OT: So you think the Lions have been bad? Just wait.
The article says the NFL is getting rid of 100 million in revenue sharing. Tougher to make good personnel moves on a tighter budget, no?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4718965
December 6th, 2009 at 12:33 PM ^
They can't be worse. Can they? I have had some degree of hope under Schwartz.
December 6th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
by the NFLPA. It might be inevitable but we'll see how it shakes down. In any case, the Lions were horrible before they instituted revenue sharing. I like the way this coaching staff drafted last year. If they can replicate that success this upcoming year, they'll be in decent shape; they need at least two drafts to catch up. Millen made many terrible decisions.
December 6th, 2009 at 12:43 PM ^
The Lions were actually not terrible as recently as 10 years ago. They brought in Matt Millen because they were tired of finishing 8-8 or 9-7 (Yeah, good call there).
They still have pretty decent fan support, all things considered. I'd be more worried about the Rams, Jaguars, or Bills.
December 6th, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
They brought in Millen because they needed somebody to do the drafting and handle personnel after Ross quit.
To be honest, the Lions' collapse under Millen was almost certainly inevitable. Bobby Ross hadn't drafted worth a damn, and the Lions success under Ross (and Gary Moeller) has a lot to do with the players leftover from the Wayne Fontes era. By the time Millen took over, the talent left was aging and even with a competent GM they'd have gone into decline for a season or two.
This is not to excuse Millen. His drafts accelerated the Lions' decline, and two of his coaching hires were just not head coach material.
December 6th, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^
To be honest, the Lions' collapse under Millen was almost certainly inevitable. Bobby Ross hadn't drafted worth a damn, and the Lions success under Ross (and Gary Moeller) has a lot to do with the players leftover from the Wayne Fontes era. By the time Millen took over, the talent left was aging and even with a competent GM they'd have gone into decline for a season or two.Thank you! Most people look at the record and think the Lions had a good team when Millen took over. Not that I'm defending Millen, by any stretch, but the Lions downfall began the day Barry Sanders retired and they actually had to build a team rather than just rely on Barry.
December 6th, 2009 at 5:22 PM ^
i dunno, i seem to remember Millen getting here and randomly cutting people like Terry Fair & other contributors because they were overpaid or w/e other reason. This would have been fine had they had some kind of plan to replace these players, which they obviously didn't.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
He had injury problems that cut his career short. He certainly was one of Ross' better draft choices, along with Germane Crowell and Charlie Batch. Crowell (who also had injury problems) was also out of the league after 2002, and Batch was a career backup.
Some of Ross' other draft choices included Bryant Westbrook and the immortal Aaron Gibson (both in the first round). Westbrook at least looked good at points in his career (and to be fair he had injury problems as well).
I'm not saying Millen didn't do his part to screw the team up--he certainly did. I am saying that Ross started it.
December 6th, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^
has been considered a relatively weak union though. I agree with you on the Lions moves past and recently. Obviously the revenue was no guarantee of good personnel decisions, but you need a particularly savvy GM on a more limited budget.
December 6th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
Might actually help. If the Lions have been getting money through this to cover up the empty seats, Old Man Ford might suddenly decide empty seats are a problem and do something about it.
December 6th, 2009 at 1:39 PM ^
Maybe they'll start getting players from the draft and stop trying to build a team of ringers through free agency.
December 6th, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^
They drafted well this past season. Stafford, Pettigrew, Levy, Delmas are all seeing significant PT. They all look like they could be decent contributors. Its hard to be a Lions fan...
December 6th, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^
Yeah they appear to have taken a step forward in the draft department. I was never a fan of Stafford's ability, but I have to hope he pans out now regardless. It is hard to be a Lions fan, it's always funny to hear out of town reporters call us the best fans in the league (which we are), and that any where else they might have had to move.
December 6th, 2009 at 2:49 PM ^
...and I'm still a fan (though I don't watch as much as I used to...partly because they are rarely on in my neck of the country except for Thanksgiving).
December 6th, 2009 at 1:43 PM ^
It took an 0-16 season and an economic collapse for Lions fans to finally stop going to games. I think they will be fine.
December 6th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
This is all related to the information in my diary on the uncapped year. http://mgoblog.com/diaries/nfl-uncapped-year-donovan-warren
The owners have given themselves a lot of leverage to reduce the players share of the pie. Right now player's salaries account for approximately 60% of revenue. I'll bet the owners are hoping to get down to 50%. Next season the owners will cut many overpriced vets to clear their books, then they will threaten the players with a lockout if they don't agree to a smaller share.
If this works, most of the teams will be profitable so the revenue sharing will be unneeded.
December 6th, 2009 at 3:03 PM ^
The owners stand to lose too much. If the NFL weren't so ridiculously popular, maybe, but it just doesn't make any sense for owners to shut down their money printing machines.
December 6th, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^
The owners wouldn't lose much. The NFL makes money, but pro sports are largely a black hole for cash. Billionaires own teams because it's fun, and increases their public profile. The owners will still make millions from their private business ventures. The players, however stand to lose everything from a lockout, because they don't have other jobs. So if owners think that a lockout has the potential to save them millions of dollars, they will do it, because the players will fold before ownership does.
December 6th, 2009 at 3:55 PM ^
There are teams much worse off than the lions. The Fords have enough money to run the team. Raiders and Jaguars don't sell out a single game. I went to a lions vs cleveland game that was supposed to be the lowest attended game ever. I couldn't find a single scalper selling a ticket for under face. Only thing left at the box office was 120$.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^
This would hurt smaller market teams far more than Detroit. Buffalo would be hit hardest. St. Louis is probably next. Jags are somewhere on the list, too. People were saying post-Katrina New Orleans couldn't support an NFL franchise, but success tends to bring out the fans. A fair-to-middling Saints team would be hurt by this is a major way.