The FIX is in!!!

[firehim]

Montana had 2 SB rings before Rice was in the league.

Jim Kelly never won a superbowl. I guess that it was his fault that he had a shitty kicker. A bad kicker made Jim Kelly a bad QB, and Phil Sims a great QB by these ridiculous standards.

 

[Mitchrapp]

You have to watch a QB. Everyone listed in here has been better than Matt. The guy stinks.

 

[inkfreq]

I am not in any way sure how my comments turned into "Matt is a great QB, he has a crap team" but I not only never said any such thing, I never inferred it or hinted at it.

My statement was that it's crap to say a great QB just automatically makes his team better players. You take the greatest QB on earth, and give him me for a WR and Mitch for a RB, and he's going to be a losing QB every time.

There were a TON of issues in Detroit this season, ranging from an offensive line that couldn't stay healthy and couldn't give him protection, to a new coordinator and coach.

I am arguing the contention that this was his "put up or shut up season". It may very well have looked like that headed into the season, but by week three, there were too many negative variables to be able to truly judge the guy long term.

The anti-Stafford crowd on these forums wants to turn any comment they can into an argument of his talent. I say we can't yet evaluate his talent. You can say all you want that people are making excuses for him, but the guy has shown the talent is there, and until he has the right circumstances to judge him under, there is no way to know whether he will eventually live up to that talent.

 

[tomdalton22]

Jim Kelly never won a superbowl. I guess that it was his fault that he had a shitty kicker. A bad kicker made Jim Kelly a bad QB, and Phil Sims a great QB by these ridiculous standards.

Did I ever say that Jim Kelly wasn't a good QB? I was just responding to somebody who asked if Jerry Rice made Montana great or was it Montana that made Rice great.

 

[inkfreq]

Did I ever say that Jim Kelly wasn't a good QB? I was just responding to somebody who asked if Jerry Rice made Montana great or was it Montana that made Rice great.

I would say anyone who watched that Niners team knows that Montana and Rice made each other better. But that very question is the chicken and the egg of the NFL.

Yep, Montana won rings without Rice, but even Eli Manning won two rings. Montana became arguably the best QB in football with Rice. Would he have been in that conversation without him? Like the lollipop commercial says.. the world may never know.

Consider this, just for argument though....

Jerry Rice played from 1985 to 2004. Joe Montana played from 1979 to 1994. Their careers overlapped for only 10 seasons, and only 8 of those for the same team.

In four of those seasons either Rice or Montana played fewer than nine games, leaving only four seasons in which they played 9 or more games together, which means most of Jerry's eye-popping stats actually came with Steve Young under center.

Kind of puts that age old debate into perspective. Two great players on the field together for what really amounts to short period of time.. and they are both argued as the greatest ot every play their position. In the case of Rice, he's often argued as the greatest ever to play at any position.

None of that was really relevant to the argument, but it's always amazed me how little they actually worked together, yet they will forever be linked in history together.

 

[cheeno]

I am not in any way sure how my comments turned into "Matt is a great QB, he has a crap team" but I not only never said any such thing, I never inferred it or hinted at it.

My statement was that it's crap to say a great QB just automatically makes his team better players. You take the greatest QB on earth, and give him me for a WR and Mitch for a RB, and he's going to be a losing QB every time.

There were a TON of issues in Detroit this season, ranging from an offensive line that couldn't stay healthy and couldn't give him protection, to a new coordinator and coach.

I am arguing the contention that this was his "put up or shut up season". It may very well have looked like that headed into the season, but by week three, there were too many negative variables to be able to truly judge the guy long term.

The anti-Stafford crowd on these forums wants to turn any comment they can into an argument of his talent. I say we can't yet evaluate his talent. You can say all you want that people are making excuses for him, but the guy has shown the talent is there, and until he has the right circumstances to judge him under, there is no way to know whether he will eventually live up to that talent.

Scary thing is Baltimore had to deal with the same issues last year. Oline that couldn't protect and no running game to speak of even with Ray Rice. This year after Caldwell leaves and Kubiak takes over, same oline injury issues but they keep Flacco upright and run for more than 5 yards per carry.

 

[inkfreq]

Scary thing is Baltimore had to deal with the same issues last year. Oline that couldn't protect and no running game to speak of even with Ray Rice. This year after Caldwell leaves and Kubiak takes over, same oline injury issues but they keep Flacco upright and run for more than 5 yards per carry.

Which is one of the reasons I say you can't judge Stafford yet. It's not hard to see that Caldwell has helped Stafford keep the INTs down, but may very well be responsible for a lot of other issues.

When I look at this year's Lions team, I see a defense that came together, but an offense that fell apart. That offense should have been high octane and lethal, and the playcalling sucked, the injuries piled up, and it was lackluster on a good day.

I'm interested in seeing what they can do with another season, and I'm hopeful it will gel, but I am not expecting it. And I think Caldwell or Lombardi, and maybe both, had more to do with Staffords numbers this season than Stafford did.

Only time will tell though.

 

[tigermud]

Let's get back on topic here..Rigged! Lol

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ts-there-was-something-on-the-line-in-dallas/

 

[inkfreq]

Long story made shorter, a good QB executes his teams game plan flawlessly, and a good O-Coordinator game plans for what the offense can do, and what they do best.

Any Lions fan that watched this season was pissed on any number of occasions at Lombardi's play calling and offensive schemes. At this point I am less inclined to believe that Stafford didn't execute well, than I am to believe he executed a shitty game plan to perfection.

Being really good at running crap plays called by a crap coordinator, still looks like a crap QB on tape. There's just no way to tell after one season together.

