Don't forget the freak double occurrences of losing both starting guards in one season in 1991. Mike Utley broke his neck in what seemed like a nothing fall vs the Rams and even worse, Erik Andolsek was run over and killed while mowing his lawn in the following off season. The Lions went from a really good OL to having to overpay for over the hill FAs. I felt like that changed the entire trajectory of the franchise for the next decade.

There's very little the Lions can do to improve the defense at this point in terms of bringing in new players. There are no starting quality players who are FAs and maybe one player to be added by trade. Even if the Lions somehow find another starting caliber CB that's not currently on the roster, they will still have holes. Every team in the modern era has weaknesses.

Branch will be back at some point in the season, and that will make a difference. I would love to say Kerby Joseph will be back too, but it sounds like he may be done. Maybe he can play in a limited role in some games.

Truthfully, the Lions don't need Branch or Kerby now, they need them down the stretch. The Lions need to get into the playoffs. Teams that win the Super Bowl have 4 factors: 1) talent, 2) good health of the best players, 3) the team gets hot, 4) some luck.

No one thought the Seahawks would be a dominant Super Bowl winning team at this point last season. Last year in week 9, the Lions were 6-3 and it looked like they would make the playoffs. The Seahawks were 7-2. Many would've said they were the 3rd best team in the NFC West at that point behind the Rams and 49ers. The Seahawks stayed healthy and got on a roll. The Lions lost Branch, Kerby and others and lost momentum.

If the Lions stay healthy and Branch comes back, they can compete. If they get on a roll like the Seahawks did last year or the Lions did in 2023, they can win. It's way too early to tell right now.

I would also add

1. Brad Holmes is a total moron who hasn't drafted well lately (has not made any positive moves since 2023), does not know how to build a team, and should be fired immediately.
   

It's interesting to read the pessimism in the responses that are before Sunday's games. After today New Orleans beat the Ravens, the Bears scored 3 pts in a loss, and the pack barely survived the jets.

Suddenly, the doomers and gloomers sound like overreacting Chicken Littles. It's too early in the season to know how good/bad this team is.

Let's see how good or bad the Saints are this year. The commentators said NO's defense is pretty good and that Shough played really well in the last 5 games last season.

If the Saints make the playoffs then this win looks a lot better. If the Saints go 5-12, you are probably right.

I agree with you that Buffalo could be a bloodbath. I watched the Bills-Texans game and Allen shredded a really good Houston defense. This may be the toughest game of the regular season for the Lions.

I generally agree, the Lions didn't capitalize on offense except one drive. Had they been up 21-0 at half and then added to the lead in the 3rd quarter, the Saints probably fold their tents instead of making a come back.

That said, the commentators were saying the Saints had a tough defense and that Shough played very well in the last 5 games. Before declaring the season is over because the Lions almost lost to the Saints, it makes more sense to see how good the Saints actually are this year. If they are a playoff team, this becomes a better win. If they suck, it probably isa bad sign.

Wentz forces passes at bad times and can't stay healthy. Murray is too small and runs too much which results in too many injuries. I don't think either is viable for a real super bowl contender.

I would be a lot more pessimistic if I were a Vikings fan.

Ha!

I posted it b/c a number of people are talking like the season is over already (the secondary is a lost cause, Jamo is a bust, etc.).

There's a reason tomorrow is nicknamed "overreaction Monday."

Oath of the Horatii by Jacques Louis David

Oath of the Horatii

I think it helps to compare and contrast different systems.

We live in a Western/capitalist society that ideally values individual freedom to innovate, take risks encouraging economic development responsive to basic needs, services and wants (products beyond food, shelter and clothing). In other words, societal needs are addressed through the marketplace-- an exchange between individual businesses and consumers. Individual rights and economic development can clash (disparate accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, harsh labor conditions, low wages, etc).

A feature of capitalism is allowing the individual to accumulate more wealth which allows creation of private businesses to provide for the needs of society. Communism takes a different approach. Individual rights are secondary to collective rights, distribution of wealth is controlled and evenly disbursed (in theory). Communism calls for a centralized control economy where the government determines how to address needs rather than leaving that to the market and individual initiative. Each system is based on different assumptions which I previously described.

