Detroit Lions Offseason Thread 2023

[MichiganCardinal]

10 minutes ago, KL2 said:

I think you are unserselling, dramatically, the impact gambling and sports has. It's treated as treason because it is. Baseball almost didn't recover after 1919 because the integrity of the game was questioned. The whole sport because of the activity of 8 guys and a bad owner. 

One player abusing a child impacts one player and his decision negatively impacts his own team on the field. If you have a player betting on, and worse throwing games, you impact the whole sport.

It's silly to just paint it as nbd, gambling is a huge deal and it's why it's still plastered as rule 1 on mlb clubhouses.

Sports betting for your sport is of course a big deal. If a year passes and the NFL declines to reinstate Cephus I don’t imagine I would argue with that. It’s common sense that you can’t bet on your sport and there are massive potential ramifications to the sport of doing so.

But Jameson Williams betting on Michigan-Ohio State or Alabama-Tennessee is not treason, because it doesn’t matter. One thing has no possible way of being related to the integrity of the NFL. (The books may be different, but that’s their problem). And the NFL knows that, or it wouldn’t be allowed at all (like NFL gambling). To say you can do X here but not here and objectifying that mistake of location as a mistake that is 3x worse to the sport than Adrian Peterson’s act? That’s where they lose me.

I also disagree that the NFL being in bed with sports gambling isn’t a big deal. This isn’t 1919 at all. Not only can you gamble at the press of a button from anywhere, the NFL can track that gambling just as easily. This isn’t some Black Sox back alley mob envelope of cash shady dealing. Clearly they can differentiate between those who gamble on the NFL and those who don’t. And FWIW, if the 1919 Sox had bet on the horses instead of the series, they wouldn’t be the Black Sox.

[KL2]

20 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Sports betting for your sport is of course a big deal. If a year passes and the NFL declines to reinstate Cephus I don’t imagine I would argue with that. It’s common sense that you can’t bet on your sport and there are massive potential ramifications to the sport of doing so.

But Jameson Williams betting on Michigan-Ohio State or Alabama-Tennessee is not treason, because it doesn’t matter. One thing has no possible way of being related to the integrity of the NFL. (The books may be different, but that’s their problem). And the NFL knows that, or it wouldn’t be allowed at all (like NFL gambling). To say you can do X here but not here and objectifying that mistake of location as a mistake that is 3x worse to the sport than Adrian Peterson’s act? That’s where they lose me.

I also disagree that the NFL being in bed with sports gambling isn’t a big deal. This isn’t 1919 at all. Not only can you gamble at the press of a button from anywhere, the NFL can track that gambling just as easily. This isn’t some Black Sox back alley mob envelope of cash shady dealing. Clearly they can differentiate between those who gamble on the NFL and those who don’t. And FWIW, if the 1919 Sox had bet on the horses instead of the series, they wouldn’t be the Black Sox.

Again underselling everything and it's clear your just impacted because the headlines say lions players.

It's funny that you say in graph one "you can't bet on your sport." But then go on in paragraph two about how he bet on football.

Again your right independently, betting on a college game has little impact on the NFL outcome. He could have gone to mgm and done that and the NFL would have likely had a talking to but no punishment.

You talk about ponies and what not. And again he could have bet on that at a casino or track and again no problem.

But here is where the difference start to get alarming. He went a step further. He didn't bet on ponies, he bet on football, albeit a different level, but still football. And he did it inside a team facility. You don't see how that could alarm the nfl? Where they might say ok outside not our favorite but ok, but once you start betting inside the team facility that's a little close for comfort, it worries us your just a step away from betting on nfl games or your team and doing so on our property, so we're gonna ban it? That's too close for us and too much of a risk to possibly impacting the integrity of the sport.

Look at everything you wrote, independently you might live with. Problem, again, in this case they weren't. They were all mixed and the employer has decided that's a step too far and that is why it is banned.

It's also why the Lions were quick to fire any staffer involved. They know the problem and those guys are more expendable. 

And who knows what your Black Sox comment was trying to convey. They did bet on baseball, they didn't bet on the horses. They're scandal nearly ended the sport and it's talked about a century later. No sport wants to get close to that again, but apparently you think it's cool that they do.

I don't get the attitude of let's ignore this, let's pretend that didn't happen, let's say well all humans can control themselves at all time, well let's say if the scenario happened it be cool, instead of admitting what did happen. You had a player betting, betting on the same sport he played while inside a team facility probably there to do things to help better his team and not just hanging out like it's a clubhouse. That should set of big alarms not the excuse machine.

A suspension of a third of a season doesn't seem over the top or unwarranted for breaking a league rule and causing a serious Black eye for the employer.

 

(Also let's not forget to mention hundreds of players from 31 other teams have no problem following this rule and don't treat it as nbd. But cause it's a lion guy your like ah nah this is a bad rule and silly. Clearly a lot of other player have no problem not breaking it)

Edited April 22, 2023 by KL2

[Hongbit]

1 hour ago, KL2 said:

I agree your post was a big drop by you

I almost said Joey Harrington level.  

What do you got for him? 

[RandyMarsh]

It may or may not be a dumb rule but either way it is a rule and as a player you have to know you have to abide by them. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[buddha]

stafford did it 8 times.

[Motown Bombers]

Jon Kitna did it twice which would be more than the Browns, Jets, Eagles, and Bears. Mitchell and Goff done it once each which would be an all time record for the Bears. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Motown Bombers

[Mr.TaterSalad]

What's the hold up with Teddy Bridgewater signing anywhere? Is he potentially waiting for a starter to go down so he can start somewhere next year or do we think there's a bidding war for him?

