<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe above average or better than most would have been a better discription than contender. The point was Galvy was wrong about the state of the Lions for the 8 years or 10 years before Matt Millen arrived. That fact is they were better than most NFL teams before Millan. That was my only point. Nothing more nothing less.</div> I will agree that Matt Millen took a team that seemed to be just on the brink of being a really good team and made them awful...</div> This is a myth... That team was much like the Titans were a few years ago where they had to dump a lot of old overpriced players. We were in cap pergatory... Most "Millen Haters" don't realize that one of the good things that he (Probably more Lewand than Millen though) did was get this franchise financially sound... It is also one of the reasons why I believe Millen has gotten so long in office... Update: The source is working on confirming the rumor right now... There could be another update as early as tonight...
It's no myth that the Detroit Lions were a better team right before Millen took over than they have been under him. I really don't care enough about the Lions to know what kind of salary cap condition they were in when Millen took over, but I know that shouldn't be an issue this far into his tenure.
The Fords should just sell the Lions to someone in L.A. We can still leave them in the NFC North, it will be interesting.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'>The Fords should just sell the Lions to someone in L.A. We can still leave them in the NFC North, it will be interesting.</div> That would make no sense since the Lions actually make good money.
Los Angeles doesn't need or deserve a franchise. The point has been made several times that people in Los Angeles don't support football the way other areas do because there is so many other things to do there. It wouldn't surprise me, if they did move the Lions, that they wouldn't have the same success that they do in Detroit. (By success, I obviously mean financial.)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>Los Angeles doesn't need or deserve a franchise. The point has been made several times that people in Los Angeles don't support football the way other areas do because there is so many other things to do there. It wouldn't surprise me, if they did move the Lions, that they wouldn't have the same success that they do in Detroit. (By success, I obviously mean financial.)</div> I really don't care who moves to LA, I just dont want it to be my team Hopefully, they get an AFC team like the Chargers. Why did Tagliabue and others at his level insist that they are losing out on all kinds of revenue from the LA market? The league has been hammering the point that they will do eveything they can to a team in that city since the Rams and Raiders left. You may not think that the fans their deserve an NFL team, but the league believes that having a presence there is extremely important, and that there is much money to be made there. If a team is selling out games where they are currently parked, then the move doesn't make sense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>Now I do understand yours and Galvy's teams didn't enter the NFL until 1970, so sometimes you fail to remember the NFL existed for <u>45 YEARS</u> before that. So when you say the Lions "have never made the leap to be a legit contender", you're wrong. Not only have they been World Champions 4 times, they're also one of very few NFL teams to be a Team of a Decade. Just the facts.</div> I'm still celebrating the Minneapolis Laker's...man that was a good team. :/ Seriously - having pride in the past and history of a franchise is great - the Lions do have a good history IMO. But this team has been so sub-par for such a long time its sickening. I think Murtyle was right - 8-8 must seem like a dream right now. I would be very much against moving Detroit to LA - too much history with the team. Get rid of Millen and you might be able to use the talent that is on this team to win a few games. I think Joey Harrington's relative success in Miami is more than enough proof that players in Detroit are held back from reaching their potential.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>Now I do understand yours and Galvy's teams didn't enter the NFL until 1970, so sometimes you fail to remember the NFL existed for <u>45 YEARS</u> before that. So when you say the Lions "have never made the leap to be a legit contender", you're wrong. Not only have they been World Champions 4 times, they're also one of very few NFL teams to be a Team of a Decade. Just the facts.</div> I'm still celebrating the Minneapolis Laker's...man that was a good team. :/ Seriously - having pride in the past and history of a franchise is great - the Lions do have a good history IMO. But this team has been so sub-par for such a long time its sickening. I think Murtyle was right - 8-8 must seem like a dream right now. I would be very much against moving Detroit to LA - too much history with the team. Get rid of Millen and you might be able to use the talent that is on this team to win a few games. I think Joey Harrington's relative success in Miami is more than enough proof that players in Detroit are held back from reaching their potential.