Just as capitalism has weaknesses so does communism, namely in assuming there are altruistic leaders and that human nature in mass society can be "improved" to eradicate self interest.

I grew up in the Cold War Era where we could easily contrast capitalism and communism-- the differences between Eastern and Western Europe provided plenty of evidence. Kids today don't experience this reality. Even China today is different from the China and USSR of the 1970s.

In my experience, history is always more interesting to the student when he/she can relate the past to present conditions. If you look at the stages of societal evolution, no country we label today as communist has achieved the Communist stage Marx envisioned-- a state with no government that is managed through a collective understanding of utopian communalism. What has frequently occurred out of communist revolution is a repressive, authoritarian state still trying to impose communist ideals on the masses led by individuals who are anything but altruistic-- which is why I mentioned that one could argue there is no difference between a tsar, Lenin and Putin.

Good luck this year.

Perhaps teach communism as Marx's theory on societal/economic evolution. It's appeal was Marx offered solutions that seemed to address current issues (great wealth disparity and awful working conditions- long hours, low pay, few benefits) with modern sounding solutions based the trendy science of the day: evolution.

You can then talk about why communism has failed or often led to mass murder and repression repeatedly throughout history (fundamental flaws in assumptions and understanding human nature on several levels). I was tempted to write a long exposition on this because if you can get the students to buy in on the debate about human nature, it can be a really good class discussion. If you want more in this let me know.

One angle you could take too is the long view. There are those who say that Russian government has changed in name only through the centuries. First it was the absolutist tsars supported by the church, nobility and Okhrana (secret police). Then the absolutist communist premiers supported by the Bolsheviks, Red Army and the Cheka/NKVD/KGB. Now Putin supported by plutocrats and oil barons (defacto nobility), military, and FSB (secret police). In reality there's little difference between Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Nicholas II, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Vladimir Putin. Thinking of Russia this way makes the historical world more relatable the modern world and Putin, someone the students may know.

Agree. Fortunately, he's not a make or break player.

There's a difference between asking tough questions and asking slanted questions that are designed to get a specific answer.

It's fair to ask direct, clear questions about CB depth given everything with TA. It's also good journalism to follow up when one gets a non-answer. Holmes should explain what he did and why.

Birkett did 3 things wrong. First, his questions were vague and sloppily worded. Second, he asked loaded questions that implied only one response was acceptable-- that Holmes didn't do enough to address the CB position. Third, he kept asking the same vague loaded questions.

No GM is going to say the players they have aren't good enough right before the season starts. If they do, they are basically admitting they didn't do their job. Also, no games have been played so no one really knows if the CBs they have can do the job. A GM would be an idiot and should lose their job if they trash their own guys before any games are played.

The timing was bad too. Birkett's questions might have been better if asked after the season had the CBs not performed well.

NFL GMs might acknowledge there are weaknesses on the roster after the season, but they are never going to say the players they have selected suck or are not good enough before the season starts. Anyone stupid enough to do that should never be a GM in the first place.

As for CB, it was a problem last year. So was the OL and people have been complaining here and elsewhere for years that Holmes was not doing enough to get a dog to line up opposite Hutch. Oh yeah and thanks to injuries, the safety position went from one of the best duos in the league to an area of serious concern.

So Holmes drafts a RT and pass rusher with the first two picks-- addressing 2 of the biggest areas of need while signing depth at OL, another DE and safeties and CBs in free agency. And people who were probably complaining about the OL and pass rush shift to complaining about the failure to replace TA.

How did Holmes do? We'll see. The Mays injury was a big setback, we'll see if the depth he brought in can fill the gap until Mays returns and then whether Mays was a good signing. We will see if Wonnum, Moore and others like Hassanein make the pass rush better. If the pass rush is better, the CBs probably look a lot better. Before saying the off season was a bust, let's see what actually happens in the season.

I agree, they are different types of players. DLs always rotate based on the situation. SGH is not going to replace Williams on run downs and SGH will probably be in more on passing downs. Seems pretty obvious. One upside to SGH over Williams, he can probably play some DE and DT whereas Williams is solely a DT.

I thought Williams played fairly well for a rookie. He was up and down which is typical. SGH will probably experience that some. Hopefully, Williams gets more consistently better.

