RedRamage

The Vikings have a KILLER end of the season. They'll either show themselves are not ready or prove the nay-sayers wrong. Next week is a cake-walk hosting the Bears, but then they go to Seattle, host the Packers and of course finish against us in Detroit.

In case anyone is curious how the Lions stack up here, they have beat: 7-6 Rams 8-5 Seahawks 11-2 Vikings 9-4 Packers (x2) 8-5 Texans So we've got a number of wins over winning programs this season.

There's also something to be said about the "quality of wins" I guess, I mean they beat: 2-11 Giants 6-7 49ers 8-5 Texans 9-4 Packers 3-10 Jets 6-7 Colts 3-10 Jaguars 3-10 Titans 4-9 Bears 6-7 Cardinals 6-7 Falcons So they've only beat two teams with a winning record. That said... one of those two teams they beat where the Packers and they're listed in the "SB contender" tier and the ONLY team that the Pack as beat with a winning record is the Texans so the same argument against the Vikings applies also to the Packers. Either the Vikings should be in the SB contender tier or the Packers shouldn't.

I predict that Juan Soto will sign before ST starts.

We need to rebrand the team: The problem is we keep giving the 'L' to the Packers.

Packers are still a solid team. 9-4 would put them in first place in three divisions and second place in the other 4. It's only in the NFC North that they're pushed down to 3rd place. Then look at their four losses: 2 for the NFL leading Lions and 2 to teams right behind the Lions at 10-2. The Packers are a solid team that will make the playoffs (most likely) and most other teams should expect a very tough game is not straight up assume a loss. I would assume the Pack wins against Seattle, NO, and Chicago. They may or may not lose to the Vikings.

It's be interesting to see where the divide is. London appears to be pretty much half way between Buffalo and Detroit so just based on pure geography it seems like it could go either way.

Has Detroit become the place that makes players "look better" than they are? Are we the place now that will be letting good-to-great players go who will get big contacts other places but won't live up to them?

Dude, if you're going to post something like this than you need to do it completely. You need to add in directions to the nearest brick wall because I have an massive desire to run through it right now.

I think this is a pretty normal reaction though. You view the game through your fan eyes. I mean we've all done it many times: "Goff/Montgomery/Gibbs/whomever didn't have at great game..." Our first instinct is to say our team didn't do this or that rather than giving credit to the opposing team for preventing it from happening.

Yeah... I can see the argument either way. I just don't know if I would have done it... but then again Campbell's got the record to backup his choices so who am I to criticize? I also wonder if there wasn't a bit of doubt on the GB side of things that played to our advantage? I have to think that there was some hesitancy on the DL of the Packers to not twitch too quickly and get drawn offsides.

Dan Campbell is now tied with Caldwell with 36 regular season wins. This makes him (tied for) 7th place in total win among Detroit Lions head coaches. Winning percentage is a little bit more nebulous in my opinion because it's not fixed for the current guy. Right now Campbell has a .570 (4th best in Lions history, minimum 10 games coached), but obviously if like Goff has a freak injury next year and the Lions end up 6-11 or something that will drop his percentage a lot. But just four season and he's already tied for 7th best. The next milestone is obviously 37 wins which will push into sole possession of 7th place. Beyond that is 43 which is held by Joe Schmidt and Monte Clark. That'll have to wait for 2025 of course.

It's a Victory Stork, obviously. Hey, if the Tigers can have a Rally Goose, why can't the Lions have a Victory Stork??

I don't entirely disagree with this. It's possible to have a good outcome but for the decision to still be bad (just like it's possible to make a good objective decision that turns out poorly). I think I see Campbell's mentality... like: If we kick a FG we and we leave too much time they might go down the field and kick a FG (tie) or get a TD (win) or we might stop them (lose). But if we try for a 4th down and get stopped they still might down down and kick a FG (win) or get a TD (win) or we might stop them (tie). I'm just not sure that I'd have risked that converting a FG into a win instead of a tie.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Charlie Batch... though he's not nearly as good looking as Marisa and me.

Come on guys! Get me one last present for my B-Day!

That was a VERY pretty play!

Yeah, and they don't talk about anything like: "This guy here needs to do x... " or whatever. Not idea what it's all about.

What are the stupid red circles/targets they keep putting on various players?

Well I think we're well past the point where "next man up" just can't cover the the holes anymore. The defense is in shambles and it shows. Not their fault... it's just we're playing 2nd and 3rd string players now.

That hurts.

Can he play D-Line?

If we're talking purely passer-to-passer comparison, then the stats certain point in Goff's favor. If we're talking MVP then it's fair to also mention that Allen has 334 rushing yards this season including 6 TDs compared to Goff's 40 and 0 TDs. Interestingly they are exactly tied on receiving: 1 reception each for 7 yards and 1 TD.

It's certainly the sort of thing the Lions would have done in the past, isn't it? Man it feels good to not think this is how the Lions would handle it right now.