Jump to content

"Lions" at Broncos


buddha

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Saints used to be a joke of a franchise. Saints fans invented the bag over their head. They then hit the right combo of Sean Payton and Drew Brees and turned into a successful franchise. Even Arizona who arguably had a worse history than the Lions fell into a Super Bowl run and are now one of the top teams in the NFC. 

Not everything the Lions have ever done has been bad and not every thing the Lions will do in the future will be bad. It's just tired and lazy arguments. If people really think that, it begs the question why they bother to follow the team anymore. 

You mean Cleveland. Arizona has been in a Super Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sports_Freak said:

omg....their front office says this same exact thing every single time they fire/hire a new GM or coach. I've been hearing that since I've been following them in the late '60's. No more Kool-aid for this guy. I'll watch but I expect them to lose every single game. Go ahead Lions, prove me wrong. I would love nothing better than to be wrong.

My apathy kicked in about 3-4 years ago maybe...I just gave up.  I watch now because it is the only time I see my brother who comes over every Sunday to crack a few beers and watch the game, but I only half watch these days and do not care at all if they win or lose.  I still like watching REAL football and will sometimes catch the Sunday night or Monday night game, but 30 years of this?  Watching every game in 2008...and only missing about 5 games since 1991?  Naaaaaaa...I am done with them.  It is WAAAAY more interesting to discuss the Lions after losing the emotion part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Saints used to be a joke of a franchise. Saints fans invented the bag over their head. They then hit the right combo of Sean Payton and Drew Brees and turned into a successful franchise. Even Arizona who arguably had a worse history than the Lions fell into a Super Bowl run and are now one of the top teams in the NFC. 

Not everything the Lions have ever done has been bad and not every thing the Lions will do in the future will be bad. It's just tired and lazy arguments. If people really think that, it begs the question why they bother to follow the team anymore. 

Loyalty? Or going to the pre-internet days, it was all we had. I've never been a fair weather fan but even you must agree the Lions are really stretching the limits. I'm almost at the point where I feel a rooting interest in the Rams....sad indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sports_Freak said:

Loyalty? Or going to the pre-internet days, it was all we had. I've never been a fair weather fan but even you must agree the Lions are really stretching the limits. I'm almost at the point where I feel a rooting interest in the Rams....sad indeed.

I was 100% rooting for the Rams last night.  Mainly because I want all the ridiculous Stafford haters to shut up.  I would love nothing more than for LA to win it all while Stafford has a top 10 SB performance for a QB in SB history.  Again...mostly just to shut the fans up with their lazy takes about it was "all Stafford" or "Pat Statfford" for our team blowing every year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

I was 100% rooting for the Rams last night.  Mainly because I want all the ridiculous Stafford haters to shut up.  I would love nothing more than for LA to win it all while Stafford has a top 10 SB performance for a QB in SB history.  Again...mostly just to shut the fans up with their lazy takes about it was "all Stafford" or "Pat Statfford" for our team blowing every year.

I agree 100%. I started rooting for the Rams when Stafford went there. And I just shake my head at the idiots who think their draft position will hurt the Lions if they win. Like the Luons will ever draft so well that it will matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sports_Freak said:

I agree 100%. I started rooting for the Rams when Stafford went there. And I just shake my head at the idiots who think their draft position will hurt the Lions if they win. Like the Luons will ever draft so well that it will matter.

That has been my argument to those complaining about the Rams doing well.  It doe snot matter where they draft...historically they are god awful drafting...maybe that changes going forward and if it does good for the fans, but there is ZERO % chance I bet on that.

Every dog has it's day...too bad they were not called the Detroit Dogs....or we may have accidently run into a playoff win the past 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

If the Lions don't take Hutch and he slips to #2 or #3, do you think he has to play for free? Money will be there, success may not. Unless you think playing for a loser team is a success?

Success or failure in a career is very much a personal thing.  Did Dan Marino have a failed career because he never won a SB?  Is Ty Cobb a failure because he never won a WS?