</div> I was more kidding than anything else when I mentioned the lions moving. If they actually did move anywhere, I would suggest that they leave their name behind, like Cleveland did. Don't they sell out Ford Field, though?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>It's no myth that the Detroit Lions were a better team right before Millen took over than they have been under him. I really don't care enough about the Lions to know what kind of salary cap condition they were in when Millen took over, but I know that shouldn't be an issue this far into his tenure.</div> It is a myth that they were on the brink of success... They were getting worse... Does anyone remember the shock that took place when we made the playoffs after Barry retired? I was... I agree that Millen has had his shot and he obviously needs to go... No argument there trust me... Oh and as ridiculous as it is... Yes they sell out Ford Field... Detroit has great fans... We are loyal and deserve more than this... We've had enough of paying to watch a pathetic performance week after week... I think the Fords may finally understand that they are on the brink of losing most fans if they don't act quick... Update: Everyone seems to think that the announcement will be made on Tuesday... The reason for the delay is that the HS state football championships were being held at FF this weekend and they didn't want to take away from that... If it doesn't happen tomorrow, I don't think it will until the end of the season barring a major embarrassment (Second quarter walk out at the final homegame... or another "Millen Man March" are possibilities... I guess just chanting "Fire Millen" isn't enough )
I bet the first guy the Fords will call is Ron Wolf... But I don't think he's going to un-retire just to try to save the Lions.
"In there 43 years of ownership of the lions they have racked up a lowly 1-7 playoff record with an embarssing 3 division wins and they have no clue what a super bowl is like." http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/fireford William Clay Ford Jr time travels back in time....his dad has no idea that he is talking to his future son... William Clay Ford Sr.: Matt Millen? The linebacker? [chuckles in disbelief] William Clay Ford Sr: Then who's VICE-President? Jerry Lewis? [later he rushes outside, down a hill and toward his laboratory] William Clay Ford Sr: I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady! William Clay Ford Jr : [following Jr] Whoa! Wait! Bill! William Clay Ford Sr: And Jack Benny, the Secretary of the Treasury. William Clay Ford Jr: [outside the lab door] Bill, You gotta listen to me. William Clay Ford Sr: [opens the door to the lab] I've had enough practical jokes for one evening. Good night, Future Boy! [closes the door leaving William Jr. outside]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'>William Clay Ford Sr: And Jack Benny, the Secretary of the Treasury.</div> (pause) Well. (pause) It could happen. They could also move the team to Rochester (violin plays in background).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'>"In there 43 years of ownership of the lions they have racked up a lowly 1-7 playoff record with an embarssing 3 division wins and they have no clue what a super bowl is like."</div> It has been held in Detroit twice...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>Now I do understand yours and Galvy's teams didn't enter the NFL until 1970, so sometimes you fail to remember the NFL existed for <u>45 YEARS</u> before that. So when you say the Lions "have never made the leap to be a legit contender", you're wrong. Not only have they been World Champions 4 times, they're also one of very few NFL teams to be a Team of a Decade. Just the facts.</div> You should really stop thumping what happened before the league became fully integrated. You could compare apples to oranges, but you would be a fool to do so. Teams in the early days did not have integration (meaning, they were all white). Today NFL is ~70% African American. Today's NFL now gathers the best players from *all over the world*, not just guys in Rust Belt states who did this as their second job while not working at the factory. The universities that produce the best collegiate football players recruit from everywhere, leaving few stones unturned. Kids get started on optimized weight training and conditioning from as early as high school nowadays. They eventually become the huge, muscular monstrosities with great speed, and the NFL combines will only look at the very best in the country. All of this was not going on back when your Lions were winning championships in an AFC-less NFL. Your league then was considerabley weaker on all counts. Putting the Lions championships in this conversation is rediculous and lacks a bit of legitimacy when put into context, even though it is technically correct. It wasn't until 1962 when the NFL became fully integrated, finally, with the Redskins being the last team to sign a black player to their roster. Apples and Oranges. There is no comparison between modern era football and what preceded it.