RedRamage

MY apologies... I guess I didn't read carefully enough. RE: different sports... what was your thinking? Would a University be assigned a tier on the whole or would there be a different tier setup for each sport?

I don't think this would be as easy as you think. I suspect you'd get a LOT of resistance from schools like Michigan who think they are top tier school always and forever (and may not without some merit). They would not want to be up for regulation. There's also the question of rivalries. I know you left one game for rivals, but if MSU, OSU... er, I mean tOSU, and UofM all end up on different tiers, then MSU would miss out on the rivalry game with UofM. Finally there's the whole big-fish, little pond vs. little-fish, big pond issue. I suspect that schools like Alabama or tOSU wouldn't like to have to face the top(ish) 11 schools every year. Then the other issue is which sport(s) are you judging this by? Or do you see a different tier set for each sport?

Maybe... but I hope that having two first round picks might be enough to move up if we need to. It's hard to say right now if any other QBs emerge as legit options. Logically I know it will make more sense to lose games this year to better our shot of a high pick. But in season I have a very hard time rooting for losses.

I found this very interesting... the 25 biggest lakes in the world put side-by-side: It comes from this page here: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-25-largest-lakes/ There's a bit of info about some of the lakes there, and also a few more very interesting pictures where they put the great lakes in other parts of the work to show the relative size: India, Europe, and Australia.

I dunno... I don't think he's an football idiot. Obviously he failed here in Detroit, no way to sugar coat that. But I wonder if he'd be decent enough as a coordinator. He obviously seemed to have enough success at it original in NE. And there's lots of guys who are good-to-great coordinators who fail as HC. Just looking at Detroit's history: 'Weg went on to coach in the NFL for 14 years after getting fired by the Lions in various roles from QB coach to OC to Assistant HC. Marinelli is still in the league and served 9 of the years after he was fire as a DC. Schwartz had 6 years as a DC. I think it's entirely possible to be a great coordinator, yet fail as a HC. HC is a different animal and some people just don't have the chops to be a the man in charge of it all. It's one reason why I think it's not always smart to assume the next great HC is someone's current great coordinator. Now having defending Patricia, I do find it very odd that he's being put in as the offensive coordinator. It almost feels like he's being groomed for Belichick's replacement, which would be odd. But again I don't think Patricia is a football idiot. With the right mentoring, maybe he could step into the role of HC again. However, I do question how good Belichick is as an HC mentor given the many notable failures in his "coaching tree."

And while I have the USFL thread open here... what's the deal with the times these games are being played?? This weeks Panther's game is on Saturday at 9:00pm. Why? The opponent is New Orleans so it's not like it's a west coast team. Why start so stinkin' late at night? Last week's game was really late too. I actually watched part of it but didn't stay up until it ended. To be fair they had a 30 minute weather delay which pushed the game back even further, but why play soooo late?

The NO Breakers picked up Patterson. Not that I think all the issues the Panthers have were because of Patterson, but I do think Lynch played better when he was in there as QB. I'm guessing that Lynch is the starter now... other QBs on the roster are Josh Love and Eric Barriere out of Eastern Washington.

Is it time to rethink how Replay works? I mean on the replay it seems pretty clear that Hill was save. I think you probably could make the argument that the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, only like 90% conclusive. And (I think) the rule or guideline being that it has to be clear evidence that the call is wrong to overturn it... then it's probably the right call to say that the evidence is at least semi-questionable so stay with the call on the field. But here's the problem: Who has a better view of the call? Multiple camera angles that can be zoomed in and slowed down? Or one umpire who's got one view at real time while being tripped up by the runner? I think the idea that we assume the call on the field is correct unless we have iron clad proof that it's not is the wrong direction to take these days. We have better and better cameras, we have multiple angle, we have access to quick replay. I think it's time to say that if a call is challenged that the replay reviewers assume nothing. They judge the play purely on what they see. In the unlikely event that the replay people really can't decide THEN go with the call on the field. But when the point of replay is to get the call right, let's get it right. Right now replay review feels like a criminal case: there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt to overturn. I say it needs to be a civil case: Whatever the preponderance of evidence supports is the call that should be made.

