3 Pros 3 Cons: Lions vs. Rams Week 1

[zyxt9]

Oh I get that you consider what has happened in the past to be an absolute determinant for future success or failure. This despite the FACT the Lions and Stafford overcame the 3 INTs in the previous game. As Slick said, you make it sound like he will throw 3+ in every game. Regardless, let's assume he does throw that many, if they win like they did vs Rams, it doesn't matter one fucking bit you "dope". You can claim they won't win, but I can just as easily claim they will since, as pointed out before, the D is better and Staff has shown he now has the ability and maturity to overcome those mistakes.

 

[zyxt9]

He's still a young QB not even in his prime and you act like he should be benched or traded.

 

[tomdalton22]

He's still a young QB not even in his prime and you act like he should be benched or traded.

You are a fucking dumb ass. I have never said he should be benched or he is a bad QB. All I have been trying to explain to you is IF Stafford throws 3 INTs in a game the team will lose more often than they win. If you are too fucking stupid to understand that I feel sorry for you.

 

[beez]

This got out of hand..this wasn't a knock against Stafford, his talent, or even his decision making..it was about 1 game in which he made more costly errors than even an average QB should. 3 ints in a game unless dropped balls by the wr or tipped at the line is a bad game for a QB. Like I said, if any other QB in the league threw 3 ints and still won, you'd all be singing a different tune. If Stafford wouldn't have done it, and I asked what you thought about Mike Vicks game Sunday, you'd all say he had a bad game, but at least he stepped up and delivered the win at the end. Hell you might not even go that far, you'd probably say he got lucky and they pulled out a win against the Browns.

 

[Slick]

This got out of hand..this wasn't a knock against Stafford, his talent, or even his decision making..it was about 1 game in which he made more costly errors than even an average QB should. 3 ints in a game unless dropped balls by the wr or tipped at the line is a bad game for a QB. Like I said, if any other QB in the league threw 3 ints and still won, you'd all be singing a different tune. If Stafford wouldn't have done it, and I asked what you thought about Mike Vicks game Sunday, you'd all say he had a bad game, but at least he stepped up and delivered the win at the end. Hell you might not even go that far, you'd probably say he got lucky and they pulled out a win against the Browns.

Nope....like Stafford , Vick hung in there....watched him on mic'd up , he was telling team mates to stay with him that they were going to pull it out and still beat the Browns.

 

[zyxt9]

You are a fucking dumb ass. I have never said he should be benched or he is a bad QB. All I have been trying to explain to you is IF Stafford throws 3 INTs in a game the team will lose more often than they win. If you are too fucking stupid to understand that I feel sorry for you.

While you never specified it, your words and actions have implied he is and that he should.

You keep saying IF he throws 3 INTs the team will lose more than win. I counter that there is absolutely no way to know that for certain. Until those games are played, you have zero clue who will win. It is like roulette, you have zero knowledge in advance of what color let alone number the ball will land on until it does (unless you rigged it of course). You can state odds and chances, but the prior data you have could be statistical anomalies resulting from Staffords youth and immaturity and now that he has grown and shown he can overcome 3 INTs, you have no way to know how frequently he will overcome that in the future. Apparently you are the one too fucking stupid to understand that. I admit the percentage chance to win drops, but those are worthless statistics and probabilities that in no way shape or form provide absolute knowledge of who will win a future game because they are but one piece to a very big puzzle that includes many other players and plays on the field. I could just as easily argue the D stops the opponent every single time Stafford throws an INT simply because they did it once before in a game. That prior result has zero bearing on the future outside of improved mental strength to overcome such moments.

At the end of the year, the only thing you will look back on is the fact the Lions won against the Rams. You need to get off your soap box, your schtick is old, tired, and defeated with every post you have tried to make your case.

 

[tomdalton22]

While you never specified it, your words and actions have implied he is and that he should.

You keep saying IF he throws 3 INTs the team will lose more than win. I counter that there is absolutely no way to know that for certain. Until those games are played, you have zero clue who will win. It is like roulette, you have zero knowledge in advance of what color let alone number the ball will land on until it does (unless you rigged it of course). You can state odds and chances, but the prior data you have could be statistical anomalies resulting from Staffords youth and immaturity and now that he has grown and shown he can overcome 3 INTs, you have no way to know how frequently he will overcome that in the future. Apparently you are the one too fucking stupid to understand that. I admit the percentage chance to win drops, but those are worthless statistics and probabilities that in no way shape or form provide absolute knowledge of who will win a future game because they are but one piece to a very big puzzle that includes many other players and plays on the field. I could just as easily argue the D stops the opponent every single time Stafford throws an INT simply because they did it once before in a game. That prior result has zero bearing on the future outside of improved mental strength to overcome such moments.

At the end of the year, the only thing you will look back on is the fact the Lions won against the Rams. You need to get off your soap box, your schtick is old, tired, and defeated with every post you have tried to make your case.

Since common sense eludes you I made an effort to get some stats. I looked up some of the all time great QBs including Brady, Manning, Brees, Marino, Elway, Montana and Favre. Those guys had a total of 121 games throughout their careers where they threw 3 or more INTs. Of those 121 games they only won 28.....only 23% of their games! Now do you understand.....if your QB throws 3 INTs you are going to lose more games than you win!

 

[zyxt9]

I see your stats and trump them with the FACT the future is unwritten coupled with the FACT that, based on the superior stats posted by Slick, it is less common for Stafford to throw 3 INTs than you make it sound. Could he actually throw 3 per game? It is not impossible. Nor is it impossible that the Lions win every time. Your stats only show history, they tell NOTHING about the FUTURE!!!