</div> The NFL did exclude blacks from 1934-1946. The "Modern Era" in the NFL is Post WW II. Three of the Lions four World Championships were in the "Modern Era". The first year black players were signed by the Lions was 1948. There are many black HOF players that starred in the Modern Era in the 1950's. George Blanda is a good example of a player who played in the early Modern Era in 1949 and then earned the NFL MVP award playing for your Raiders in 1970 at the age of 43! He's proof a player from the 40's could play at the highest level in the AFC era. There were lots of players from the 1950's (black and white) way better than George Blanda. I almost have to LMAO that a 43 year old Bears cast off who played in the 1940's won the NFL MVP as a <u>RAIDER</u> in the AFC era! TO FUNNY! :thumbsup:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'>Now I do understand yours and Galvy's teams didn't enter the NFL until 1970, so sometimes you fail to remember the NFL existed for <u>45 YEARS</u> before that. So when you say the Lions "have never made the leap to be a legit contender", you're wrong. Not only have they been World Champions 4 times, they're also one of very few NFL teams to be a Team of a Decade. Just the facts.</div> You should really stop thumping what happened before the league became fully integrated. You could compare apples to oranges, but you would be a fool to do so. Teams in the early days did not have integration (meaning, they were all white). Today NFL is ~70% African American. Today's NFL now gathers the best players from *all over the world*, not just guys in Rust Belt states who did this as their second job while not working at the factory. The universities that produce the best collegiate football players recruit from everywhere, leaving few stones unturned. Kids get started on optimized weight training and conditioning from as early as high school nowadays. They eventually become the huge, muscular monstrosities with great speed, and the NFL combines will only look at the very best in the country. All of this was not going on back when your Lions were winning championships in an AFC-less NFL. Your league then was considerabley weaker on all counts. Putting the Lions championships in this conversation is rediculous and lacks a bit of legitimacy when put into context, even though it is technically correct. It wasn't until 1962 when the NFL became fully integrated, finally, with the Redskins being the last team to sign a black player to their roster. Apples and Oranges. There is no comparison between modern era football and what preceded it.</div> The NFL did exclude blacks from 1934-1946. The "Modern Era" in the NFL is Post WW II. Three of the Lions four World Championships were in the "Modern Era". The first year black players were signed by the Lions was 1948. There are many black HOF players that starred in the Modern Era in the 1950's. George Blanda is a good example of a player who played in the early Modern Era in 1949 and then earned the NFL MVP award playing for your Raiders in 1970 at the age of 43! He's proof a player from the 40's could play at the highest level in the AFC era. There were lots of players from the 1950's (black and white) way better than George Blanda. http://imagecache2.allposters.com/IMAGES/P...ILE/AACV020.jpg I almost have to LMAO that a 43 year old Bears cast off who played in the 1940's won the NFL MVP as a <u>RAIDER</u> in the AFC era! TO FUNNY! :thumbsup:</div> Again, I believe that the lions were never a "legit" contender, even when taking the first "45 years" (as you put it) and comparing it to the next 45 years. After world war 2, the NFL was pressured into integrating, yet the NFL was extremely resistant to such efforts. During the early years, there were many "firsts" for non-white races with respect to professional sports. Also, you used the word "many" when describing how many of them who were both HOFers and who also played during the 50's.: http://www.profootballhof.com/history/gene...n-americans.jsp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players...sional_football "by 1934 there were none. This disappearance of black players from the NFL effectively coincided with the entry of one of the leading owners of the league, George Preston Marshall. Marshall openly refused to have black athletes on his Boston Braves/Washington Redskins team, and reportedly pressured the rest of the league to follow suit. The NFL did not have another black player until after World War II." "In the NFL, when the Cleveland Rams wanted to move to Los Angeles, it was stipulated in their contract with the Los Angeles Coliseum that they