MichiganCardinal

I think my take is more long-term versus short-term. The Packers bet the future on the now and finished 9-8-1 with a wildcard exit. The Lions refused to stray from the course and finished 9-8, a record sometimes good enough and sometimes not for a chance. The Packers finish is better in theory, because they had the chance. But now the Lions can add and improve, while the Packers are handicapped. I'd rather a 9-8 season where we miss the playoffs or squeak in every three or four years, if it means being a true contender the other two or three years. As opposed to mortgaging the future for one big shot, only to fall short at that one big shot and have to struggle to make it to 9-8 for the next 3-4+ years.

Browns and Raiders are probably worse jobs on some larger scale levels. I sincerely doubt that either will seriously improve as an organization until a Martha Hamp falls into their laps. I'd put it Ravens >>> Giants >> Cardinals > Titans > Falcons > Dolphins > Browns > Raiders

There's probably some truth to this and it's not all that dissimilar from what Ben Johnson did. Benjamin could have gone to the Panthers in 2024 but bet on himself, waited a year to bolster the resume, and landed a better opportunity. Hypothetically, if McDaniel gets an offer from both the Lions (for OC) and Browns (for HC), which would put him in a better position in 2029?

On paper, his Green Bay teams are not very talented. Particularly at the talent/speed positions (RB, WR, CB) and the interior trenches (particularly IDL). I also don't think Jordan Love would still be a starting quarterback in the NFL on many other teams. So to the extent he gets the most out of the least, he deserves some credit for routinely making the playoffs. That being said, I also don't think they're winning a Super Bowl with him. It's not all that dissimilar from the Ravens problem. He seems to have hit a ceiling, but it's not clear if that's a talent issue or a coaching issue, and if you fire him he instantly gets a job and probably makes you look stupid when he pulls a Mike Vrabel.

In fairness there is a difference between "bringing back" a player who is under rookie contract and "bringing back" a free agent. The former isn't "bringing back" as much as it is just not giving up. Levi was re-signed once, and it was after a 2024 season where he missed only one game and was arguably the most consistent performer on the defensive line. As opposed to Davenport, who was a non-factor even when he was on the field. (And yes, Levi then burned us and never even participated in training camp). For a better comparison to Levi I would look to Rakestraw, who I also anticipate will be back in 2026 despite chronic injury.

I was thinking about this yesterday, as well as the Packers trading the house for Micah Parsons and promptly making it exactly as far as they did last year (and not having Parsons to open 2026). The patient mouse doesn't always get the cheese, but neither does the aggressive mouse. There isn't a one size fits all approach to personnel in the NFL. I do think Holmes' approach, building through the draft and paying your own, probably provides the most number of bites at the apple in trying to get that elusive championship. The Eagles are due for a regression (that we've already seen in their offense) and are in a perilous position with the salary cap. The Packers have no first round picks until 2028. The Rams have a limited number of opportunities remaining with Stafford. Meanwhile, the Lions will continue to do what they do, few splash moves but overall improving the team on paper.

I'd be happy to see him go, so probably the right decision by Green Bay to keep him.

I would be surprised if they bring back Davenport. They've shown a two strike policy before on injury-prone free agents. Emmanuel Moseley got two years, two ACLs, and one pectoral to get healthy. They weren't going to keep banging their head against the wall believing he would get healthy though. Paschal I am 50/50. I think he'll likely be back on a very cheap one-year deal like Levi originally was, because his value on the open market after missing an entire year due to back surgery will be next to nothing. The Lions will present the best opportunity for him to get back on the field. I'm not opposed to that either, high-reward and very little risk as long as you're not seriously depending on him to start the season (and how could you at this point?)

Nah. The Bears going to the NFC Championship would make them insufferable. They have an innate ability to be as obnoxious as Cowboys fans, it’s just been beat out of them for 40 years. No need to give them hope.

What a choke job by the Packers. I’m not sure LaFleur will have a job on Monday.

It’s pronounced yoggers

You were so confident I thought you were breaking news.

If LaFleur gets fired with a loss that would be the best possible outcome for the Lions. Though they’d probably replace him with John Harbaugh.

Good thing they were all business this week.

Gonna call it a postseason with that, where can I collect my winnings?