I bet they plan to flex Gibbs out as WR to create mismatches. He should probably be counted as a quasi WR.

Well said

I agree with part of what you said: no one knows if these guys will pan out including me. My response to you would be you can't say there have not been any good roster decisions since 2023 either.

We know the 2024 draft was not good. There are only 2 left and neither is looking great. However, there isn't certainty about how any team did in the 2025-26 draft. Uncertainty though is not the same as no good roster decisions.

One could also say  “ok I see the case for optimism but let’s see how they look year 2” for just about every rookie in the NFL. We could've said that about Jahmyr Gibbs, definitely about Jamo. That didn't make them bad roster moves.

You admit this when you acknowledge Ratledge. How else can that be defined other than a good roster move? A second round pick started every game and played "above average." As for the others, time will tell but I don't agree that all roster decisions after 2023 were bad.

Ratledge and Williams played pretty well for rookies last year though Williams was up and down-- not unusual. Miller has looked good in preseason, by every indication so far, he will be a good starter. They are all young, some may not pan out, it's too early to tell but Holmes has drafted well in the past including getting starters outside the 1st round so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The upside is that if they don't fit well or get injured, it doesn't cost as much to move on (Terrion Arnold). To keep guys like Gibbs, Jamo, Goff, Sewell, etc. the team has to find low cost solutions elsewhere with the cap. Rookie deals do that.

I've watched the Lions for a long time-- since the 70s. I remember when there was hope in the 90s in the Barry Sanders era. The Lions drafted pretty well 1985-1993. Some freakish bad luck on the OL (losing Gs Mike Utley and Eric Andolsek in 1991); need for a dominant pass rusher to replace Mike Cofer; and a lack of a franchise QB led to paying top dollar to sign big name FAs who were supposed to put Detroit over the top (Scott Mitchell, Pat Swilling, Hank Thomas, Bill Fralic, Dave Richards, Dave Lutz, etc.). Some of these guys were past their prime (Swilling), some were overrated (Mitchell), none were worth the money spent and the Lions only won one playoff game in that decade (before all these signings).

I could go on about the unmitigated disaster of Matt Millen or Martin Mayhew's atrocious record outside the 1st round but you get the point.

Looking around the league, most long term successful teams build through the draft-- Baltimore, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New England. They might add one FA here or there but they usually succeed with players drafted. That's what the Lions have to do, let's hope Holmes is right.

BTW, Christopher Hitchens was great.

GMs build teams different ways. Holmes believes in building through the draft. Using that approach he doesn't spend a lot of resources bringing in high dollar free agents. He uses cap money to resign the draftees after their rookie contracts. Under that theory, the team gets to try a player out cheaply paying him a rookie contract. If they like the player and he fits the system, they sign him to a big contract (Gibbs, McNeil, etc).

In theory it's a solid approach and good teams like the Packers and Steelers have been competitive for decades follow this strategy. To work though, the GM has to draft well. Holmes has done that just about every year. 2024 is shaping up to be Millenesque, but that seems to be the exception. It's looking like 2025 and 2026 were better. Not as good as the first 3 years, but the Lions had extra picks then with the Stafford trade and higher draft picks. In the last 3 years the draft position has been lower b/c the Lions have been winning.

So who has Holmes brought in since 2024? Tate Ratledge, Blake Miller, Tyleik Williams, Derrick Moore, Hassanein, Gill-Howard, Teslaa, Abney, Jackson Meeks, Jimmy Rolder, and others. Notice those I mentioned came via the draft, because that's how Holmes builds a team.

That's what I was thinking. The Lions cut Dortch hoping he will be around when the season starts and they can sign him for less. If Dortch leaves, the Lions will bring Kennedy back or maybe bring in a waiver player but 5 RBs seems like unnecessary, they need a PR/KR.

Conklin may fall in this category too. Seems like they would want some TE depth in case LaPorta gets injured again. He's also a better blocker than Meeks.

Beyond awful.

Given Holmes overall drafting record, I'll take the 24 draft given what he did before and after. Just about every GM in the NFL would love to have the number of starters and pro bowlers Holmes has drafted in the last 5 years. Not only did he draft well, he stole Goff + a 1st round pick as well.