Jamo's fault. Not the end of the world by itself. So I'm not trying to dog on Jamo and say it's all attitude, or being fragile, or whatever. It's just the cumulative things that make me worry that there will always be the next thing that prevents Jamo from being what we were hoping we traded up for.

I truly hope you are right. I would LOVE to be wrong with my nagging doubts.

Starting to feel a bit like Okudah 2.0. I'm not (quite) writing him off right now, but I'm dang close.

I've always been a firm believer that a QB that's allowed to sit a year or two will be a much better starter than one thrown the to the wolves in his rookie year. But... I do wonder how much of that is statistically provable? There's obvious examples of Aaron Rodgers to support the claim, but then of course you've got Payton Manning who started all 16 games his rookie year and turned out just fine. I'm not sure it's possible to isolate enough variables to really figure out if sitting a year or two makes a difference or not. I mean generally if a highly rated QB is sitting a year that means the team is a pretty good team with established staffs and proven track record. A team that is questionable in talent and leadership isn't going to take a shiny new QB and sit him cause that coaching staff may see itself fired. And then there's the very imperfect science of trying to project how a QB should look at a pro and if he doesn't look as projected, why did he under/over perform? This is just really long winded way of saying: I have no idea if this is really a bad thing or not... with the possible exception of a team with a really bad OL. An OL that makes a QB run for his life and get hit often would be bad for a rookie.

On a side note... I really do like the pbp guy. That voice just does not seem to match that appearance, but I like his tone and style.

Yeah... yeah he did. I'm really trying not to overreact on little things like this... but still... that's just silly thing to do.

Anyone questioning why we needed to sign Bridgewater... well, there shouldn't be anymore questions now.

Love this reply:

Because it was a medium risk, high reward option? Hooker, like Jamison last yer, was drafted with the understanding that he wouldn't be a contributor this year.

How much is the ferry trip back?

I keep trying to talk my wife into doing it... how does it operate? Do you walk from "land" all the way over to "land"? Can you walk on the metal grate part? Do you have to walk back over?

No thank you. Probably about 10 years ago my extended family was vacationing in Mackinaw City and one of the sibling's families when up to see that. Said it a total waste of money.

Maybe? Is this what you are thinking of?

Yeah, I'm just not sure on him. Part of me wants to just dismiss it as a young kid doing young kid stupid stuff... that he'll grow out of it and mature. But part of me is also worried that these are Red Flags. I think it would be pretty easy to support either opinion on what relatively minimum evidence we have. Only time will tell for sure I guess.

I always thought it was a combo of the city/region and the name. Like "Detroit" can't be trademarked and "Tigers" can't be trademarked, but "Detroit Tigers" can. The individual words by themselves are just too common, but together it's something different. But I have ZERO expertise in this area, so take that for what it's worth.

You can believe the words from a Baseball GM's mouth before the trade deadline about the same that you can believe the words from a Football GM's mouth before the draft.

If Rod Allen were still here... after Lee hit's a dinger the call would be: "Now you see Hao-Yu Lee!"