MichiganCardinal Posted January 6 Posted January 6 Elsewhere in the NFC Sunday: #7 Green Bay Packers @ #2 Philadelphia Eagles (4:30pm on FOX), #6 Washington Commanders @ #3 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (8:00pm on NBC) Monday: #5 Minnesota Vikings @ #4 Los Angeles Rams (8:00pm on ESPN) And Over in the AFC Saturday: #5 Los Angeles Chargers @ #4 Houston Texans (4:30pm on CBS), #6 Pittsburgh Steelers @ #3 Baltimore Ravens (8:00pm on Prime) Sunday: #7 Denver Broncos @ #2 Buffalo Bills (1:00pm on CBS) BYE: #1 Kansas City Chiefs Quote
RedRamage Posted January 6 Posted January 6 I obviously wanted the home games as I do believe in the home field advantage (also good for Detroit economy of course). But imho the bye is far more important. A week to rest is huge, especially if Arnold needs to be out for a while. If we had to play Monday night and if Davis isn't ready to be back and if Arnold wasn't able to go... That could have been super rough. 1 Quote
MichiganCardinal Posted January 6 Author Posted January 6 Before the game yesterday, I was invited to participate in a focus group of season ticket holders with one of the executives. He had a fancy title but ultimately was a guy who wears a suit to a football game. It was a cool experience, most of it was asking us about their sponsors and partners, what we notice and what we don't. Asking the group "do you know who the official mortgage provider is?", "what about who sponsors Hometown Heroes?", etc. I think they use it to price their partnerships. Like, increasing the price of Hometown Heroes and telling corporations "98% of our focus group recognizes the sponsor of this event" The one thing that stuck out to me though was questions about the name of Ford Field. He asked us our thoughts about the name, and how we would feel if the name changed. He didn't say this, but their initial 25-year naming agreement from 2002 is up in 2027, and I would bet they're getting significant offers to rename the stadium. The room was in consensus that having the staples of Ford Field and Comerica Park (and LCA to a lesser extent because it's new) is important. I brought up the White Sox stadium and how that's changed so many times I don't even know the name anymore. It was an interesting insight on the inner workings. 1 Quote
gehringer_2 Posted January 6 Posted January 6 18 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said: their initial 25-year naming agreement from 2002 is up in 2027, and I would bet they're getting significant offers to rename the stadium. Sheila be puttin' the heat on brother Bill to pony up! 😳 Quote
romad1 Posted January 6 Posted January 6 2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Sheila be puttin' the heat on brother Bill to pony up! 😳 It would be funny if Firestone got the rights. 1 Quote
MichiganCardinal Posted January 6 Author Posted January 6 So who would we most like to play? No team is going to be easy. Rams: well coached, dangerous team whose number we have had of late. We are more talented, but you can't be sloppy or they'll take advantage of it. Feels like Stafford is the best QB of the bunch as well, who may be able to capitalize if Arnold is out or limited. I imagine the Lions would be favored by 3ish. Vikings: it's hard to imagine they would play as poorly as they did yesterday in a rematch. That said, I would still be fairly confident in a rematch. Outside the weird Houston game, the Lions offense turned the ball over 10 times in 16 games. Three of those went to the Vikings in two games. Feels like if the offense is clicking, and they cut out the turnovers, they win this game a 3rd time. Lions are probably favored by 6ish. Commanders: the real wildcard of the wildcard teams. They're a good team with a young mobile QB. Not a ton of playoff experience, but they're playing loose and think they can beat anybody. I expect that they would use the Bills tape and try to have Daniels replicate Allen's success. How would he do in a rabid Ford Field environment though? Depending on how they won against Tampa, I expect the Lions would be favored by 7ish. Packers: who knows? I hate this team. They play out of their mind against Detroit and take everything we have to beat on Thursday Night, and then go and lay an egg on midfield in a huge game against Minnesota. I could totally see them beating Philadelphia, just how they shocked Dallas last year. But which Packers team would we get? I'd probably rather avoid them, but I still think the Lions win this one, and I wouldn't mind an early exit for Philadelphia. Lions would probably be favored by 3 or 4ish. I think my preferences before seeing the wildcard round are (1) Vikings, (2) Commanders, (3) Packers, (4) Rams. Subject to change. Quote
Sports_Freak Posted January 6 Posted January 6 8 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said: Elsewhere in the NFC Sunday: #7 Green Bay Packers @ #2 Philadelphia Eagles (4:30pm on FOX), #6 Washington Commanders @ #3 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (8:00pm on NBC) Monday: #5 Minnesota Vikings @ #4 Los Angeles Rams (8:00pm on ESPN) And Over in the AFC Saturday: #5 Los Angeles Chargers @ #4 Houston Texans (4:30pm on CBS), #6 Pittsburgh Steelers @ #3 Baltimore Ravens (8:00pm on Prime) Sunday: #7 Denver Broncos @ #2 Buffalo Bills (1:00pm on CBS) BYE: #1 Kansas City Chiefs I have loved NFL playoffs for many, many years. Having the Lions in them just adds to the excitement. Having the bye week is huge but it just prolongs the stress. I can't even imagine how hard that 2 week wait would be before the Super Bowl. At least with this wait, we have other games. Thanks for all the GDT. It increases the enjoyment. At least, mostly...🫣 1 Quote
Tigeraholic1 Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Having a bye weeks in week 5 in a 18 game season should get the NFL Players union pissed. Campbell knew they needed that win more for health than the #1 seed. 1 Quote
RedRamage Posted January 7 Posted January 7 11 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said: Having a bye weeks in week 5 in a 18 game season should get the NFL Players union pissed. Campbell knew they needed that win more for health than the #1 seed. Agreed on all points. I'm sure the NFL wants to spread the bye weeks out over as much of the season as possible to minimum weeks with too few games, but week five it too early. I know the NFL wants to go to an 18 game season, so let's just do that and have two bye weeks. Get rid of one of the preseason games which are more meaningless than they've ever been before. Increase the roster by a spot of two to allow teams to have more depth so teams can rotate more people in and out. The two bye weeks will also give the NFL more flexibility both in spreading out the byes without screwing a team with too early a bye or too late a bye as well as with international games. Quote