 

[mhughes0021]

I am not in any way sure how my comments turned into "Matt is a great QB, he has a crap team" but I not only never said any such thing, I never inferred it or hinted at it.

My statement was that it's crap to say a great QB just automatically makes his team better players. You take the greatest QB on earth, and give him me for a WR and Mitch for a RB, and he's going to be a losing QB every time.

There were a TON of issues in Detroit this season, ranging from an offensive line that couldn't stay healthy and couldn't give him protection, to a new coordinator and coach.

I am arguing the contention that this was his "put up or shut up season". It may very well have looked like that headed into the season, but by week three, there were too many negative variables to be able to truly judge the guy long term.

The anti-Stafford crowd on these forums wants to turn any comment they can into an argument of his talent. I say we can't yet evaluate his talent. You can say all you want that people are making excuses for him, but the guy has shown the talent is there, and until he has the right circumstances to judge him under, there is no way to know whether he will eventually live up to that talent.

And the stafford homers have made a different excuse for him every single year and hes still a top 20 qb. Injuries, no weapons, bad defense, poor oline, bad coaching, no run game. So its correct to rationalize from those statements that stafford needs a perfect team around him and he can win. Well...no shit lol. So could ryan fitzpatrick.

We didnt get what we paid for....its clear now more than ever.

 

[dubbsco]

If we can't judge Stafford after 6 years in the NFL, we'll never be able to judge him.

I just don't understand the free pass mentality that this guy gets year, after year, after year. And to say that we can't blame him for the pieces around him is ridiculous. This team has pumped draft picks galore for this offense. He has one of the best WRs in football, and one of the best 2nd WRs, two first round TEs. The line took a step back this year I understand, but it wasn't dire.

 

[inkfreq]

If we can't judge Stafford after 6 years in the NFL, we'll never be able to judge him.

I just don't understand the free pass mentality that this guy gets year, after year, after year. And to say that we can't blame him for the pieces around him is ridiculous. This team has pumped draft picks galore for this offense. He has one of the best WRs in football, and one of the best 2nd WRs, two first round TEs. The line took a step back this year I understand, but it wasn't dire.

The most important factor in an offensive line is continuity. They never had the same five guys there from week to week.

Yes, it's dire. Stafford didn't have any time to work this season. He took an extreme number of hits and sacks. Yeah, it was dire.

 

[biggunsbob]

Let's get back on topic here..Rigged! Lol

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ts-there-was-something-on-the-line-in-dallas/

I AGREE!!!!!! Screw this other stuff... Lions should have been on Seattle yesterday...
Ridiculous how the N-Fixed-L has deflected and covered its a$$ this week....

 

[biggunsbob]

The most important factor in an offensive line is continuity. They never had the same five guys there from week to week.

Yes, it's dire. Stafford didn't have any time to work this season. He took an extreme number of hits and sacks. Yeah, it was dire.

I thought the offensive line played great LAST YEAR?
Now this year it did not...
But last year Matt had a really bad second half of the season.
Look I like Matt.. I am not in this we need to try another QB
but his numbers verses good teams is really bad especially
on the road.. He has to deliver now or he will just be another
failed Lions QB... We have a 2-3 year window left with cj....
playoffs Super Bowl or bust next year..

 

[Mitchrapp]

And finally, there's one reason why Matt's INT were down..he became a dump-off QB. Hardly anything deep. That's not good..I think you need to be a gun slinger or a game manager, Matt was right in the middle.

First year or not, but they get a coach a OC and a QB coach who were suppose to be the magical 3-headed QB guru and it didn't happen.

 

[Mitchrapp]

The most important factor in an offensive line is continuity. They never had the same five guys there from week to week.

Yes, it's dire. Stafford didn't have any time to work this season. He took an extreme number of hits and sacks. Yeah, it was dire.

I look at other sack totals: Tannehill had 1 more and Russell Wilson was almost at Matt's level. And they both had much better season's. And I suspect they don't have a better top 2 then Detroit at WR.

Too many sacks, 1st year with coaches, not any oline continuity etc. It's just more excuses. Other teams deal with these things and do fine..

 

[dubbsco]

I wonder when we can actually judge Stafford. 5 years?

This was his make or break year. This was going to show us if he can play with the big boys. And he showed us he's an average QB who's good at occasionally managing a game.

 

[dtroitlionsfan951]

And finally, there's one reason why Matt's INT were down..he became a dump-off QB. Hardly anything deep. That's not good..I think you need to be a gun slinger or a game manager, Matt was right in the middle.

First year or not, but they get a coach a OC and a QB coach who were suppose to be the magical 3-headed QB guru and it didn't happen.

Yeah that was obvious. Where was the track records for success with any of the three?

 

[dtroitlionsfan951]

I look at other sack totals: Tannehill had 1 more and Russell Wilson was almost at Matt's level. And they both had much better season's. And I suspect they don't have a better top 2 then Detroit at WR.

Too many sacks, 1st year with coaches, not any oline continuity etc. It's just more excuses. Other teams deal with these things and do fine..

Russell plays a different game than matt however. He holds onto the ball and makes a lot of plays with his feet. So he gets a few extra sacks here and there as a result. Sorta like Big Ben in that retrospect.

 

[dubbsco]

Ink, if we use that criteria that he needs to have a great offensive line, super play calling, and all the weapons are clicking, he'll never be able to be judged. I'm pretty sure that not every great quarterback has perfect pieces around them.

The Lions have to cover up his deficiencies by continuing to draft for him. From year 1 to now, you cannot say he has progressively gotten better. His decision making still sucks, he can't move, and his inaccuracy is mind boggling sometimes. No doubt he makes throws that only a few others can. But those moments are few and far between.