3 Pros 3 Cons: Lions vs. Rams Week 1

[tonyballs]

Stop it..every one of you sat on your couch Sunday and said "Man Mike Vick had a bad day today."

Bullshit. I don't give 2 fucks about Vick.

 

[zyxt9]

I just told you why it was a bad game..because anyone but a homer can see how a QB throwing 3 INTs in a single game had a bad game..you can't turn the ball over that many times and be happy about it period. Off day is a sugar coated homer way of saying bad game. He stepped up when he needed to so props to him but he still had a bad game. Like I said, I know damn well you think Vick had a bad game.

Let's simplify this mathematically:

1st half = bad
2nd half = good

bad+good=0/neutral/average/whatever...so based on that it is a wash. the fact he overcame what was bad and won the game would tilt it more toward a good game than a bad though, would it not?

you cannot say he had a bad game in its entirety just because the 1st half was bad. you can say he had a bad 1st half and you won't hear any arguments from anyone. but the second half was good since the 3rd quarter was ok and 4th quarter was smoking hot. it's about taking into account everything about his day, not just being hyperfocused on the INTs and bad 1st half, which everyone agrees were pretty bad. still, outside of the INTs he was moving the team well and was a Petti-drop away from having the Lions up at the half, so you cannot say he was absolute dogshit. The INTs were terrible, and amplified by where they were on the field and points scored by Rams off of them, but other than that he was good.

don't get me wrong, if he doesn't win, then his day would have been bad regardless of how well he moved the ball down the field. the fact is he did win though, so that is the tie-breaker which means he did not have a bad game in its entirety.

to further my point, if the game had been won by running the ball because the O changed to a run game due to Staff sucking, then Staff would still have had a bad day. but they won it with him throwing, not because of the run game or the D getting their own TOs returned for points or special teams play. they won it on Staff's arm.

 

[Mitchrapp]

The guy had lots of yards, drove the ball down field most of the day and threw a game winning TD. Not sure what your definition of bad is beez, but that ain't it.

 

[beez]

The guy had lots of yards, drove the ball down field most of the day and threw a game winning TD. Not sure what your definition of bad is beez, but that ain't it.

riiiight...like I said, anyone but Stafford.

 

[tomdalton22]

Let's simplify this mathematically:

1st half = bad
2nd half = good

bad+good=0/neutral/average/whatever...so based on that it is a wash. the fact he overcame what was bad and won the game would tilt it more toward a good game than a bad though, would it not?

you cannot say he had a bad game in its entirety just because the 1st half was bad. you can say he had a bad 1st half and you won't hear any arguments from anyone. but the second half was good since the 3rd quarter was ok and 4th quarter was smoking hot. it's about taking into account everything about his day, not just being hyperfocused on the INTs and bad 1st half, which everyone agrees were pretty bad. still, outside of the INTs he was moving the team well and was a Petti-drop away from having the Lions up at the half, so you cannot say he was absolute dogshit. The INTs were terrible, and amplified by where they were on the field and points scored by Rams off of them, but other than that he was good.

don't get me wrong, if he doesn't win, then his day would have been bad regardless of how well he moved the ball down the field. the fact is he did win though, so that is the tie-breaker which means he did not have a bad game in its entirety.

to further my point, if the game had been won by running the ball because the O changed to a run game due to Staff sucking, then Staff would still have had a bad day. but they won it with him throwing, not because of the run game or the D getting their own TOs returned for points or special teams play. they won it on Staff's arm.

You can spin it any way you want. If he has games like that every game this season the Lions will be under .500. He had a bad game but the Lions won because they were playing a really bad team.

 

[robj826]

If the Lions go 16-0, with Stafford having 16 td's and 48 ints. Would you Say he had a good year?

 

[tomdalton22]

If the Lions go 16-0, with Stafford having 16 td's and 48 ints. Would you Say he had a good year?

Of course not....that would be a terrible year for Stafford....good record though!

