Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[Fraquar]

Past is the past. He put the team in the position to beat the Chiefs and Packers at Lambeau and the defense gave it up.

That would have been two more right there.

Which is totally different proposition than did the offense do enough to win either of those games. If they were playing the Miami's and Cincinnatti's of the world, they might have. Playing against Mahomes and Rodgers - fat chance.

Only way that go ahead score against either of those teams would have been enough would have been if they took the clock down to like 20 seconds or less. It has never been easier at any point in the NFL's history to move the ball in the waning minute of a game than it is now - just ask Stafford that himself. If he can beat bad teams regularly in that situation, certainly you'd expect those QB's to beat the Lions in that same scenario.

[wcfwtf]

I compare Stafford to Gary Danielson, but with a stronger arm.
Danielson was a good QB who you could get to the playoffs with and maybe win a game.
Danielson almost shocked the world be winning in San Fran until steady Eddie Murray became un steady Eddie and missed a game winner.
Poor Monte was apparently praying to the wrong God or he just was on lunch break.

[Fraquar]

I compare Stafford to Gary Danielson, but with a stronger arm.
Danielson was a good QB who you could get to the playoffs with and maybe win a game.
Danielson almost shocked the world be winning in San Fran until steady Eddie Murray became un steady Eddie and missed a game winner.
Poor Monte was apparently praying to the wrong God or he just was on lunch break.

I was at the game where Danielson threw 5 TD's - which back then was a pretty big deal. Was pissed they didn't try to get a 50 burger on them crooked horns.

[madatgravity47]

Oh, silly you - I wasn't being sarcastic, it's documented fact. Every season is the same since Mediocre Matty took over as QB. At the beginning of the season you can look at the schedule and make a pretty good estimate on which team will be good and which team will be bad team - the only thing in doubt, is the accuracy of your assessment of those teams being good or bad - some of them you'll be right, some you'll be wrong.

But one thing you will NOT be wrong about is; at the end of the season Detroit will have beaten the bad teams and lost to the good teams. On the rare occasion, 5 times in ten years - Mediocre Matty will notch a win against a good, and he does occasionally lose to bad teams.

It's like fucking clockwork - you're a fool if you expect anything else out of a Mediocre Matty led team.

Again, dwt calling someone a fool or talking down to them...if this isn't the kettle calling the pot black I don't know what is... As well as cycling the source of the discussion so he can put "mediocre Matty" 17 times in one post and tell himself he's being clever...yawnnnnnnn

[JGSpartan]

Only way that go ahead score against either of those teams would have been enough would have been if they took the clock down to like 20 seconds or less. It has never been easier at any point in the NFL's history to move the ball in the waning minute of a game than it is now - just ask Stafford that himself. If he can beat bad teams regularly in that situation, certainly you'd expect those QB's to beat the Lions in that same scenario.

Isn't that the point people are making. That the Lions are a bad team? The difference is some people stupidly blame Stafford for the mediocrity and some more intelligently recognize that being a one dimensional offense with typically bad defenses is never going to get you anywhere. Instances of A quarterback carrying teams without good defenses or running games to success are extremely rare. They've NEVER once had an above average running game in his tenure..A couple times the defense was average they've been a playoff team but still completely one dimensional on offense and no real threat when good defenses can just pass rush all day.

[Fraquar]

Isn't that the point people are making. That the Lions are a bad team? The difference is some people stupidly blame Stafford for the mediocrity and some more intelligently recognize that being a one dimensional offense with typically bad defenses is never going to get you anywhere. Instances of A quarterback carrying teams without good defenses or running games to success are extremely rare. They've NEVER once had an above average running game in his tenure..A couple times the defense was average they've been a playoff team but still completely one dimensional on offense and no real threat when good defenses can just pass rush all day.

The points that people are making:
a) That Stafford isn't to blame for any of this shit
b) That Stafford is the blame for all this shit
c) That stats don't tell the whole story - one has to look at everything

c) is important, because while one blames the defense (and the refs) for giving up the game winning FG to GB they seem to forget the primary reason GB was even in the game WASN'T a defensive (or referee) problem. Twice in the 2nd half the offense was handed a golden opportunity (starting in GB territory) to drive a stake in GB's heart and they failed miserably both times. 8 plays, 10 yards with less than 2 minutes total coming off the clock. It was the WORST possible scenario, as it kept the Lions defense on the field (they were on it for nearly 20 of those 30 minutes in the 2nd half) AND it kept GB in striking range on the scoreboard.

2 weeks earlier we saw a similar situation when GB played PHI. PHI got the ball twice in GB territory in the 1st half and made them pay both times with 2 TD's. Why is that important? Because without those TD's it's likely GB wins that game, because instead of having to get a TD to tie at worst they would have just needed a FG (just like the DET game) on that final drive. At best, they just milk the clock because they would have been leading......

[Panoptes]

SMFH

Nom, nom, nom, Statford.

