RedRamage

I had to cut it off at 12 wins... it just got too crowded at that bottom. In case you're curious: 11 - Tommy Hudspeth 10 - Harry Gilmer & Rod Marinelli 6 - Gus Henderson & Don McCafferty 5 - Marty Mornhinweg 4 - Bill Edwards & Gary Moeller 1 - **** Jauron & Darrell Bevell 0 - John Karcis (coached 8 games, no wins.) & Robert Price Quick Edit to add: This is only regular season wins.

Lions made on Jomboy Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwJF-y484DQ

Yeah, I thought the flag flew really early on that one. But we kinda sorta got it back when the ref flagged the Bear fro tipping the ball.

Stupid Seahawks!! So close! Ugh.

The ownership/front office would be my concern. I think Williams' problems are a product of the inept coaching there more than anything else. Obviously there is the concern that they "broke" him, but it's only one season. But if I was Ben I'd be much more worried about the front office and ownership.

I don't think they'd rest healthy players, but they may not play questionable players and/or they may start pulling players part way through the game... especially if they are winning or losing by a good bit. That said, I don't see a likely senario with the Lions have the #1 set no matter the outcome of the last game. It would require both the Vikings and the Eagles losing another game before week 18 (or possibly during week 18 for the Eagles depending on when all the games are played). It's certainly possible that the Eagles lose to the Commanders this Sunday (in order words: Root for the Commanders!) but I wouldn't bet on it. It's also possible that the Vikings lose the Seahawks and/or the Packers, but again that's not how I'd bet if I actually did any betting. I really think week 18 is going to be a 'must win' in order to get the #1 seed.

Neither. He's just extraordinarily passionate for the Lions and lives and dies on each play. I think we all get a bit worked up during the game and overreact to things. Now, imho TP goes a bit too far down the over-reaction road, but I kinda/sorta get it... it's not always easy to stay level headed and logical during a game.

Being realistic about the damage to the defense is NOT the same as jumping off the bandwagon. I still think the Lions and beat SanFran and Chicago and possibly even the Vikings, but it definitely got harder to do. And come the playoffs they'll be facing nothing but the best teams in the NFL and doing it with one hand of the defense tied behind their back. Again, not impossible, but significantly harder. 100% agreement there. It's not the loss that's the problem. It's the loss of two more starters and a backup on an already injury riddled defense. If Dorsey can be play Safety we can legitimately field a decent defense with just our guys we've got injured right now: DL: Hutch, McNeill, Cominsky, Davenport LB: Barnes, Anzalone, Rodrigo CB: Davis, Rackstraw S: Iffy, Dorsey?? This part I agree with. Defensively we've upgraded significantly. Smith is a nice DE to put on the opposite end. McNeill came out as a star last year and has only added to it this year. Davis is a nice pickup at CB and Arnold looks to be great at the other CB spot. Campbell at LB as grown considerably. If the defense is all healthy that starting lineup is top notch. I'm a little worried about the age of the OL, but I think they've got at least another year or two of top level play there.

Okay, so if we can beat the Bears and the 49ers... which seems doable even with our heavily depleted defense... and if we can get the Packers to beat the Vikings (wait a minutes for me to wash my hands after rooting for the Packers), then we could go into week 18 with the division sewn up.

Ah man... this is NICE. I love that they have all the tie breakers shown.

Yeah, losing Montgomery isn't horrible imho. We have depth there in Gibbs and Reynolds and even Vaki. It'll hurt, but not as much as if it was a defensive starter going out. If McNeill and Davis AND Monty are all out there... that's just a bit more straw on the camel's back.

I won't say their season is over, but I also don't anticipate a deep run in the playoffs. There are just too many injuries to over come. I still think we'll beat Chicago and SanFran... unsure on the Vikings. But I don't feel good about going up against playoff caliber teams with duct tape defense.

Is there is I don't think they have it all on one side of the ball, certainly.

So... who did we want to lose this week? Eagles of course... Packers just for more breathing room... Vikings obviously, and the Chiefs just because. And who did lose this week? None of them! (Well, unless the Bears pull off a miracle.) If we were in the NFC South or West we'd have clinched the division already. But because we're in the North we actually could end up 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd yet.

Without trying to be too much of a debbie downer... I agree. I mean this is what the project depth chart was supposed to be going into the season (as best I can piece together... let me know if I got something wrong!): And this is just the injury status right now. Reader, Levi, Martin, and Pachal have all missed games with injury issues, as has Arnold. Plus there are people who've been added to this chart who are also hurt now as well.

It's just our luck that the Lions are finally really, really good and oh... guess what... so are the Vikings and Packers. 12-2 and we haven't clinched the division. We could very easily end up 14-3 and be the 5th seed in the NFC. That's just crazy.

I disagree, kinda. I mean I know any given Sunday and all that, but... Bills: Definitely a tough game. @ Chicago: I hope the weather will be bad because I think we're better in bad weather. Sure, this could be a trap game, but the Bears are a mess right now. Rookie QB, Rookie (interim) HC. This should not be a tough game. The only thing I worry about here is health. As long as we're mostly healthy we should win this one. Should NOT be a touch game. @ SanFran: The 49ers aren't good right now. It's been a bad year for them and we should be able to win this one decently. Should NOT be a tough game. IF it comes down to the Vikings having a shot at the division (and possibly #1 seed) this will be a dangerous game. But again, assuming reasonable health... we beat them in Minny, we should be able to beat them at home. It WILL be a tough game So two tough games, but two that should be relatively easy.

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?