RedRamage

No he wouldn't... because if Goff played this year on the Bears he wouldn't have nearly the same product he had with the Lions.

For the record, I agree with you on the last part for the reason stated. But, purely as hypothetical thought experiment... what if: 1.) Jared Goff announces his surprise retirement. 2.) Ben Johnson, Dan Campbell and the rest of the coach staff come up to you (playing the role of Brad Holmes) and say: "We know what's stopping Fields from being a better passer and we can, at the very least, make him a league average passer in 2023." Now... assuming that the coaching staff is telling the truth... do you do it? I mean in our silly scenario you're probably going to spend one of your first round pick on a QB anyway.

Here's the proposed trade: Now, looking JUST at the trade... nothing else... not looking at if the Bears would do it would the Lions actually be interested in Field as their QB... looking at just the assets being traded... it's intriguing. I was expecting some weird way over the top trade but this is "reasonable" I think for the Fields. If I was a team in a need for a QB and I felt that Fields would improve as a passer with a better team around him, I would probably be willing to spend that draft capital on him. BUT I'm not sure I believe that Fields will be a better passer and I don't believe that QB is a need for the Lions right now.

I hope not. Just like with BenJo, I hope he sticks around for another year at least to help with consistency.

I get this strange feeling that Brady is gonna go to 49ers and play another year while mentoring Purdy. Who better than a former 6th round pick to mentor a 7th round pick?

WTF?!? Does someone actually think this is a good deal for the Jets? The likely defensive ROY from last year, Williams and TWO 1sts for an aging QB?? I mean, if I'm the Packers I'm doing that deal instantly. No question at all.

Looking at Ford Field's website: There's no other dates listed other than "several weekends." Again according to Ford Field's site, the next scheduled event is 6/9 (Taylor Swift show) so I don't see any potential conflicts for a while.

I suspect that Brown could easily be a starting center for a lot of team and if there's a team that needs/wants him, he'll get a lot more money being a starting center than a backup guard/center. He'd probably get more money being a starting center than even a starting guard.

I love how they said it's a record $224 million. Like duh... it goes up (nearly) ever year. Each new year is a new record except twice in the history of the NFL salary cap. Since 1994, when it first started, there are only been two years when the cap was less than what it was before. In 2009 the cap was $123M. In 2010 there was no cap. In 2011 with the new CBA in place the cap was put back and it was set at $120.6M. In 2020 the cap was $198.2M but in 2021 it dropped to $182.5M because of impact of the pandemic. In 2022 it went up to $208.2M, surpassing the 2020 number.

I'm kinda built like Jabba the Hutt, and VW make the Jetta, so... that's kinda close, right?

You might be right, I dunno... I suspect (at least initially) that some might push the envelope a bit. I can see some runners maybe dancing a little bit to try and distract the pitcher more. It might very well be that in a year (or less) this all settle down and has virtually no impact on that game because runners aren't doing things different and pitchers aren't doing things differently. However, even if that happens I think it's worth noting that rule doesn't effectively "get in the way" of the game in any meaningful way, at least that I can see. It's very possible, even likely, that at the end of the season we'll say: "Eh... it fixed a very minor problem without making the game worse." If that's the worst that can be said of it at the end of the year that's still a win (a minor win) imho.

I wonder if Ausmus might not make a decent GM. Obviously he wasn't a great manager, but GM is obviously a very different position to that of the guy on the field. He was always supposed to have good baseball smarts, what's he? Maybe it just didn't translate well on the field. That said I don't think he has real extensive experience in the front office. I'd be a little reluctant to hand him the keys with out more of a track record. According to wikipedia: 2011-2013: "field executive" for Padres 2018: Special Assistant to general manager for the Angels

On one hand, I don't like the idea of "penalizing" a shorter player by making him need to cover a larger strike zone (compared to body size) vs. a taller player. But, on the other hand, taller players already have many advantages. We don't move the pitchers mound back or forth a few inches depending on the height of the pitcher. We don't let shorter first basemen be allowed to be two inches off the bag on a force out. And we don't adjust the height of the outfield fences based on who's playing in the outfield. So why should we adjust the strike zone based on the height of a batter? My guess was the original rule was written the way it was because there was no better way for an ump to be able to judge a zone. The ump would be hard pressed to create an imaginary invisible line in his head and call that consistently without any cue to where that line is. But if we can electronically measure it accurately, do we really need to adjust it for every batter?

But shouldn't (in theory) those deviations be accounted for by an electronic zone? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying but your 'strike in the dirt' example seems like your saying the ball was in the dirt when it got to the catcher, but was in the strike zone when it passed the plate. If that's the same an electronic zone would properly call that as a strike.

This is the first I've heard of this rule... I actually really like it... I mean I like it a lot. First, I know it doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen at times when a pitcher will throw over 4 or more times. Second, I like that it's 3 attempts... 3 is just a very baseball number. Third, I can actually see this being employed as a strategy by a base runner. I can see a runner who's been thrown on twice already trying to tempt the pitcher to try for a third pick off attempt. I think it could actually create some intrigue and action in the game. This is a very rare instance where I think they are actually solving a problem (admittedly a minor problem) with an upgrade to the game.

WOW! Games at Ford Field? That really, really surprises me! I didn't think there was anyway they would get in Ford Field in the next 4-5 years let alone this year. I'm honestly kinda stunned. This does explain why Ford Field accelerated the time table to have the field replaced though.

I wouldn't be opposed to bring in Brady if the price was right. I mean, it would certainly solve the issue of back up QB for us.

With the T-Rex probably.

Laps around me.

So what you're saying is that the Lions should add red to their uniform?

This one's for you @Motown Bombers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qDhgLRX4uQ

That's very kind of you. Thank you!

My first instinct is to say "too early to say for sure" but honestly... it's like the other current owners are doing anything great... so yeah, at this moment I'd say she's the leader.

You mean Denise "Don't call me a kid" Ilitch?

And this is why, even though I'm not 100% sold on Goff, I'd prefer they don't spend a high pick on a QB. If the team was (more or less) complete, then I'd feel it's safer/easier to draft a developmental/backup QB. But given the holes we have on defense in particular, I'd rather put the draft picks there.