RedRamage

So, this is part of the problem with replay in my humble opinion and why there should be specific rules around... which there actually are! But those rules needs to be enforced. My understanding is that replay looked at it, and said there was at least some evidence that he didn't have control of the ball when he knee was down, therefore he wasn't down and the play should continue. Then he recovered control in the endzone, and therefore it's a TD. That's not an unreasonable story, and if the story is correct than it's correct to call it a TD. BUT: What's the evidence? Did the ball move a bit? Maybe. Did he not have complete control? Maybe. But... did the ball also move because it hit the ground? Maybe! There is no clear evidence what happened regarding control of the ball and if you're going to say that the evidence maybe shows loss of control then I think there's just as much to say that the loss of control came because the ball hit the ground. So why are you picking the maybes that fit one story but ignore the maybes that fit a different story? Shouldn't all "maybes" just be ignored? Sorta like a rule that said clear evidence has to show what's happening? What do we know for sure looking at the replay? He had his hands on the ball AND his knee was down AND the defender had contact at the 1-foot line. He may or may not have bobbled control as he skidded into the endzone. That's not clear to me at all... certainly not anymore clear than that the ground caused the ball to move. In the end this call doesn't bother me because 1st and goal from the 1-foot line is 99.99% of the time going to end in a TD, so I don't feel like the Lions got jobbed here. But it definitely feels like a case where the refs decided to take some questionable evidence as fact while ignoring equal evidence that could have led to calling it an incomplete pass.

I feel just horrible about that... just horrible.

That makes ALL the sense in the world... which is why it won't be Germany.

If they do add more commercials, does that mean that they might actually cover the Lions pick rather than cutting to commercial right when it comes in?

I will be disappointed if Skubal suits up in a Tigers uniform on March 26 AND the Tigers have done very little to add to the roster. I don't think 2026 Tigers will be significantly better if other pieces aren't added. I expect them to be a fringe playoff team at best. IF the Tigers aren't going to seriously try in 26, then trade him for a load of talent. If they are going to try, then keep him around.

It's probably toner instead of ink.

Egads... a grandfather at 44? I mean I guess that's just averaging having a kid at 22, which isn't like super young... but that just seems odd to me. I've got a decade on him and no grandkids myself.

FWIW, here's the thread on reddit that @AlaskanTigersFan was screen shotting. Most of the fans there were also not believing it. https://www.reddit.com/r/Dodgers/comments/1pirr0z/the_skubal_deal_is_essentially_in_place_whats/ One interesting point raised there by one fan: Could the Dodgers be taking Baez as part of the deal? That would be one way to get his money off the books. Edit to add: Another commentor on Reddit indicated that Pingalore primarily covers NBA and NFL. If true that makes it even less likely that he's the only one to get the scoop on a blockbuster MLB move.

Yeah, I'm not sure I trust Pingalore as a source. Obviously I could be wrong, but I'd like to see more sources than one random sportscaster from a local TV station.

All-in probably isn't the right term. As others have already said I think it's possible to make good decisions that benefit you in 2026 and beyond. Specially, sign some solid, even high level FA. I absolutely would not shop some of the young guys in a all out bid to make a huge push in 2026. I would look at adding high priced FA to maximize our 2026 potential while still giving up good options beyond.

I should probably point out that I would prefer the Tigers to sign him long term as well... I just see that as unlikely. Assuming no signing, then trade him. But I fear that's not going to happen either. This reminds me a lot of the Suh situation with the Lions way back in the day. The Lions basically did nothing... didn't trade him, weren't able to resign him... he just walked away and the front office looked like a turd because they appeared to have no plan and did nothing.

So there's three reasonable actions the Tigers can take regarding Skubal: Try to resign him Trade him Build a serious WS contender for his last year here Given that #1 not only seems unlikely but also seems like their not even trying... we'll left with #2 and #3. Given that Ilitch does NOT seem willing to open the purse strings much, if at all, #3 seems highly unlikely. So... we're hoping for #2 then? But do we even think Harris will be able to get a good return for him? I mean, Skubal should be worth it, even if it's just one year of Skubal, but we do have faith that Harris will get it done? I think Harris has made a number of smaller trades that have worked out well enough, but I don't know about a blockbuster level trade. Perhaps it's not fair to judge him sole on the ERod incident, but I don't have much faith in Harris when it comes to make trade deals right now.

Forgive me for coming into the conversation late here, but is the general coconscious these days that the Tigers aren't extending Skubal? That's certainly the feeling I get... that they're just not going to pony up the cash to give him a competitive offer.

1934, actually... and, this is going to ruffle a few feathers, the Lions didn't invent Football on Turkey Day. They weren't even the first NFL team to do it. What made the Lions effort unique were two things: First was the fact that Lions owner George Richards also owned WJR, which was part of the Blue Network (which became ABC) and the Lions game was broadcast nationwide on the radio. And of course the second thing was that the Lions would go on to do it (almost) every year after. (They didn't play in T-Day during WWII.) So the Lions didn't invent it, but they were the ones who made it wildly popular and cemented it as a NFL tradition. Lots of the info here was pulled from the wikipedia article on NFL on Thanksgiving Day if you want to read more. Some numbers (also pulled from there): The Lions have played 85 T-Day games. Second closest is of course the Cowboys with 58. The Bears and Packers are tied for 3rd place with 38. Most wins also goes to the Lions with 38 wins. With them also having 46 loses and 2 ties that's a sad .452 WPct. Second place is unsurprisingly the Cowboys with 35 wins. The Arizona Cardinals have the 5th most T-Day games as they used to host them quite regularly in the past in their various stops around the country. As the Chicago Cards they hosted 1922, '24, '33-'35, and '50. As the St. Louis Cards they hosted on '75 and '77.