MichiganCardinal Posted January 7 Author Posted January 7 I get the feeling that a lot of politicking and give and take goes on behind the scenes regarding scheduling. Like the Lions got screwed on the bye week this season, but they haven't played an international game since 2015, and have never once have had to forfeit a home game gate to play an international game. Meanwhile, each of the other three NFC North teams had an international game this year, and both the Bears and Vikings had to sacrifice a home game for it. It's overly simplistic, but I can kind of see them favoring teams that go international with a "better" bye week. Though the Vikings got a week six bye, so not much better. The bye week schedule generally doesn't make a ton of sense in any event. This year it was four teams in week five, four teams in week six, two in week seven, zero in week eight, two in week nine, four in week ten, four in week eleven, six in week twelve, zero in week thirteen, and six in week fourteen. I'm sure it has to do with scheduling and television contracts, but it would seem to me a lot easier if you just scheduled them by division. AFC/NFC East are off in week seven, AFC/NFC North are off in week eight, AFC/NFC South are off in week nine, AFC/NFC West are off in week ten. But they don't pay me to think, so what do I know. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted January 7 Posted January 7 I remember Rod Wood said once when he became team President that he lobbied the league to finish the season at home because they kept finishing at Green Bay. Since then, the Lions have finished most seasons at home. Quote
MichiganCardinal Posted January 7 Author Posted January 7 "Better news on Zeitler and Arnold, can't guarantee that they're playing, but much better news than they appeared when they were playing... O'Connor is not as positive." - Campbell in his presser just now. Quote
MichiganCardinal Posted January 7 Author Posted January 7 He does not expect Barnes or Davis to be back this season. Emphasized that Hutchinson "suffered a season-ending injury," but that if anybody could come back from it it's him. Quote
MichiganCardinal Posted January 7 Author Posted January 7 He also expects Montgomery back for the Divisional Round. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Zeitler missing the game wouldn't be the worst thing with the way Mahogany played. Quote
lordstanley Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Maybe Arnold just needs some good foot massages. Anyone know of a good Vietnamese spa within driving distance of the Lions' practices? Quote
Motown Bombers Posted January 7 Posted January 7 1 minute ago, lordstanley said: Maybe Arnold just needs some good foot massages. Anyone know of a good Vietnamese spa within driving distance of the Lions' practices? Cleveland isn't far. I'm sure Watson can hook him up. 2 Quote
Sports_Freak Posted January 7 Posted January 7 5 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said: I get the feeling that a lot of politicking and give and take goes on behind the scenes regarding scheduling. Like the Lions got screwed on the bye week this season, but they haven't played an international game since 2015, and have never once have had to forfeit a home game gate to play an international game. Meanwhile, each of the other three NFC North teams had an international game this year, and both the Bears and Vikings had to sacrifice a home game for it. It's overly simplistic, but I can kind of see them favoring teams that go international with a "better" bye week. Though the Vikings got a week six bye, so not much better. The bye week schedule generally doesn't make a ton of sense in any event. This year it was four teams in week five, four teams in week six, two in week seven, zero in week eight, two in week nine, four in week ten, four in week eleven, six in week twelve, zero in week thirteen, and six in week fourteen. I'm sure it has to do with scheduling and television contracts, but it would seem to me a lot easier if you just scheduled them by division. AFC/NFC East are off in week seven, AFC/NFC North are off in week eight, AFC/NFC South are off in week nine, AFC/NFC West are off in week ten. But they don't pay me to think, so what do I know. Don't teams that play in Europe usually go into their bye week? I thought so but I don't really keep track of other teams bye weeks. Unless it effects my fantasy team. 😆 Quote
Sports_Freak Posted January 7 Posted January 7 6 hours ago, RedRamage said: Agreed on all points. I'm sure the NFL wants to spread the bye weeks out over as much of the season as possible to minimum weeks with too few games, but week five it too early. I know the NFL wants to go to an 18 game season, so let's just do that and have two bye weeks. Get rid of one of the preseason games which are more meaningless than they've ever been before. Increase the roster by a spot of two to allow teams to have more depth so teams can rotate more people in and out. The two bye weeks will also give the NFL more flexibility both in spreading out the byes without screwing a team with too early a bye or too late a bye as well as with international games. The off week before the Super Bowl also going to be eliminated? Quote
Motown Bombers Posted January 7 Posted January 7 1 minute ago, Sports_Freak said: The off week before the Super Bowl also going to be eliminated? Probably just push it back a week so it happens during President's Day weekend. That would be better. Quote
RedRamage Posted January 7 Posted January 7 30 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said: The off week before the Super Bowl also going to be eliminated? Not necessarily. If you're dropping from 3 to 2 preseason games that makes up for the extra game. Then you just start a week sooner or end a week later. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to dropping that week. The Pro-bowl stuff as gone from being a joke or worse than a joke. No one cares about it at all. Try to make it more interesting by putting it before the SB doesn't help. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.