gehringer_2

In one sense it's not completely surprising. A lot of college ball teams aren't aiming for pro-style QBs. QBs in college are, to be blunt, expendable, which leads to offenses where they can be at risk. I don't think that will ever become a popular approach in pro football.

are we really 70 picks in and only one QB? That has to be some kind of record.

Journeyman Euro. Has been in and out of NHL, AHL, KHL, Swedish league. Played for Sweden Olympic team. Win the last game. Get Bertuzzi 30. Points for Seider and Raymond. Just a bit of a plus note for the season to end on.

unfreaking believable. They are going to have to get everyone in the system hand armor. Isn't that about the 4th broken hand in as many years?

after 2 DE picks? I'd say, "rushed"

don't know, but he would be covering 6'6" TE's.

well they didn't wait long.

I think you should go away

>Every other team forum I have asked for feedback on has been constructive, at least. >In all honesty guys, I'm not here to make friends And we aren't here to do your homework for you. This is a community of local Sports fans, if you are here to join on that basis welcome. If you are doing survey work for others or even for you yourself but with no interest in the community, so long.

Viva la Revolucion!

Funny thing is that at the time I never gave that a thought, what I did notice is when I was older than ALL the players on the field! 👨‍🦳

Been looking for anything about Mize or Manning. Haven't seen anything since the 26th when Evan Woodbery reported Mize was beginning to throw but Manning was not.

sure - I'm just looking for whatever signs there are about how committed they are to Goff. Most people here seem to hold that they really want to throw him overboard at the first opportunity, but I wonder if there is actually any kind of objective evidence support that view or if it's just fan projection and the Lions still see the guy that others claim is gone forever. I don't have a dog in the argument - evaluation of NFL QBs is beyond my pay grade. I can see some basic things like everyone, but I don't feel I can predict what Goff will do with different pieces around him anymore than I can claim to have predicted Stafford would have a great year with the Rams with that cast around him ( I admit to having been more on the sceptical side)

Still, if they wanted a new QB long term they had a shot at Mac Jones (or Fields 🤮) last year and passed. Would it have been hard to predict this would be a bad QB year as of last years draft? Maybe I guess. I sure hope the plan is not to lose enough to draft a good one next yr.

no doubt the whole top tier in this yrs group all have red flags. So that means there will be a Hall of Famer lurking amongst the UDFAs?....

If he sues I'd guess the league cuts it in half or less.

I'm still struck by the dissonance between people thinking this is the best management the Lions have had in forever, coupled to the absolute dismissal of their decision that Goff is their QB. But I'll be just as interested in whether they do draft a QB, I just don't think it's likely.

LOL - we thought we were crazy when we bought the Dyson when it first came out, but it's been a rock and paid back everything it cost. Admittedly, it does need to be replaced now though - 20 yrs later.

and they are also two different issues. Immigration policy is about establishing numbers and procedures for admittance. You can hold that the US is being far too restrictive of immigration in general and still be unhappy about conditions at the border. But the latter problem requires more expansive policy prescriptions that include aspect of the US foreign policy toward central and South America, so you need a Congress able to formulate and pass legislation across a broad scale, which the GOP stands steadfastly against (a productive Congress that is)

then why won't your party get on board with reform to make the system orderly? Too easy to deny it's about race but then refuse any solution to the problem. GOP immigration policy (i.e. lack thereof) has been a Satan's bargain between monied interests who need to keep the undocumented undocumented in order to enjoy the ripple effect on the depression of wages and the white Christian nationalists elements who are scared of having their genepool or their Electoral college perks threatened.

Silly Troll. It's in the DNA here that *any* commercially interested or ulterior motive posting is frowned upon. You are either here for the discussion or you are not here.

Lincoln (a Rebuplican!) said it best: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Not a nation dedicated to an ethnic group, or a race, or a language, or even a particular geography, but to a proposition. No-one has a claim to say anyone who is also dedicated to that proposition has any less right to be 'American' than they do. As a matter of practicality, any nation has the right to ensure orderly immigration, but there is no place in the American 'experiment' for consideration of where people come from or what they look like, which is all the current right wing hysteria is about.

There were racial citizenship restrictions almost from the time of the Constitution, which denied citizenship to the 'wrong' immigrants but I suppose still left it open to their children born here. However, actual immigration entry restrictions did not exist until 1875, when there was most definitely a country (nearly two!). By that time the population had swelled from 4 million in 1790 to nearly 40 million. A link to the history below. You can get the population estimates from Google. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/30/how-u-s-immigration-laws-and-rules-have-changed-through-history/

Plus, waves of immigration that got the country off the ground came before immigration law existed.

Oh, I agree it's mathematically demonstrable as a fool's errand, but I don't think you're average owner is attuned to that kind of analysis. That is my one reservation about the automated strike zone - or not even a 'reservation' because I don't know which way it will go for sure but let's call it a worry. How much of the appeal of baseball is just because the outcomes are so much more random than the absolute quality of the teams playing the games? If the best team just won all their games, you end up with the kind of disparities you get in basketball and football. No thanks. If it weren't for back to back scheduling there might be years when the best NBA teams went pretty close to undefeated. No question the recent trend toward total team teardowns is making things worse in that direction with too many teams getting really bad, but to me one of the more entertaining aspects of baseball - traditionally - was that in general most teams clustered between a 40 and 60 winning percentage, so every game was always in a fair amount of doubt. The automated K zone is going to remove one of the bigger outcome 'noise' injection mechanisms in the game. That could just allow the good teams to win a lot more and bad teams lose a lot more, and I'm not sure that's good thing in the long run. But that is not the only possible outcome because I'm not sure if umpires mistakes are necessarily unbiased. If in the end they tend to favor the players they 'know' are better, then that may already be helping the best teams. More likely, the research from most sports is the umps are biased by the home crowd, and baseball does have a net home/road winning split. If you take that away, fans don't get to see the home team win as much and that would probably be detrimental to ticket sales. There is no free lunch.