I suspect an argument could be made that a RBs success is, at least in part, dependent on the OL. Exhibit A would be J-Will. Averaged 482 yards per season rushing in 2017-2021, and 2023. Averaged 2.3 TDs per season rushing. In 2022 had 1066 rushing yards and 17 TDs. I think it's safe to say that he didn't suddenly become a pro-bowl talent in 2022, then lose that talent in 2023. So, the question then becomes how much is Gibbs success because of OL and how much of it is his talent? Certainly he gets a boost playing because a great (at times) OL. But there's also no denying that Gibbs has TONS of talent. To try to argue that the Lions could just swap in any other RB in his place is pretty silly imho.

In theory, yes... but that's only works if you win the challenges and are able to call for them at a period where you would be willing to have called a TO in case you lose. Furthermore, if you use them up then you won't have a challenge if you need it later. You have a lot of people in the NFL looking for any advantage they can get. If strategic use of challenges lead to "extra" TOs I'm sure we'd be seeing it used much more often.

Actually, I don't think so. I think it was a smart challenge. Dallas needed to start using timeouts to ensure they got the ball back with enough time, so there would have been some good logic in using a timeout at this point anyway. Instead, you use a challenge. Worst case senario: You lose the challenge and you lose a TO that you would likely have used anyway right here. Best case senario: You win and "gain" a TO.

There was a rumor floating around that he injured his wrist earlier in the season. Obviously just a rumor, but it might explain it somewhat.

Wanna know what's really weird? I pulled the game in youtube TV at this entire drive is missing from the NFL version of the game. The NFL Network version goes right from the Cowboys FG at 9:18 to the start of the 'Boys next drive at 8:21. I had to go back to the Amazon Prime version to rewatch the drive. It starts to get increasingly hard not to suspect some funny business when the refs miss Saylors getting his head shoved into the turf, then miss offsides, then miss a possible DPI on the same drive... only for the NFL Network recording of the game to just not include that drive at all.

I think this is one problem with replay... now just let me state that I think replay review is overall a good thing and the game is better because of it. But, there is certain consequence it because of the way the rules are written. I think that refs tend to let plays happen perhaps a bit more knowing that replay will fix it if they get it wrong. Taking this play for example. A ref might think: "Oh, I think that was a pass attempt, but I'm not 100% sure. If I call it incomplete and so blow the play dead, but it ends up a fumble, that'll be a mess. But if I assume it's a fumble and it ends up an incomplete pass, replay will be able to easily fix it." So, the ref lets it play out because replay to fix incomplete is easy, but replay to fix on a fumble after blowing the play dead is much harder. In theory, that makes sense and it's a good way to go. But in practice, this can be problematic. On this play there was clearly no question that it was a forward pass. But what if it wasn't super clear? What if there were no really good camera angles? Now there's potential that what the ref(s) thought was an incomplete pass but let play out because replay will fix it now is trapped by rules that say there has to be clear evidence to overturn.

Two first rounders, one second (or third?) rounder, a high priced FA they're not getting pressure. The talent should be there.

I feel like the Lions of 2024 and 2023 were great because of the OL and the DL. I feel like the 2025 Lions are bad (or at least not great) because of the OL and DL. I mean, there's plenty of other things to talks about... ARSB suddenly dropping passing like crazy... our depleted secondary... changes in OC and DC and OC again (kinda). But it feels like our OL can't protect well against good teams and it feels like our DL can't get pressure consistently against good teams. I don't want to be too much doom and gloom here... we knew the 2025 schedule was going to be tough, and we knew the 2025 Lions were going to have some issues (OC and DC leaving, Ragnow retiring, McNeill being out for the start of the season) and we've still got a winning record. This isn't the 1990s where we'd be pretty good one year, then crappy the next, then pretty good again, then crappy... And it's probably a testament to what Holmes and Campbell has done in such a short time that we're left unsatisfied by 7-5. I just think that we need to really work on improving the lines going into 2026 if we're going to be that dominate team again.

Plus the defense obviously needed more practice, so maybe that extra plays in OT will help them??

I agree. As longer and longer FG become more common I think they'll find a way to made them harder to make.

The Giants allow the most ypc of any team in the NFL at 5.9 and have allowed the most yards on the ground (1886). If the Giants DL is the most talented it's not with stopping the run. https://www.nfl.com/stats/team-stats/defense/rushing/2025/reg/all Note: I'm not sure if those stats are updated with yesterday's game. If they are you could argue that part of the reason they are the worst is how well the Lions ran on them, but I'd guess even without the Lions game the Giants would still easily be in the bottom 5.