Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

3 Pros 3 Cons: Lions vs. Rams Week 1

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.

well i guess there is no need to ever play another game of football since the stats have already dictated the outcome of all future games. oh wait, then why did they beat the rams? using your priceless stats, there should not have been any reason for that since the lions had never previously won when stafford threw 3 INTs.

that's why they play the games you fucking narrow minded stat freak. i never said he actually will win 100% of the games he throws for 3+ INTs in the future, just that it is a possibility in the realm of unknowns. It is also possible he never has another game where he throws 3 INTs.

he won the game. period. nothing else matters. you are so caught up in trying to justify the comment "stafford had a bad game" that you cannot for a moment acknowledge the win, which trumps everything else. ask any player, ask any coach...they might not be happy with how they performed, they'll work on improving, but in the end they are happy they won and move on. but you, you sit there hanging onto this "he threw 3 INTs" like an autistic child who cannot see anything other than what they are focused on. those 3 INTs don't mean squat today, but the win sure as hell does. get over the fucking INTs already, it is Thursday for crying out loud.
 
I'm not sure if he did miss it, because he essentially agrees with it earlier:



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

I never lost understanding of it, just that it has nothing to do with what will actually happen in the future. he could lose every future game where he throws 3 INTs...but there is no way of knowing that regardless of how many stats he wants to dig up. stats do not provide a guarantee of what the future holds. give a probability, sure...but there are always exceptions that skew stats and there are far too many other elements that impact the game it is impossible to absolutely know the results ahead of time.
 
well i guess there is no need to ever play another game of football since the stats have already dictated the outcome of all future games. oh wait, then why did they beat the rams? using your priceless stats, there should not have been any reason for that since the lions had never previously won when stafford threw 3 INTs.

that's why they play the games you fucking narrow minded stat freak. i never said he actually will win 100% of the games he throws for 3+ INTs in the future, just that it is a possibility in the realm of unknowns. It is also possible he never has another game where he throws 3 INTs.

he won the game. period. nothing else matters. you are so caught up in trying to justify the comment "stafford had a bad game" that you cannot for a moment acknowledge the win, which trumps everything else. ask any player, ask any coach...they might not be happy with how they performed, they'll work on improving, but in the end they are happy they won and move on. but you, you sit there hanging onto this "he threw 3 INTs" like an autistic child who cannot see anything other than what they are focused on. those 3 INTs don't mean squat today, but the win sure as hell does. get over the fucking INTs already, it is Thursday for crying out loud.

After reading the 1st few lines I quit...this guy just doesn't understand.. Lol

The numbers don't say you can't win a game throwing 3 ints...they say it's very hard...meaning it's very hard to win a game when your qb has a bad day in the NFL and turns the ball over.
 
After reading the 1st few lines I quit...this guy just doesn't understand.. Lol

The numbers don't say you can't win a game throwing 3 ints...they say it's very hard...meaning it's very hard to win a game when your qb has a bad day in the NFL and turns the ball over.

again...if the qb wins the game and throws for 350+ yards, that is far from the definition of a bad game.

a qb who completes less than 50% of 30+ attempts, has less than 150 yards, has 3+ INTs and zero touchdowns, and most importantly LOSES the game could be said to have a bad day. that is not the type of day stafford had.
 
one would think after an 0-16 season, lions fans would better comprehend the description of a "bad game" for a QB.
 
one would think after an 0-16 season, lions fans would better comprehend the description of a "bad game" for a QB.

Or maybe it's skewed your vision soooo bad that no matter what if the lions win every player played well.
 
Or maybe it's skewed your vision soooo bad that no matter what if the lions win every player played well.


....Stafford did not have a "bad game" , even his HC ( who at times has been pretty candid on "bad games ) said in his presser it was a couple of "bad decisions"....but he hung in there , made better decisions in the 2nd half and led his team on an OUTSTANDING drive to win the game.

I've seen "bad games" from Lions QBs...and last Sundays wasn't one of them.
 
Or maybe it's skewed your vision soooo bad that no matter what if the lions win every player played well.

not saying staff played well, but he did play well enough to win. that's not having a bad game.
 
....Stafford did not have a "bad game" , even his HC ( who at times has been pretty candid on "bad games ) said in his presser it was a couple of "bad decisions"....but he hung in there , made better decisions in the 2nd half and led his team on an OUTSTANDING drive to win the game.

I've seen "bad games" from Lions QBs...and last Sundays wasn't one of them.

This is the win post. Case closed.
 
His INTs were more of a great scheme/play calling by the Rams. If I was playing QB and saw what Stafford did the second after the snap I would of thought those players to be open. But they tricked Stafford, that happens. Shit even Peyton Manning got tricked, just look at his playoff games :)
 
Anybody want an example of a bad fucking game?

C/ATT YDS AVG TD INT RAT.
J. Cutler 8/22 81 3.7 0 3 8.1


THAT is a bad game. Cutler in the 4th, 8:14 left in the 4th. Fuck me sideways if Stafford had a game this bad...

I'm not going to say a word about Cutler when we play them, he finally got a TD off an INT...

10 25 112 4.5 1 3
 
Last edited:
Anybody want an example of a bad fucking game?

C/ATT YDS AVG TD INT RAT.
J. Cutler 8/22 81 3.7 0 3 8.1


THAT is a bad game. Cutler in the 4th, 8:14 left in the 4th. Fuck me sideways if Stafford had a game this bad...

I'm not going to say a word about Cutler when we play them, he finally got a TD off an INT...

10 25 112 4.5 1 3
and my dumbass started him over flacco. thought it would be a shootout. entire first half was a defensive struggle lmao. The good news for lions fans is both olines looked absolutely horrendous.
 
The first half was bad. Only TD, fake FG. Rodgers had a better second half and well, Cutler was Cutler.
 
Cutler's performance fit under my previous description of a QB having a bad game. Thanks Mal for posting that. Just a quick update on those stats, 4 INTs and don't forget the 7 sacks...but most importantly...the loss.
 
Cutler is historically awful in Lambeau. Overall, he has struggled against GB. This little bit from Woodson is pretty funny...
“Heard some talk out of the Bears: Packers secondary not working coverage, bigger receivers … we heard about it,” Woodson told Rachel Nichols of ESPN. “We understand that Jay is excited about his new weapons, but it’s the same-old Jay. We don’t need luck; Jay will throw us the ball.”
 
Back
Top