 

[zyxt9]

You can spin it any way you want. If he has games like that every game this season the Lions will be under .500. He had a bad game but the Lions won because they were playing a really bad team.

No, the Lions would be 19-0 because the Lions won the game with his arm. And if he won EVERY game with his arm...then HELL YES he had a GREAT year and a Super Bowl ring and since he won the Super Bowl with 350+ yards and the game winning TD, chances are he gets MVP despite the 3 INTs.

 

[zyxt9]

Not to mention he would break the NFL record for yards. So what if he also set the record for INTs...that isn't going to prevent Favre from going to the Hall of Fame now, is it?

 

[zyxt9]

Some of you aren't understanding that what separates a Great QB from a terrible one is not the number of INTs, it is whether they WIN or not. QBs who manage the game ala Trent Dilfer, Ben Rothlesburger, and others have won Super Bowls because of the teams run game and D. The Lions have to win with Stafford and their D.

We all know Staff is more like Brett Favre and if he wins a Super Bowl, no one will be crying about his INTs because he finally won a Super Bowl for the Lions.

The ONLY thing that matters is WINNING!

 

[tomdalton22]

No, the Lions would be 19-0 because the Lions won the game with his arm. And if he won EVERY game with his arm...then HELL YES he had a GREAT year and a Super Bowl ring and since he won the Super Bowl with 350+ yards and the game winning TD, chances are he gets MVP despite the 3 INTs.

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

 

[zyxt9]

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

but because they are good teams there is a higher chance he throws INTs even tho technically he is playing better. so he could have 3INTs vs SF despite playing better than he did vs Rams. the key factor still remains whether or not the Lions win because of his arm.

 

[beez]

wow....

 

[zyxt9]

quick, without looking it up, how many INTs did Big Ben throw in each of the seasons he won the Super Bowl? How many INTs did Favre throw when he won? How many did Manning, Brady, Montana, Aikman?????

I have no clue about their INTs...but I know they got Super Bowl rings despite them in those years.

The ONLY thing that matters is winning.

 

[schles192]

Tell that to tebow.

 

[beez]

So if Stafford goes 21-21 for 325 yards and 3 tds but they lose by 21 is it a bad game for him?

What about if he goes 20-21 with 3 tds but his incompletion was a goal line pick to end the game and they lose...is that a bad game?

Its very possible to have good games with a loss and bad games with a win..you guys are ridiculous.

 

[zyxt9]

based on what you stated here, Stafford would have had a good game, but apparently the defense did not.

the defense was key to beating the rams and they had a good game. it is possible for multiple aspects of the team to have good games while a different one has a terrible game and deserves the blame for the loss.

but...see...here's the thing...the lions WON. and they won because the D played very well and Stafford had a good day overcoming a bad start but WINNING the game in the end.

it isn't being ridiculous when you are applying proper analysis to a situation. bad 1st half, yes...but that does not equate to a bad game in its entirety. why is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[zyxt9]

Tell that to tebow.

he wouldn't be on an NFL roster today if he didn't win and he knows it. if he loses all those games, he is no longer on an NFL roster. so he definitely comprehends the concept.

 

[zyxt9]

look at coughlin. giants fans and many in the FO wanted him gone. later that year, he wins the SB, they give him an extension. a few years later, fans and the FO want him gone again, he wins the SB, he is hailed once more.

WINNING is the only thing that matters...but it only matters until your next game. that is the reality of sports today.

 

[beez]

based on what you stated here, Stafford would have had a good game, but apparently the defense did not.

the defense was key to beating the rams and they had a good game. it is possible for multiple aspects of the team to have good games while a different one has a terrible game and deserves the blame for the loss.

but...see...here's the thing...the lions WON. and they won because the D played very well and Stafford had a good day overcoming a bad start but WINNING the game in the end.

it isn't being ridiculous when you are applying proper analysis to a situation. bad 1st half, yes...but that does not equate to a bad game in its entirety. why is that so hard to comprehend?

Whatever you guys say... I have said plenty of times that Dallas as an entire team had a bad game in a win..