Common sense does not elude me, it tells me that Stafford, a young QB, and the Lions as a team have matured enough to win a game where he throws 3 INTs. Get it??? They WON against the Rams. Whether he throws 0 or 10 against the Niners does not concern me one bit. The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not they won. Every single one of your posts have been hypotheticals and you know it. You know what the problem is with the stats you posted? They only look at the 3 INT aspect. They don't take into account the years of experience of the QB let alone the quality of all the other players on the field. I fucking HATE stats being used to justify some hypothetical future because stats do NOT tell what the future holds. Probabilities? Who the fuck cares? The roullette ball could land on black, red, or green...no amount of stats will tell you in advance which one, let alone the number. There is ALWAYS a percentage chance that the statistical probability for the "most likely" scenario will not happen...ever! That's the other side of your 23% chance does for providing knowledge of what will happen in the future, it gets you squat. Prior to playing the Rams, didn't Stafford win 0% of the time when throwing 3 INTs??? So what happened Senior Stats? How do you explain the fact they won the game? Statistically that should NEVER have happened because it never happened before? I think you know what you can do with your statistical probabilities.

News Flash Chicken Little: The sky is always falling because gravity is pulling it toward the surface of Earth; however, there are OTHER forces involved that stabilize the atmosphere and keep it from crushing us. How's that for some fucking common sense? Or is the analogy between that and the game of football with a QB throwing INTs; however, there are OTHER players on the field who can still win the game something I have to spell out for you?

 

[tomdalton22]

I see your stats and trump them with the FACT the future is unwritten coupled with the FACT that, based on the superior stats posted by Slick, it is less common for Stafford to throw 3 INTs than you make it sound. Could he actually throw 3 per game? It is not impossible. Nor is it impossible that the Lions win every time. Your stats only show history, they tell NOTHING about the FUTURE!!!

Common sense does not elude me, it tells me that Stafford, a young QB, and the Lions as a team have matured enough to win a game where he throws 3 INTs. Get it??? They WON against the Rams. Whether he throws 0 or 10 against the Niners does not concern me one bit. The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not they won. Every single one of your posts have been hypotheticals and you know it. You know what the problem is with the stats you posted? They only look at the 3 INT aspect. They don't take into account the years of experience of the QB let alone the quality of all the other players on the field. I fucking HATE stats being used to justify some hypothetical future because stats do NOT tell what the future holds. Probabilities? Who the fuck cares? The roullette ball could land on black, red, or green...no amount of stats will tell you in advance which one, let alone the number. There is ALWAYS a percentage chance that the statistical probability for the "most likely" scenario will not happen...ever! That's the other side of your 23% chance does for providing knowledge of what will happen in the future, it gets you squat. Prior to playing the Rams, didn't Stafford win 0% of the time when throwing 3 INTs??? So what happened Senior Stats? How do you explain the fact they won the game? Statistically that should NEVER have happened because it never happened before? I think you know what you can do with your statistical probabilities.

News Flash Chicken Little: The sky is always falling because gravity is pulling it toward the surface of Earth; however, there are OTHER forces involved that stabilize the atmosphere and keep it from crushing us. How's that for some fucking common sense? Or is the analogy between that and the game of football with a QB throwing INTs; however, there are OTHER players on the field who can still win the game something I have to spell out for you?

You are a fucking moron. I gave you 6 HOF players and they won 23% of the games when they threw 3 or more INTs. NONE of them won more than 50% of the games. Those are facts. It is a FACT that Stafford is 1-5 when he threw 3 or more INTs. Of course I can't predict the future but the facts that I gave you support my argument. I am not or have not said Stafford is a bad QB...I think he is very good with potential to be great. I will guarantee you this.....at the end of his career his record in games that he throws more than 3 or more INTs the team will have a losing record in those games.

 

[Slick]

It is a FACT that Stafford is 1-6


1 - 5

 

[tomdalton22]

It is a FACT that Stafford is 1-6


1 - 5

sorry....I saw 6 games that he threw 3 or more. I guess it wasn't a fact!

 

[schles192]

Turn overs are bad and you chances of winning go down as they go up, don't really need 3 pages of posts to figure that out.

 

[Slick]

Turn overs are bad and you chances of winning go down as they go up, don't really need 3 pages of posts to figure that out.

:lmao::tup:

75% chance of losing when throwing 3 or more picks....its true I did the math

 

[elrod817]

Turn overs are bad and you chances of winning go down as they go up, don't really need 3 pages of posts to figure that out.

:lmao::tup:

75% chance of losing when throwing 3 or more picks....its true I did the math

Yeah, but that was in the past. You can't predict what's going to happen in the future or something like that.

 

[elrod817]

I think you missed my point. If Stafford throws three picks a game vs good teams the Lions are going to lose those games.

I'm not sure if he did miss it, because he essentially agrees with it earlier:

Exactly...3 picks have happened to Manning, Brady, and every QB to play in the NFL...and more often than not those are the games that come up as a Loss. I guess for some it is the "half-empty" vs "half-full" way of looking at it. Getting the win should mean "half-full" outlook for the season, but some are too hung up on the mistakes to recognize it was outside the norm for Staff and just be happy with the Win.

Why that understanding seems to get lost later confuses me....

 

[Slick]

Yeah, but that was in the past. You can't predict what's going to happen in the future or something like that.

I can...I have a DeLorean that goes to the future >

 

[elrod817]

I can...I have a DeLorean that goes to the future >

It's true! I found a picture of you talking to Red:

 

[Slick]

It's true! I found a picture of you talking to Red:

:tup: before Parkinsons slowed me down....TY for the memories.

 

[mhughes0021]

Score if staff throws 3 picks sun nigh......41-3

 

[tbone413]

wow...this thread went off the deep end a long time ago. It should be closed.