[KL2]

11 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

What's the hold up with Teddy Bridgewater signing anywhere? Is he potentially waiting for a starter to go down so he can start somewhere next year or do we think there's a bidding war for him?

Let draft shake out. If team doesn't come away with a rookie they might be more willing to let you start 

[RandyMarsh]

Yeah if I was in Bridgewaters camp Id def wait till post draft to sign with a team unless I got some Godfather offer that I didn't want to risk losing and while it may have been a strong offer I don't think the Lions offer was like that. 

[Motown Bombers]

This usually happens. Wait until the draft shakes out and see who needs a QB. The Lions may even be holding out on signing him until after the draft. You also have Wentz out there with no job. 

[RedRamage]

On 4/21/2023 at 3:40 PM, TP_Fan said:

I don’t think this should change the draft strategy really. It’s only 6 games. That shouldn’t impact who you’re planning on having around another 5 years.  People who are calling this SOL are doing it reflexively. JaMo wasn’t even part of the offense last year. Now he has to wait another 6 games.  He is basically a rookie and will likely turnout fine. This doesn’t really change anything, or at least it shouldn’t.  

I mostly agree with this... but I think there are a few things your glossing over too much.

1. "It's only 6 games." Yes, but... if this just a glimpse in how JaMo is as a person? I don't claim to have a lot of insight into him as a person/player anymore than anyone else here does. But of course the Lions have a lot more insight than we do. Do they view him as boarding on bust? Do they know about other issues/things that we don't that make them less confident about him long term? If so, they may look to draft a WR higher. On the other hand if this is just a "he's a dumb kid who did a dumb think. No big deal" then I agree that it's only 6 games, don't massively rework the play for this issue.

2. "JaMo wasn’t even part of the offense last year." Yes, but... last season we have Chark. Now Chark also wasn't a huge part of the offense, but he did account for 30 receptions and 502 yards. Yes the offense did okay (great even at times) without Chark or JaMo, but think anyone of us would prefer to have a ARSB and insert backup player here instead of a legit NFL starting caliber WR.

[RedRamage]

On 4/21/2023 at 9:44 PM, KL2 said:

I think you are unserselling, dramatically, the impact gambling and sports has. It's treated as treason because it is. Baseball almost didn't recover after 1919 because the integrity of the game was questioned. The whole sport because of the activity of 8 guys and a bad owner. 

I think you're missing what most of us are saying about this.

First, I at least (and I suspect others) fully understand that gambling on games in the league in which play is a very, very bad look and very much damages the integrity of the game. Super bad. In my humble opinion gambling on any sporting event for a player should be banned because it skates so close to gambling on your sport. It's not a question of not understanding the dangers that gamble presents from an image stand point.

Second, I fully understand (as do others) that these are the rules and JaMo broke 'em and he has to pay the price. We're not questioning if he's guilty or if he should be punished.

So what am I questioning? This: Why is something that a player is allowed to do when "off campus" punished so severely when he is "on campus" but not engaged in active work*? What liability does betting on games AT work create that betting on games when NOT AT work NOT create? That is the ultimate question. According to the NFL one is fine, the other is a 1/3 season suspension. 

The best answer I've seen is: A headline saying: "players are routinely betting at practice" sounds bad. And I agree, but a headline saying: "players are routinely betting on games, just not at work" doesn't really sound better.

*I'm assuming that he wasn't actively engage in a team meeting or working out or practicing. I'm assuming he was on a lunch break or whatever. If he did do this while in a meeting or when he was supposed to be doing something else, that's another situation entirely and then it's a case where the Lions should be punishing him for not doing his job.

[RandyMarsh]

I'm sure the rule will be changed im the future or at the least the punishment less severe but it won't happen to after the Lions players serve their suspensions of course. 

[Jason_R]

1 minute ago, RandyMarsh said:

I'm sure the rule will be changed im the future or at the least the punishment less severe but it won't happen to after the Lions players serve their suspensions of course. 

They’ll call it the Jameson Williams Rule. 

[djhutch]

Looks like it's finally done.

 

[RedRamage]

That more than I think GB should get for a aging, flaky QB who may retire after next year, but less than I feared that GB might get, so I guess it's not too terrible.

[djhutch]

5 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

That more than I think GB should get for a aging, flaky QB who may retire after next year, but less than I feared that GB might get, so I guess it's not too terrible.

I don't usually like to hope people get injured, but if he doesn't play 65% of snaps & GB loses that extra first, I wouldn't cry.

[RedRamage]

 

[Motor City Sonics]

4 hours ago, RedRamage said:

 

I like Tom, he's pretty funny. 

[Motor City Sonics]

5 hours ago, djhutch said:

Looks like it's finally done.

 

How were they able to get a picture of him in uniform so fast?    

(this gonna blow up in they're faces)

[Motor City Sonics]

 

[RedRamage]

9 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I like Tom, he's pretty funny. 

He's alright for a cheesehead.

[Motown Bombers]

Details are out on Hurts contract. Cap number in 2023 is $6 million rising to $47 million by the last year of the contract with a $97 million void year. Looks like they can cut him before that void year and be on the hook for $8 million in dead cap. The cap hit next year is $13 million, then $21 then $31. The Lions can sign Goff to a similar contract and not be saddled with a huge cap number and needing to draft a QB because of the rookie contract. 

[Motown Bombers]

So conflicting info on Hurts void year. If Hurts doesn't work out and doesn't get an extension, that contract could be devastating for the Eagles.