Detroit Lions 2023

[Matt]

Detroit's most likely opponent is down to 3 teams as Seattle is out of the running, barring Detroit moving up to a 2-seed (which is still possible, albeit unlikely, thanks to the Eagles losing today). It'll be the Rams or the winner of the GB/Minnesota game.

The 2-pt try was run from the 3.5 yard line on the third attempt. I'm not sure what rule Honeyman is referring to because under the scenario of full-distance penalties, if the defense gets a penalty on the 7, a 5-yard penalty would move it to the 2 but a 10+ yard penalty would move it to only half the distance, or the 3.5, and that just wouldn't make sense.

I have this back of my mind feeling that Stafford is gonna ride in there and blow the doors off the place or win in epic fashion similar to what happened last night and the curse will have the last laugh as usual. Maybe we are being toyed with all along…

Stafford never won a playoff game in Detroit*, why should he start now.

*For the literal Larry's out there (Craig), I know he never played a home playoff game with the Lions. "In Detroit" refers to "while on the Lions."

For the same reason that he left and IMMEDIATELY WON THE SUPER BOWL.

They could have won with Goff.

[Rate This]

Detroit's most likely opponent is down to 3 teams as Seattle is out of the running, barring Detroit moving up to a 2-seed (which is still possible, albeit unlikely, thanks to the Eagles losing today). It'll be the Rams or the winner of the GB/Minnesota game.

The 2-pt try was run from the 3.5 yard line on the third attempt. I'm not sure what rule Honeyman is referring to because under the scenario of full-distance penalties, if the defense gets a penalty on the 7, a 5-yard penalty would move it to the 2 but a 10+ yard penalty would move it to only half the distance, or the 3.5, and that just wouldn't make sense.

I have this back of my mind feeling that Stafford is gonna ride in there and blow the doors off the place or win in epic fashion similar to what happened last night and the curse will have the last laugh as usual. Maybe we are being toyed with all along…

Stafford never won a playoff game in Detroit*, why should he start now.

*For the literal Larry's out there (Craig), I know he never played a home playoff game with the Lions. "In Detroit" refers to "while on the Lions."

For the same reason that he left and IMMEDIATELY WON THE SUPER BOWL.

They could have won with Goff.

The curse intervened.

[Mega Hertz]

Detroit's most likely opponent is down to 3 teams as Seattle is out of the running, barring Detroit moving up to a 2-seed (which is still possible, albeit unlikely, thanks to the Eagles losing today). It'll be the Rams or the winner of the GB/Minnesota game.

The 2-pt try was run from the 3.5 yard line on the third attempt. I'm not sure what rule Honeyman is referring to because under the scenario of full-distance penalties, if the defense gets a penalty on the 7, a 5-yard penalty would move it to the 2 but a 10+ yard penalty would move it to only half the distance, or the 3.5, and that just wouldn't make sense.

I have this back of my mind feeling that Stafford is gonna ride in there and blow the doors off the place or win in epic fashion similar to what happened last night and the curse will have the last laugh as usual. Maybe we are being toyed with all along…

Stafford never won a playoff game in Detroit*, why should he start now.

*For the literal Larry's out there (Craig), I know he never played a home playoff game with the Lions. "In Detroit" refers to "while on the Lions."

Literal Larry

[Deleted User 9015]

Lol Larry Craig. Literally the best conservative politician ever.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

As far as I can make out, it's now a case of "he said, he said" as far as who actually reported as tackle-eligible, Decker or Skipper. All the video evidence points to Decker reporting as eligible, but the ref saw Skipper running toward him and ASSUMED it was he reporting. The Lions did everything right on that play, including Campbell explaining the play to the ref pre-game.

This, as they say, was a "failure to communicate", with the ref failing to "receive" the right "communication". It's FUBAR, not SOL!

I'm proud of our boys the way they played. Damn, I haven't experienced an emotional rollercoaster like that in recent memory. I'm trying to resist a feeling of righteous indignation; it's hard. This is Jim Joyce/Andres Galarraga redux.

At least Jim Joyce wasn't on the take like Allen likely is.

[SD45]

Green Bay is the seventh seed after beating Minnesota.

Chicago plays at Lambeau next week.

[MWmetalhead]

Brad Allen sure is a goofy looking bastard.

It is going to be a dog fight for that 7th seed!