had to integrate their team, so they signed two UCLA teammates, Woody Strode and Kenny Washington, who were playing semi-pro ball in the area in 1946. Still, Marshall was quoted as saying "We'll start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing whites." In spite of this open bias, Marshall was elected to the NFL's Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1963." "Even when the NFL did sign black players, poor treatment was evident. Reportedly, black players routinely received lower contracts than whites in the NFL, while in the American Football League there was no such distinction based on race" "However despite the segregationist policies, by 1970, more than 30% of the league's players were African American. Today, well over 70% of the league's players are African American even though racial problems and biases still do exist." "Conversely, the American Football League actively recruited players from small colleges that had been largely ignored by the NFL, giving those schools' black players the opportunity to play professional football. As a result, for the years 1960 through 1962, AFL teams averaged 17% more blacks than NFL teams did[2]. By 1969, a comparison of the two league's championship team photos showed the AFL's Chiefs with 23 black players out of 51 players pictured, while the NFL Vikings had 11 blacks, of 42 players in the photo." The AFL was much closer to what we have today than the NFL (NFC). Having a couple of token black players on your 1950's Lions team does not make you integrated, but does indicate that you are competitively less legitimate. We can probably save the "NFL vs. AFL" arguement for another thread though. For a player to reach the ripe old age of 40 like Blanda and Jerry Rice have done, that is remarkable, and we should honor those guys for their many years in the league. They are exceptional people to have played professional football for that long. Exceptional people do not mean that the Lions of the AFC-less NFL should be compared to any championship teams that we have seen since the AFL and NFL finally decided to start playing each other in a bowl game once per year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, but the pre-modern NFL is to the modern NFL as Wicked Lester is to KISS. It's nice to go back and see where the NFL came from, but we all know when the game really started to matter. Regarding my post, it's really obvious that I was refering to the Lions, in the 90's, as being a club that couldn't make the leap to being a contender. I did refer to Galvatron's point that the Lions have only won one playoff game in 50 years. I was really talking about recent history and didn't see the point in refering to wins over 50 years ago. I'm not sure how those old Lions teams are relevant to a discussion about where the Lions are under Millen and where they were where right before Millen took over.</div> Wins that occurred 50+ years ago matter very little, like you said. We (the general public) do know when the game started to matter. It's obviously very hard to admit if you are a Lions fan (I'm not speaking for all Lions fans, as I am sure that most of them already understand this).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, but the pre-modern NFL is to the modern NFL as Wicked Lester is to KISS. It's nice to go back and see where the NFL came from, but we all know when the game really started to matter. Regarding my post, it's really obvious that I was refering to the Lions, in the 90's, as being a club that couldn't make the leap to being a contender. I did refer to Galvatron's point that the Lions have only won one playoff game in 50 years. I was really talking about recent history and didn't see the point in refering to wins over 50 years ago. I'm not sure how those old Lions teams are relevant to a discussion about where the Lions are under Millen and where they were where right before Millen took over.</div> Wins that occurred 50+ years ago matter very little, like you said. We (the general public) do know when the game started to matter. It's obviously very hard to admit if you are a Lions fan (I'm not speaking for all Lions fans, as I am sure that most of them already understand this).</div> There's no argument from me on the Millen era. And I've proven that the Lions were above average and better than teams like the Bears and Raiders in the era before Millen. (Barry Sanders Era) Galvy's the one who started using the term "Modern Era" when he didn't know what it ment. The NFL "Modern Era" is Post World War II. He also made the ignorant statement that players from earlier decades couldn't play in the "AFC Era" and I proved that wrong too. Then he plays the race card. It's true that today's NFL is 70% black and it's become blacker almost every year. If championships don't matter when the league was 10% black then the case could be made Championships shouldn't count when it was only 30% black. Anyone remember the "Lilly White" 1972 Dolphins? Should we stop bringing up these guys every year because the had so many white guys at the skill positions? Of course not. The "Modern Era" is post WWII. Times were differant, but all teams played by the same rules. Some teams were contenders some were not. Let's not shit on history or the many great players who played the game before the AFC era. Hell, most experts still say Jim Brown was the greatest player to ever play the game. And I'm sure someday when the NFL is 90% black Galvy's son will say today's Champions didn't count. :reallysick:
William Clay Ford remains silent on the issue, but with five (meaningless) games remaining he needs to address Matt Millen's future. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%">Column: Ford needs to go public with decision on Millen -- now</span> Wednesday, November 29, 2006 By Tom Kowalski ALLEN PARK -- One man, one vote. That advertising slogan has been used in the past to illustrate our country's democratic process, but it can be used now to describe owner William Clay Ford's dictatorship of the Detroit Lions. Ford is the only man who gets to vote on the future of team president Matt Millen. And that's fine. It's his money, it's his team and it's his choice. What isn't so fine is Ford's silence. It must be nice to sit on the veranda of his Florida home and sip tea, watch the beautiful sunrises and be completely unaware -- or unconcerned -- about the dark cloud that hangs over his football organization. For Ford to remain silent, it means he doesn't appreciate the level of anger and disgust that has already built -- and continues to build -- toward his team.</div> http://www.mlive.com/lions/stories/index.s...9380.xml&coll=1
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zackman)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, but the pre-modern NFL is to the modern NFL as Wicked Lester is to KISS. It's nice to go back and see where the NFL came from, but we all know when the game really started to matter. Regarding my post, it's really obvious that I was refering to the Lions, in the 90's, as being a club that couldn't make the leap to being a contender. I did refer to Galvatron's point that the Lions have only won one playoff game in 50 years. I was really talking about recent history and didn't see the point in refering to wins over 50 years ago. I'm not sure how those old Lions teams are relevant to a discussion about where the Lions are under Millen and where they were where right before Millen took over.</div> Wins that occurred 50+ years ago matter very little, like you said. We (the general public) do know when the game started to matter. It's obviously very hard to admit if you are a Lions fan (I'm not speaking for all Lions fans, as I am sure that most of them already understand this).</div> There's no argument from me on the Millen era. And I've proven that the Lions were above average and better than teams like the Bears and Raiders in the era before Millen. (Barry Sanders Era) Galvy's the one who started using the term "Modern Era" when he didn't know what it ment. The NFL "Modern Era" is Post World War II. He also made the ignorant statement that players from earlier decades couldn't play in the "AFC Era" and I proved that wrong too. Then he plays the race card. It's true that today's NFL is 70% black and it's become blacker almost every year. If championships don't matter when the league was 10% black then the case could be made Championships shouldn't count when it was only 30% black. Anyone remember the "Lilly White" 1972 Dolphins? Should we stop bringing up these guys every year because the had so many white guys at the skill positions? Of course not. The "Modern Era" is post WWII. Times were differant, but all teams played by the same rules. Some teams were contenders some were not. Let's not shit on history or the many great players who played the game before the AFC era. Hell, most experts still say Jim Brown was the greatest player to ever play the game. And I'm sure someday when the NFL is 90% black Galvy's son will say today's Champions didn't count. :reallysick:</div> We are talking about two separate leagues, one that is racist, and only takes in non-whites after much arm twisting. The other accepts all of the best athletes in the country. The two leagues played in parallel for years before they merged. When they merged, the real competition began. Your championships in the 50's have no legitimacy in my opinion because they didn't compete with the best athletes available. You get it yet?
Actually, I tried to Google up a definitive "Modern Era" for the NFL the other night and couldn't find one, except that most references to a "Modern Era" point to the NFL-AFL merger in 1970. I didn't see anything that refered to the "Modern Era" as directly following World War II. If someone can find a place where the NFL refers to a specific time period for the "Modern Era" then I would like to see it. Yeah, the 72 Dolphins were so lily white that they have two black Hall of Famers (Paul Warfield and Larry Little) on that team. :thumbsup:
