Green Bay at Lions, FOX 1:00pm

[Sports_Freak]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm old enough to remember when Campbell was the worst coach for electing to receive. 

I'm surprised he didn't defer and then pull an on-side kick out of the playbook. 🤣🤣🤣

[KL2]

4 hours ago, NYLion said:

Because it's good for the morale of the young players and coaches. Go tell the players in that locker room post game when they were having a good time enjoying the win that it meant nothing. When you have a young team like this, with a young coaching staff that's in the very beginning of a rebuild, winning is important.

Also, the Lions drafted arguably the 3 best players in franchise history at 2,2 and 3. Chances are that the Jags could take an offensive tackle anyway leaving the Lions their #1 choice. Winning, especially for the reasons I mentioned above, should never be frowned upon especially in a draft where there's no true #1 prospect.

Again you are just ignoring so much. So so so much. I don't get why everyone keep doing it. 

OK its good for morale. Who cares season over. it's done. 

There is zero evidence that winning the last game has any impact on the next year. 

Do you not agree there will be several new players here next year and several gone? So what does the previous year result have to do with anything? 

And if you want to argue young fine, I'll argue bad. The average NFL players career is what now like three years. These are guys playing for a bad team. Therefore many are just not good NFL players. What are the building for? for some other team? The arena league? They aren't good. That's why we won 3 games all year. If they were or had long futures in the league we sure has hell would have won more than 3 games. Winning a third game doesn't take a slow, less athletic, weaker player and make him better. Winning a third game doesn't turn Kalif Raymond into Brandon Marshall. 

And OK winning is important for "teaching how to win" or "building a culture." Didn't the first two take care of that? What did the guys learn from yesterday's win against GB's backups that they didn't from the first two. Pretty sure after the first one they learned it was more fun than losing.

Are teams happier that they won 3 instead of two or are both pretty crappy years where you're won of the worst teams. Have you ever heard anyone ever in any sport ever go well we built the winning culture and it started when we won 3 games instead of 2, four years ago? Do you understand how stupid they would sound. 

Great the Lions have drafted good players at #2 before. has nothing to do with this group. And you could argue they drafted their second best player of all time at No. 1. 

Great the Jags might take an offensive tackle at one. Who cares? That's not the argument. Plus do you see the key phrase there? MIGHT or COULD. If you're number one you don't have to worry about it all. The fact there is no clear cut No. 1 again irrelevant. Someone is going to be a top your draft board, even a microscopic amount, but someone you think is better than the rest. 

That's the argument. At No. 1 I get the guy at the top of my draft board no matter. Guaranteed. Everything you're talking about is conjecture or a feeling. There is no proof at all to back up winning against another team's backups in a now-3 win season does anything to help improve performance in the future. A loss, however, does guarantee that I get the guy I feel will most help me win games next year, the year after that and the year after that.

You and others are just siding with emotion and old timer clichés. Its just instant gratification while ignoring completely what is better for the long term.

This is not a discussion of tanking when you might have an 8 win team. Its the difference between a 2 or 3 win season.

Both a sucky and lots of people have lost jobs because of either amount. To argue its about building something is silly because most of the players that were bad which is why the team is bad will not be here when they are competitive. To the ones that are, I doubt they are gonna look back and be like good thing we won three my rookie year. Really taught me a lot about winning. 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by KL2

[Sports_Freak]

19 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Again you are just ignoring so much. So so so much. I don't get why everyone keep doing it. 

OK its good for morale. Who cares season over. it's done. 

There is zero evidence that winning the last game has any impact on the next year. 

Do you not agree there will be several new players here next year and several gone? So what does the previous year result have to do with anything? 

And if you want to argue young fine, I'll argue bad. The average NFL players career is what now like three years. These are guys playing for a bad team. Therefore many are just not good NFL players. What are the building for? for some other team? The arena league? They aren't good. That's why we won 3 games all year. If they were or had long futures in the league we sure has hell would have won more than 3 games. Winning a third game doesn't take a slow, less athletic, weaker player and make him better. Winning a third game doesn't turn Kalif Raymond into Brandon Marshall. 

And OK winning is important for "teaching how to win" or "building a culture." Didn't the first two take care of that? What did the guys learn from yesterday's win against GB's backups that they didn't from the first two. Pretty sure after the first one they learned it was more fun than losing.

Are teams happier that they won 3 instead of two or are both pretty crappy years where you're won of the worst teams. Have you ever heard anyone ever in any sport ever go well we built the winning culture and it started when we won 3 games instead of 2, four years ago? Do you understand how stupid they would sound. 

Great the Lions have drafted good players at #2 before. has nothing to do with this group. And you could argue they drafted their second best player of all time at No. 1. 

Great the Jags might take an offensive tackle at one. Who cares? That's not the argument. Plus do you see the key phrase there? MIGHT or COULD. If you're number one you don't have to worry about it all. The fact there is no clear cut No. 1 again irrelevant. Someone is going to be a top your draft board, even a microscopic amount, but someone you think is better than the rest. 

That's the argument. At No. 1 I get the guy at the top of my draft board no matter. Guaranteed. Everything you're talking about is conjecture or a feeling. There is no proof at all to back up winning against another team's backups in a now-3 win season does anything to help improve performance in the future. A loss, however, does guarantee that I get the guy I feel will most help me win games next year, the year after that and the year after that.

You and others are just siding with emotion and old timer clichés. Its just instant gratification while ignoring completely what is better for the long term.

This is not a discussion of tanking when you might have an 8 win team. Its the difference between a 2 or 3 win season.

Both a sucky and lots of people have lost jobs because of either amount. To argue its about building something is silly because most of the players that were bad which is why the team is bad will not be here when they are competitive. To the ones that are, I doubt they are gonna look back and be like good thing we won three my rookie year. Really taught me a lot about winning. 

 

 

We could have had the #1 pick for the last 60 years. It's either win the Super Bowl or tank. Make a total mockery of the whole league. Every non-contending team trying to lose every week. That sounds like a good way to destroy the league.

[Motown Bombers]

There's a lot of buzz going around about the Giants and the Lions. The buzz around the Lions and Campbell has been positive. The buzz around Judge and the Giants is negative. Judge decided to mail it in. He ran three straight QB sneaks and punted on one drive. Players around the league want to play for a coach and team that wants to win. The Lions have the reputation of being a perpetual loser. You don't shake that image by throwing games to climb one spot up in the draft. A lot of these players may not be here when or if the Lions get good, but right now there is a lot more positive vibes around the Lions than teams like Jacksonville, Houston, Giants etc. This matters when trying to attract and retain talent. 

 

[buddha]

1 hour ago, KL2 said:

Again you are just ignoring so much. So so so much. I don't get why everyone keep doing it. 

OK its good for morale. Who cares season over. it's done. 

There is zero evidence that winning the last game has any impact on the next year. 

Do you not agree there will be several new players here next year and several gone? So what does the previous year result have to do with anything? 

And if you want to argue young fine, I'll argue bad. The average NFL players career is what now like three years. These are guys playing for a bad team. Therefore many are just not good NFL players. What are the building for? for some other team? The arena league? They aren't good. That's why we won 3 games all year. If they were or had long futures in the league we sure has hell would have won more than 3 games. Winning a third game doesn't take a slow, less athletic, weaker player and make him better. Winning a third game doesn't turn Kalif Raymond into Brandon Marshall. 

And OK winning is important for "teaching how to win" or "building a culture." Didn't the first two take care of that? What did the guys learn from yesterday's win against GB's backups that they didn't from the first two. Pretty sure after the first one they learned it was more fun than losing.

Are teams happier that they won 3 instead of two or are both pretty crappy years where you're won of the worst teams. Have you ever heard anyone ever in any sport ever go well we built the winning culture and it started when we won 3 games instead of 2, four years ago? Do you understand how stupid they would sound. 

Great the Lions have drafted good players at #2 before. has nothing to do with this group. And you could argue they drafted their second best player of all time at No. 1. 

Great the Jags might take an offensive tackle at one. Who cares? That's not the argument. Plus do you see the key phrase there? MIGHT or COULD. If you're number one you don't have to worry about it all. The fact there is no clear cut No. 1 again irrelevant. Someone is going to be a top your draft board, even a microscopic amount, but someone you think is better than the rest. 

That's the argument. At No. 1 I get the guy at the top of my draft board no matter. Guaranteed. Everything you're talking about is conjecture or a feeling. There is no proof at all to back up winning against another team's backups in a now-3 win season does anything to help improve performance in the future. A loss, however, does guarantee that I get the guy I feel will most help me win games next year, the year after that and the year after that.

You and others are just siding with emotion and old timer clichés. Its just instant gratification while ignoring completely what is better for the long term.

This is not a discussion of tanking when you might have an 8 win team. Its the difference between a 2 or 3 win season.

Both a sucky and lots of people have lost jobs because of either amount. To argue its about building something is silly because most of the players that were bad which is why the team is bad will not be here when they are competitive. To the ones that are, I doubt they are gonna look back and be like good thing we won three my rookie year. Really taught me a lot about winning. 

 

 

the lions arent going to make the playoffs next year so they should lose every single game to ensure they get the #1 pick.

[Sports_Freak]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

the lions arent going to make the playoffs next year so they should lose every single game to ensure they get the #1 pick.

Actually, there was a time when teams would get into an 8-8 slump. Not good enough for the playoffs and not bad enough for good draft positioning. 

[Jason_R]

3 hours ago, KL2 said:

Again you are just ignoring so much. So so so much. I don't get why everyone keep doing it. 

OK its good for morale. Who cares season over. it's done. 

There is zero evidence that winning the last game has any impact on the next year. 

Do you not agree there will be several new players here next year and several gone? So what does the previous year result have to do with anything? 

And if you want to argue young fine, I'll argue bad. The average NFL players career is what now like three years. These are guys playing for a bad team. Therefore many are just not good NFL players. What are the building for? for some other team? The arena league? They aren't good. That's why we won 3 games all year. If they were or had long futures in the league we sure has hell would have won more than 3 games. Winning a third game doesn't take a slow, less athletic, weaker player and make him better. Winning a third game doesn't turn Kalif Raymond into Brandon Marshall. 

And OK winning is important for "teaching how to win" or "building a culture." Didn't the first two take care of that? What did the guys learn from yesterday's win against GB's backups that they didn't from the first two. Pretty sure after the first one they learned it was more fun than losing.

Are teams happier that they won 3 instead of two or are both pretty crappy years where you're won of the worst teams. Have you ever heard anyone ever in any sport ever go well we built the winning culture and it started when we won 3 games instead of 2, four years ago? Do you understand how stupid they would sound. 

Great the Lions have drafted good players at #2 before. has nothing to do with this group. And you could argue they drafted their second best player of all time at No. 1. 

Great the Jags might take an offensive tackle at one. Who cares? That's not the argument. Plus do you see the key phrase there? MIGHT or COULD. If you're number one you don't have to worry about it all. The fact there is no clear cut No. 1 again irrelevant. Someone is going to be a top your draft board, even a microscopic amount, but someone you think is better than the rest. 

That's the argument. At No. 1 I get the guy at the top of my draft board no matter. Guaranteed. Everything you're talking about is conjecture or a feeling. There is no proof at all to back up winning against another team's backups in a now-3 win season does anything to help improve performance in the future. A loss, however, does guarantee that I get the guy I feel will most help me win games next year, the year after that and the year after that.

You and others are just siding with emotion and old timer clichés. Its just instant gratification while ignoring completely what is better for the long term.

This is not a discussion of tanking when you might have an 8 win team. Its the difference between a 2 or 3 win season.

Both a sucky and lots of people have lost jobs because of either amount. To argue its about building something is silly because most of the players that were bad which is why the team is bad will not be here when they are competitive. To the ones that are, I doubt they are gonna look back and be like good thing we won three my rookie year. Really taught me a lot about winning. 

 

 

Why don’t all these spoiled NFL players just accept that they aren’t playing for their own success, integrity, and pride, they are playing for the fans who want to win draft night. Those jerks. Wanting to win for themselves and their teammates. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[NYLion]

16 hours ago, KL2 said:

Again you are just ignoring so much. So so so much. I don't get why everyone keep doing it. 

OK its good for morale. Who cares season over. it's done. 

There is zero evidence that winning the last game has any impact on the next year. 

Do you not agree there will be several new players here next year and several gone? So what does the previous year result have to do with anything? 

And if you want to argue young fine, I'll argue bad. The average NFL players career is what now like three years. These are guys playing for a bad team. Therefore many are just not good NFL players. What are the building for? for some other team? The arena league? They aren't good. That's why we won 3 games all year. If they were or had long futures in the league we sure has hell would have won more than 3 games. Winning a third game doesn't take a slow, less athletic, weaker player and make him better. Winning a third game doesn't turn Kalif Raymond into Brandon Marshall. 

And OK winning is important for "teaching how to win" or "building a culture." Didn't the first two take care of that? What did the guys learn from yesterday's win against GB's backups that they didn't from the first two. Pretty sure after the first one they learned it was more fun than losing.

Are teams happier that they won 3 instead of two or are both pretty crappy years where you're won of the worst teams. Have you ever heard anyone ever in any sport ever go well we built the winning culture and it started when we won 3 games instead of 2, four years ago? Do you understand how stupid they would sound. 

Great the Lions have drafted good players at #2 before. has nothing to do with this group. And you could argue they drafted their second best player of all time at No. 1. 

Great the Jags might take an offensive tackle at one. Who cares? That's not the argument. Plus do you see the key phrase there? MIGHT or COULD. If you're number one you don't have to worry about it all. The fact there is no clear cut No. 1 again irrelevant. Someone is going to be a top your draft board, even a microscopic amount, but someone you think is better than the rest. 

That's the argument. At No. 1 I get the guy at the top of my draft board no matter. Guaranteed. Everything you're talking about is conjecture or a feeling. There is no proof at all to back up winning against another team's backups in a now-3 win season does anything to help improve performance in the future. A loss, however, does guarantee that I get the guy I feel will most help me win games next year, the year after that and the year after that.

You and others are just siding with emotion and old timer clichés. Its just instant gratification while ignoring completely what is better for the long term.

This is not a discussion of tanking when you might have an 8 win team. Its the difference between a 2 or 3 win season.

Both a sucky and lots of people have lost jobs because of either amount. To argue its about building something is silly because most of the players that were bad which is why the team is bad will not be here when they are competitive. To the ones that are, I doubt they are gonna look back and be like good thing we won three my rookie year. Really taught me a lot about winning. 

 

 

You are looking way too deeply into this. It's a drop from #1 to #2 in a draft with no true #1 prospect and as I mentioned before, arguably their 3 best players in franchise history were drafted at 2,2 and 3 so the difference is negligible. Yeah, this also drops them 1 spot in every other round that they have a pick but so what, they shouldn't need to be 1 pick higher if they have good scouting.

In any event, I'm enjoying watching the wins of an enthusiastic young team playing for an enthusiastic young coach. It's been such a miserable 3 seasons prior to this one so it's nice to see my favorite team enjoy playing football again. I think it bodes well going forward that they're competing against much more talented teams and winning some of these games with an undermanned group. You think it means nothing, I think it means something. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

[sagnam]

1 hour ago, NYLion said:

You are looking way too deeply into this. It's a drop from #1 to #2 in a draft with no true #1 prospect and as I mentioned before, arguably their 3 best players in franchise history were drafted at 2,2 and 3 so the difference is negligible. Yeah, this also drops them 1 spot in every other round that they have a pick but so what, they shouldn't need to be 1 pick higher if they have good scouting.

In any event, I'm enjoying watching the wins of an enthusiastic young team playing for an enthusiastic young coach. It's been such a miserable 3 seasons prior to this one so it's nice to see my favorite team enjoy playing football again. I think it bodes well going forward that they're competing against much more talented teams and winning some of these games with an undermanned group. You think it means nothing, I think it means something. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Personally I don't want them to lose on purpose, but I do think that they lost 13 games while trying really hard and it may have been better for the future had they tried just as hard but lost 14. I wonder if there were as many or more times where the better player they would have taken didn't fall to them. Just because there are cases where the better player fell to them doesn't mean it's advantageous. I also believe that if you have the right front office then they will find talent anywhere, but if they are the right FO then I would really like them to have that 1 more player to choose from, just in case that 1 player is actually the best in their eyes.

Edited January 11, 2022 by sagnam