[craig11152]

And I am back to wondering, if the defense has to be informed of a lineman being a receiver, why bother to run the play? You have one less actual receiver as an option in exchange for some guy too fat and slow to be a tight end.

The tackle-eligible is (usually) used in short yardage situations. He can presumably either add beef up front for additional blocking or break off into a pass route without being called for "ineligible receiver downfield". All offensive lineman are ineligible receivers in a standard offensive set.

If you play two tight ends the problem of reporting to an official goes away and everything else you said applies. I will keep saying if there is no element of surprise there is no reason to run a tackle eligible. To quote the late great Bob Uffer " two tight ends and a balanced line, Leach over center"

[moldyoldie]

And I am back to wondering, if the defense has to be informed of a lineman being a receiver, why bother to run the play? You have one less actual receiver as an option in exchange for some guy too fat and slow to be a tight end.

The tackle-eligible is (usually) used in short yardage situations. He can presumably either add beef up front for additional blocking or break off into a pass route without being called for "ineligible receiver downfield". All offensive lineman are ineligible receivers in a standard offensive set.

If you play two tight ends the problem of reporting to an official goes away and everything else you said applies. I will keep saying if there is no element of surprise there is no reason to run a tackle eligible. To quote the late great Bob Uffer " two tight ends and a balanced line, Leach over center"

Put a 300 lb. Behemoth who can run and catch a football at the end of the line and imagine what's going through the minds of those pencil thin D-backs.

[Rate This]

Well… the NFL’s official line is that we tried to confuse the cowboys and in turn confused Allen by reporting Skipper as eligible and not decker and if we are going to use gamesmanship like that we accept the consequences.

[craig11152]

Put a 300 lb. Behemoth who can run and catch a football at the end of the line and imagine what's going through the minds of those pencil thin D-backs.

Probably that they are glad its a 300 lbs tackle instead of a 250 lb tight end who can run faster, has more mobility, and has better hands than the tackle.
Anybody who ever played football growing up knows that interior lineman on offense got there in part because they lacked the skills to be in a ball handling position.
that pass Decker caught any high school kid could have caught. But if that pass needed some sort of diving skills or scooping skills or one handed grab skills a legitimate tight end is a better choice every time.

[craig11152]

Well… the NFL’s official line is that we tried to confuse the cowboys and in turn confused Allen by reporting Skipper as eligible and not decker and if we are going to use gamesmanship like that we accept the consequences.

And we did that because we assumed the officials wouldn't throw a flag?

[Rate This]

Well… the NFL’s official line is that we tried to confuse the cowboys and in turn confused Allen by reporting Skipper as eligible and not decker and if we are going to use gamesmanship like that we accept the consequences.

And we did that because we assumed the officials wouldn't throw a flag?

Yeah it sounds like nonsense to me… why would you intentionally draw a flag to confuse an opponent?

[moldyoldie]

Well… the NFL’s official line is that we tried to confuse the cowboys and in turn confused Allen by reporting Skipper as eligible and not decker and if we are going to use gamesmanship like that we accept the consequences.

And we did that because we assumed the officials wouldn't throw a flag?

Yeah it sounds like nonsense to me… why would you intentionally draw a flag to confuse an opponent?

If Campbell did indeed hear the ref announce Skipper as the tackle-eligible, what was he supposed to do? Was he supposed to jump up and down screaming "NO! NO! NO! IT'S DECKER THAT'S ELIGIBLE, YOU DOOFUS!". At that point, the defense would surely get the message, not to mention the rest of the crowd and viewing public. Any semblance of deception and "gamesmanship" would be lost.

[craig11152]

If Campbell did indeed hear the ref announce Skipper as the tackle-eligible, what was he supposed to do? Was he supposed to jump up and down screaming "NO! NO! NO! IT'S DECKER THAT'S ELIGIBLE, YOU DOOFUS!".

Yes this is what he should have done.

At that point, the defense would surely get the message, not to mention the rest of the crowd and viewing public. Any semblance of deception and "gamesmanship" would be lost.

It was already announced to the crowd through his microphone that #70 was eligible AND he clearly walked over to the defense and told them something after walking away from 2 Lions, neither of which was #70. Presumably he told them some tackle was eligible, since, much to my surprise a couple days ago, that is required under league rules.
Since the defense is informed by the officials of an eligible tackle there is no semblance of deception. Which is why I have suggested you might as well play two tight ends who have better hands and better mobility than a tackle does.