[froot loops]

SMFH

Nom, nom, nom, Statford.

This guy complained about Harrington not being surrounded by a good team. He forgot that with stafFORD. He has been against him since day one when he laughably bitched about having FORD is his name.

[madatgravity47]

The points that people are making:
a) That Stafford isn't to blame for any of this shit
b) That Stafford is the blame for all this shit
c) That stats don't tell the whole story - one has to look at everything

c) is important, because while one blames the defense (and the refs) for giving up the game winning FG to GB they seem to forget the primary reason GB was even in the game WASN'T a defensive (or referee) problem. Twice in the 2nd half the offense was handed a golden opportunity (starting in GB territory) to drive a stake in GB's heart and they failed miserably both times. 8 plays, 10 yards with less than 2 minutes total coming off the clock. It was the WORST possible scenario, as it kept the Lions defense on the field (they were on it for nearly 20 of those 30 minutes in the 2nd half) AND it kept GB in striking range on the scoreboard.

2 weeks earlier we saw a similar situation when GB played PHI. PHI got the ball twice in GB territory in the 1st half and made them pay both times with 2 TD's. Why is that important? Because without those TD's it's likely GB wins that game, because instead of having to get a TD to tie at worst they would have just needed a FG (just like the DET game) on that final drive. At best, they just milk the clock because they would have been leading......

That's the problem though you just decide to blame the offense and refuse to hold the defense accountable...that's what doesn't make sense when people blame Stafford and the O...I can easily say well if the D would have held and 18 mil a year flowers did something of value then the game was ours...your picking and choosing who the blame and then arguing that point tooth and nail... The team as a whole is bad...Stafford has played well enough to win...

[dwt1]

Sooooo many opportunities for Mediocre Matty to make a statement that he ISN'T mediocre........but he can't get over the fact that he IS mediocre. Dude, I get your point point, he's not the reason they lost those game, but he certainly is not the reason they won them. After 11 years of watching Mediocre Matty role up stats, would like to at least have the chance to say Detroit beat.....inserat name of a great team......because Mediocre Matty made a great play to win that game? wouldn't you?

[Panoptes]

Take heed of this thread title. It's not entirely tongue in cheek.

[chemiclord]

This guy complained about Harrington not being surrounded by a good team. He forgot that with stafFORD. He has been against him since day one when he laughably bitched about having FORD is his name.

No shit. The franchise ruined JOE Harrington, but I guess they abruptly became competent and well-run just in time for Stafford to drag the whole franchise down.

[JGSpartan]

The points that people are making:
a) That Stafford isn't to blame for any of this shit
b) That Stafford is the blame for all this shit
c) That stats don't tell the whole story - one has to look at everything

c) is important, because while one blames the defense (and the refs) for giving up the game winning FG to GB they seem to forget the primary reason GB was even in the game WASN'T a defensive (or referee) problem. Twice in the 2nd half the offense was handed a golden opportunity (starting in GB territory) to drive a stake in GB's heart and they failed miserably both times. 8 plays, 10 yards with less than 2 minutes total coming off the clock. It was the WORST possible scenario, as it kept the Lions defense on the field (they were on it for nearly 20 of those 30 minutes in the 2nd half) AND it kept GB in striking range on the scoreboard.

2 weeks earlier we saw a similar situation when GB played PHI. PHI got the ball twice in GB territory in the 1st half and made them pay both times with 2 TD's. Why is that important? Because without those TD's it's likely GB wins that game, because instead of having to get a TD to tie at worst they would have just needed a FG (just like the DET game) on that final drive. At best, they just milk the clock because they would have been leading......

These are the types of things that plague offenses who CANNOT run the football when they need to. If they had any semblance of a run game they do milk time off and probably score. Instead they are usually left having to pass and never running clock off. They can't put away teams because they don't run and they don't play defense. Stafford is not infallible by any means but hes far from the problem or the reason they can't beat good teams.

[froot loops]

No shit. The franchise ruined JOE Harrington, but I guess they abruptly became competent and well-run just in time for Stafford to drag the whole franchise down.

He always had a point regarding Harrington. They never did surrounded him with good talent. Ultimately Harrington wasn't good enough and he was going to fail, but the Lions failed in talent procurement. It's too bad Gonzalez isn't listening to himself.

The Lions have failed to accumulate the necessary talent, they aren't even close to what you need to compete at the highest level. They haven't been close talent wise for nearly 25 seasons. Sure you can criticize times where Stafford has made errors or failed to capitalize but that is every QB.

[froot loops]

These are the types of things that plague offenses who CANNOT run the football when they need to. If they had any semblance of a run game they do milk time off and probably score. Instead they are usually left having to pass and never running clock off. They can't put away teams because they don't run and they don't play defense. Stafford is not infallible by any means but hes far from the problem or the reason they can't beat good teams.

They would be better off acknowledging that they shouldn't try to run when they get ahead. Most other teams do this to success, the Lions have had very little successful 4 minute drives.