KL2

A) Thats not true. Unless we don't think the best QBs in Falcons history count (or are you just saying that were were teh only ones to trade it after 2020? Cause then its oddly esoteric and not sure what the hell point you're trying to make.) B) Why should that matter? They all had garbage rosters. The jags went thought one of the worst coach hires of all time and still aren't as trash as we currently are. Trading the QB was supposed to kick start it with extra picks. But it didn't. INstead of holding them accountable for it. You just excuse it as well they had to do a complete rebuild. It's the NFL not MLB. Those 7 other teams did it in 16 months. Sure I didn't need the Lions to be a super bowl competitor this year. But, its year 2 now. The other 7 garbage teams from when we started have all turned it around somewhat or at least shown promise. We are still garbage. We scored some points against blah teams and are the only one not out of the cellar currently.

Eagles 4-11 Jets 2-14 Bengals 4-11 Lions 5-11 Falcons 4-12 Jags 1-15 Broncos 5-11 49ers 6-10. Those were the other teams and their records in 2020 who finished last in their division. Exactly one of those 8 is currently in last place in their dvision. (5 of 8 are tied for first)

A QB

There was almost a defender around him on that simple pass play for a TD

Why does holmes just get a free pass? It's his roster. He's the one that's missed on some early picks

Yeah a lot of ours were

I don't think many teams have a boat load of firstbasemen in the system.

I mean its BAU for you. But,, if you can't count the first round draft pick from two months ago as a solid ML starter....

Almost no chance tork starts at triple a

Prepare for disappointment

I know that went over your head so let me break it down. Nobody cares about offense or stats if you loose a bunch of games. That's what the lions are doing and why nobody is talking about it. Sure the offense seems good, but if the defense gives up 50 it's like who cares. That's why nobody talks about it.

On point 1. Not the league that hates it, well they do, but because the networks hate it. Two weeks leads to a diluted schedule and less games going on. On point 2. I imagine something similar with dilution. Everybody would be OK with it, if the pay can be worked out. Owners will say same portion of revenue sharing which means players would get paid less (x Dollars spread of 65 guys instead of 53) and the NFLPA won't like that. Owners won't agree to up the revenue sharing pay. On point 3, won't happen. Nobody wants to see Tom Brady on the field less because of snap counts. Let the stars play. On Point 4 and 6-- players hate any change to equipment and its fought tooth and nail. On Point 5: Thursday games aren't' going anywhere and bye weeks before creates a scheduling mess or teams with a bye in week 2.

For the same reason nobody talks about Robb Deer and the 1992 Detroit Tigers

So you're revising your post to say the big important play was important? God what great analysis I stand by my post. If we take away all the points too we'd be in the lead. It's just as in depth

Yeah well that counted too. We'd also be ahead if we didn't give up all them points too

To those that jumped on the hard knocks bandwagon

There's also no reason to keep a bad player.

Hey look amani got abused some more

and the lions are back

new kicker time!

now they're just picking on him

One thing to keep in might with Free agent SP..not a whole lot this year but 2024 is just loaded with pitchers. So it might be best since its unlikely we're gonna win a ton next year just to do a back end guy let see who gets healthy/good and then load up in 2024.

This thinking has always been wrong from the the moment it was suggested after he got the contract. It completely ignores a lot of stuff. Namly that Miggy was coming off very good seasons and there was no reason to believe he would just crap out. It ignores the fact that as players get closer to free agency they are less likely to stay the Tigers couldn't risk to lose a Triple Crown winner. It also ingores that Trout's contract was on the horizon and the Tigers might have had to pay even more if the waited. The whole, why now thing is all hindsight, completely ignores how contract works and other factors at play at the time. Now, you can argue whether extending a 31-year-old was right or wrong. But the whole they could have waited just isn't true. It was either then or not at all.