I've been sorta thinking about getting a 3D printer for a while now. I know just enough about them to be dangerous though... I clearly don't know enough to be an expert on it so looking for some recommendations if anyone has one or has extensive experience I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Mostly I'd be getting it to make various odds and ends... like phone mounts for me car or headphone hook or what-have-you. I don't have a lot of requirements other than I'd something relatively easy in terms of setup so I'm not going massive calibration as I expect I'll be printing semi-infrequently. Ideally something that isn't extremely loud (maybe an enclosed machine?) as it'll be in my home office. I think that filament would be better than resin as different filament types would provide more flexibility, but I'm not necessarily opposed to resin if that makes the most sense. So... any input? Good experiences? Bad experiences? Recommendations for or against any brand/type/whatever? EDIT TO ADD: Price isn't a huge deal... I mean, I don't want to pay $5K for something. I'm not opposed to paying a bit more for a better machine but probably looking to spend less than $1K if possible.

Honestly, I'm happy they don't have a primetime game. Purely from a selfish fan-experience perspective but I enjoy the regularity of 1:00pm games. I remember a few years back when they have a number of "non-standard" game times and I didn't like it as all.

Yup, always seem to end up there in the cold. Kinda sucks.

100% agreed. The questions of course is how to measure "performs well."

1. Maybe? How much of not being able to throw deep was not having targets who could get open deep? 2. Maybe? We've obviously been trying to build up the rest of the team, especially the defense. 3. Let's walk before we run... let's just worry about getting to the playoffs first before we target a SB victory. (More on this later) 4. This is a valid question, though it's worth pointing out at Goff improved under Campbell's play calling, so there's a legit reason to think that he will be more like second half Goff rather than first half. 5. I think most people aren't expecting improvement. Now, imho #3 is the biggie here. Can we expect Goff to be a guy who can lead us to the playoffs regularly, win some of those game, get us (eventually) to a SB and (assuming Hell freezes over) win a SB? Not next year, no. I would lay just about any amount of money on the Lions NOT winning the SB in the 2022 season. But (and this is key) right now we're only looking at using Goff for the 2022 season. Not taking a QB in the draft or trade for one or signing a free agent now does NOT mean the Lions are locked into Goff beyond 2022... heck, we're not even locked in for 2022. If he stinks up the place so bad it's scary we don't HAVE to play him. Unless I'm very much mistaken people are aren't saying we should commit to Goff and only Goff for the next 4-5 years. I believe people are saying: "We could be competitive this year maybe... and hey if Goff shows massive improvement maybe we stick with him long term. If he doesn't, we look at addressing QB next off season." One could argue that that's what the Lions were doing with Stafford. We know how that worked out. The front offices couldn't build a good enough team around him.

Yeah, marks everyone has C or above, but also gives the Lions of their lowest grades. Weird.

I agree. Most HCs these days are coming from the offensive side of the ball.

I was going to make some comment on this during the draft... but I forgot the name of the poster on the old site who made some comments about (I think it was) the Piston coach's daughters, who were minors at the time.

I think that if you look at it from his point of view, it does seem odd... the problem is that his point of view is to narrowly defined. As a "draft guru" he's looking at it purely from a draft perspective. The Seahawks NEED a QB. Here's a guy who some projected as high as #2 over all, but he fell to the second round. Therefore he's a high ranked player who fills a position of need and therefore he's the perfect fit. Looking PURELY from a draft perspective, it makes sense. The problem is that the Seahawks are obviously looking BEYOND the three days of the draft, Mel Kiper isn't.

While you are very much correct in saying that we won't know for sure until 3 years (or more) down the line, I think it's okay to give a grade now with the understanding that this is how we think things will go but we acknowledge that we'll only really know after a few years of playing. To that end I'm giving it a B grade. I like the Hutch pick... I'm cautiously optimistic on the Williams pick. I'm not a fan of the Paschal pick, not because I don't like Paschal, but feel like we've put SOOO much draft capital in the DL recently. I worry that we're going to lacking in other areas. Joseph seems like a good pickup in a need area. Anything you get out of anyone beyond round 4 I consider a plus. I don't expect them to be stars. A few interesting side notes: 1. The names of this year's picks were pretty tame compared to last year. 2. The only pick that was 'naturally' ours was Hutchinson. All the rest came from other sources: Williams and Paschal from trade with Vikings Joseph, Mitchell and Houston were Compensatory Rodriguez from Seattle Lucas from Saints.

He looks like he could be anywhere from early 20s to mid 40s.

This pick will make or break this draft for us.

From PFF: Paschal has a unique body type for the edge at 6-foot-3 and 278 pounds. He's a leverage demon who lived in opponents' backfields last year en route to a Power Five-leading 12.4% run-stop rate. They had him ranked 44th.

It's second round... this is where the Lions typical swing and miss, so....

Hmm.... that seems like they are overloading a bit on that position.

uh oh...