Stafford

[dubbsco]

And they rarely delivered on that pressure. I expect more from this line. To say that they were anything more than average is lying.

 

[LKP]

And they rarely delivered on that pressure. I expect more from this line. To say that they were anything more than average is lying.

I posted before how good they were with the QB under pressure on a different thread. 46%(better than league average of 49%) 5 TDs and 7 ints. Very good.

 

[dubbsco]

Even if I went along with you that the line is good, or even very good, that's not enough. They need to be elite. They have invested way too much in this line to accept them being "good."

 

[LKP]

Even if I went along with you that the line is good, or even very good, that's not enough. They need to be elite. They have invested way too much in this line to accept them being "good."

They are very good not just good. And it helped our coverage despite a hurt number 1 CB and rookie number 2 at times. Ansah was a rookie and hurt too (missed 2.5, hurt last 4). Big free agent Jones got hurt. Suh and Fairley did well wiht good pressure for DTs. The elite will show in 2014. No doubts.

 

[tomdalton22]

I'm talking 2013. Not history. Stop misinterpreting what I say. They were hot and playoff caliber at the time we played them. All three teams finished strong the last 10 games.

so they were good because they "finished strong" over their last 10 games.

NYG finished 7-3
Balt finished 5-5
TB finished 4-6
Pitt finished 6-4

Det finished 3-7

So if you determine that those 4 teams were playoff caliber because they finished strong over their last 10 then in turn the Lions were not playoff caliber because they finished like shit.

 

[mhughes0021]

NYG just lost 3 of 4 prior to playing the Lions
Balt barely beat MN, beat the steelers by 2, beat the jets but prior to those "hot games" they lost 4 of 5 and lost the two games after the Lions
Steelers...not really hot. Prior to the Lions game they lost two then beat the Bills. They were 3-6 when they played the Lions. After the Lions game...won one and lost 2.
Finally, that HOT TB team. They were 2-8 when they played the Lions. They did come off of two huge wins vs. the dumpster fires (Miami and Atl). Of course after the Lions they continued that "hot streak" and proceeded to lose 4 of 5 games.

Maybe they looked "hot" because the Lions made them look that way. None of those teams were any good last year and NONE of them were "HOT" when they played the Lions.

Pwned.

 

[cheeno]

 

[LKP]

Hottest points for each of those teams. Strong finishes after bad starts. Good teams

 

[LKP]

Pwned.

He proved they were hot

 

[LKP]

Steelers finished 8-4
Ravens won 3 in a row prior to lions
Tampa two in a row
Giants 7-3 finish

All hot. Fuck you are all so stupid not to see that

 

[UMRules06]

Steelers finished 8-4
Ravens won 3 in a row prior to lions
Tampa two in a row
Giants 7-3 finish

All hot. Fuck you are all so stupid not to see that

If we ever play a team that's won two in a row we may as well forfeit. I hate playing those red hot 2-8 teams.

 

[tomdalton22]

Steelers finished 8-4
Ravens won 3 in a row prior to lions
Tampa two in a row
Giants 7-3 finish

All hot. Fuck you are all so stupid not to see that

They had some wins around the Lions game...and all beat the Lions. You say they were hot but look at it in "context" (your favorite term). None of them were good teams, they beat mostly shitty teams.

Here is the list of the teams that those "hot" teams beat around the 4 Lions games.

Bills
Browns
Jets
Vikings
Steelers
Dolphins
Atlanta
Redskins

Notice a trend....not a single good team in the bunch

 

[brewer229]

Very fuzzy...I mean wrong logic.
So in some cases we look at a few games before they play the lions and ignore games after they play the lions.
In other cases the reverse is used to claim how good a team is. You ignore the games preceding the lions and only focus on games after.
We look at a team and judge by two games hot good they are and others we look at 10.

There is not a single string of logic to this argument.

These troll attempts are getting more and more pathetic.

 

[tomdalton22]

Very fuzzy...I mean wrong logic.
So in some cases we look at a few games before they play the lions and ignore games after they play the lions.
In other cases the reverse is used to claim how good a team is. You ignore the games preceding the lions and only focus on games after.
We look at a team and judge by two games hot good they are and others we look at 10.

There is not a single string of logic to this argument.

These troll attempts are getting more and more pathetic.

he is just a troll or a moron. Given his logic those were good teams because they "finished strong". Well, if that is the case, the Lions were a shitty team because they finished 1-6. The combined record of the teams they beat last year was 44-58-2

 

[dubbsco]

TWO in a row. HAHA.

What's that quote from Major League?

Lou Brown: We won a game yesterday, if we win one today that's two in a row. If we win one tomorrow that's called a winning streak. It has happened before. SO LET'S JACK IT UP A LITTLE!

Tampa won TWO in a row, and that's hot. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Mitchrapp]

If we ever play a team that's won two in a row we may as well forfeit. I hate playing those red hot 2-8 teams.

:hehe::hehe:

 

[mhughes0021]

Very fuzzy...I mean wrong logic.
So in some cases we look at a few games before they play the lions and ignore games after they play the lions.
In other cases the reverse is used to claim how good a team is. You ignore the games preceding the lions and only focus on games after.
We look at a team and judge by two games hot good they are and others we look at 10.

There is not a single string of logic to this argument.

These troll attempts are getting more and more pathetic.

dude, its better than when we had this same discussion during the season and his reasoning was the "prestige" of the franchises that allowed them all to beat us lmao.

 

[mhughes0021]

giants had concentrated injuries too....totally didn't stop them from beating us.

 

[sggatecl]

TWO in a row. HAHA.

What's that quote from Major League?

Lou Brown: We won a game yesterday, if we win one today that's two in a row. If we win one tomorrow that's called a winning streak. It has happened before. SO LET'S JACK IT UP A LITTLE!

Tampa won TWO in a row, and that's hot. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnVrSZHnvYY

 

[UMRules06]

dude, its better than when we had this same discussion during the season and his reasoning was the "prestige" of the franchises that allowed them all to beat us lmao.

Really? I wasn't around for that, but certainly contradicts his stance of "history means nothing" when it comes to evaluating the 2014 Lions. Apparently historical prestige and/or ineptitude do play a role in how current teams perform.