I agree. I think if someone who hasn’t called plays before is the hire, it will be a more collaborative process. Everyone focuses on the label, but there’s much more to an OC than 60-70 decisions on a Sunday. It’s not quite like Madden where you just select the play from a wide open play book and it happens. Between scripts, game plans, and weekly prep on an opponent, the play caller is more an executor of a collaborative process than an authoritarian voice. But. I think Campbell has struggled as that executor. The Philly game is a prime example, locked in a defensive battle and we went for it on 4th down five times. It felt like in the heat of needing to get a play to Goff, he lost a feel for the game.

This is certainly a choice.

Maybe. There are only so many experienced play callers out there though. Good ones become head coaches. Until they make a hire, it’s just a diligent search.

Finally got a chance to see it tonight. The play is called a Hail Mary for a reason. It’s not the officials’ job to answer the prayer. Could they have called it pass interference? Would it have been a supportable call? Sure. But I bet you their bosses are perfectly okay with a no call and I’m not sure if there is a single semifinal official in college football who would make that call. It deserves not 5% of the media attention it’s getting. Ole Miss lost fair and square. Complaining about a no call on a last second heave to the end zone is sour grapes.

The Commanders go from interviewing Tee Martin next week to hiring Blough. I wonder if Blough got an offer elsewhere and he gave the Commanders right of first refusal. I don’t think it would have been the Lions, he’d be crazy to take the Commanders offense over the Lions. But something fishy happened there. It could be too that Tee Martin’s agent is fishing for interviews.

I get in principle why fans generally would support this, but as a Lions season ticket holder, this would really piss me off. I don’t miss games. Became a STH in February 2021 and have missed four home games total since. One in ‘22, one in ‘23, two in ‘25… and attended four road games in that time too (@KC twice, @CIN, @CHI). I would never want to miss a playoff game. If I sold playoff tickets on Ticketmaster, it would be because I absolutely couldn’t make it and couldn’t find a friend to purchase them. The billionaires can save me the guilt trip. ”2026 renewal eligibility may be impacted if it is determined that your season tickets, including any playoff games, were used primarily for resale purposes.” Then a month ago you should have emailed those who were selling all their games. Don’t microscope the most expensive ticket because you’re losing money on the resale market.

I never took Trump as such an ardent supporter of indigenous rights. This is going to get really awkward when someone teaches him what Chris Columbus did.

I agree he has a tendency to turn into a pumpkin 1-2 times per season. 2023 against Chicago he threw 3 picks (the Lions won anyway). 2024 against Houston he threw 5 picks (the Lions won anyway) in addition to the playoff game. 2025 he was dreadful against both Philly and Minnesota (the Lions lost both). It's worth noting that even he as a pumpkin is better than a ton of the QBs in the league. I'm not sure it's really correlated to must-win games in any meaningful way either. Minnesota and Washington were obviously unfortunate. But the others were just random one-offs. And that's supported by the surrounding context, as he usually bounces right back anytime he lays an egg. I have total faith that he could lead us to a championship.

I don't think Goff can really shoulder the blame for that Washington playoff loss. Not to say he played well, he definitely didn't, but I'm not sure a perfect performance from him wins that game. The defense was atrocious. The play calling from Ben Johnson screamed "I prepared for interviews instead of this game." Goff wasn't going to stop Jamo from throwing a pick when the offense is driving. Goff was a cog in the 2024 Lions machine that blew up in a picture reminiscent of Deepwater Horizon.

I posted my reply in the wrong thread too, whoops. But..... I think it means nothing at all. Anything they do could be defined as the same approach as last year. If they trade for Maxx Crosby, well they tried last year but the price was too high. If they draft a 1st round edge, well they wanted to last year but the value wasn't there (or character RE Mike Green). If they sign Trey Hendrickson in free agency, well they wanted to sign a free agent last year but they got out-bid. If they do none of that and run it back with multiple high-injury risk players like Davenport, Paschal, Onwuzurike, etc., along with next year's version of AQM, well that's the same approach and the same result. That being said, I doubt they bring back Davenport. He was useless and I suspect they'll cut their losses. Doesn't mean next year's Davenport will be any less injury prone though.