Now obviously no professional athlete wants to spend a good portion of his/her career on a team that loses far more often than it wins.  But defining an individual players success or failure based on team results is silly.  Do you consider Barry Sanders a failure because the Lions couldn't put a better team around him?

Again, I get it that professionals are competitive and want to win.  But these are team games we're talking about and to say someone is a failure because the team didn't win more is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

I was 100% rooting for the Rams last night.  Mainly because I want all the ridiculous Stafford haters to shut up.  I would love nothing more than for LA to win it all while Stafford has a top 10 SB performance for a QB in SB history.  Again...mostly just to shut the fans up with their lazy takes about it was "all Stafford" or "Pat Statfford" for our team blowing every year.

The Detroit Lions went 0-16 the year before they drafted Matthew Stafford.

The Lions went 5-22 in games Stafford missed in his Lions career.

The Lions are 1-11-1 since Stafford left for Los Angeles.

That is a record of 6-49-1.

But yeah Matthew Stafford was the loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Matthew Stafford a Hall of Famer?

My answer is yes but the question probably should be are Matthew Stafford, Phillip Rivers, and Matt Ryan Hall of Famers.   They all have the same resume and if you take one then you have to take them all.    They will all get in.   Big Ben is very similar to these 3 but this is where his 2 Super Bowls separate him and have him already in as a lock. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Success or failure in a career is very much a personal thing.  Did Dan Marino have a failed career because he never won a SB?  Is Ty Cobb a failure because he never won a WS?

Now obviously no professional athlete wants to spend a good portion of his/her career on a team that loses far more often than it wins.  But defining an individual players success or failure based on team results is silly.  Do you consider Barry Sanders a failure because the Lions couldn't put a better team around him?

Again, I get it that professionals are competitive and want to win.  But these are team games we're talking about and to say someone is a failure because the team didn't win more is wrong.

another way to look at it is that in terms of football legacy, Tom Brady will be longer remembered for his SB wins that Matt Stafford will be for having signed a contract making him the highest paid QB. If Stafford's objective in playing pro ball was to be the highest paid, that should be fine with him. Clearly that has not been Brady's focus, and that's been fine with him too.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Success or failure in a career is very much a personal thing.  Did Dan Marino have a failed career because he never won a SB?  Is Ty Cobb a failure because he never won a WS?

Now obviously no professional athlete wants to spend a good portion of his/her career on a team that loses far more often than it wins.  But defining an individual players success or failure based on team results is silly.  Do you consider Barry Sanders a failure because the Lions couldn't put a better team around him?

Again, I get it that professionals are competitive and want to win.  But these are team games we're talking about and to say someone is a failure because the team didn't win more is wrong.

If you start telling me all about all the hall of famers a team has had, I would ask you how much they won. If you start naming players and I say this one quit, this one demanded a trade and this other one also demanded a trade, I would definitely say that team has serious problems. Yes, those players are/were great but management was so horrible, it brought the whole team down. So while I would say these players had really good stats, I would also say the team stinks for not being able to build around them. Last night, I watched Matthew Stafford throw some very long and accurate passes. Also some shorter passes with just the right touch. I had forgotten how good he really is. 12 years of him and the Lions couldn't win? That's on the organization, not the player. And for many of these players, money is there no matter what team they're on. Yeah, take the Lions money until there's a chance to move on while there's something left in the tank. I just don't feel that we're headed in the right direction, again. Not impressed with Campbell's mistakes, over and over. But just hang on. We have a whole new management team in place. How many times do we have to hear that before we stop believing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Is Matthew Stafford a Hall of Famer?

My answer is yes but the question probably should be are Matthew Stafford, Phillip Rivers, and Matt Ryan Hall of Famers.   They all have the same resume and if you take one then you have to take them all.    They will all get in.   Big Ben is very similar to these 3 but this is where his 2 Super Bowls separate him and have him already in as a lock. 

If Stafford wins a Super Bowl he is a no doubt about it hall of famer. Football is weird in that it judges QBs more on team success vs baseball which is a pure numbers game. Eli Manning was a worse QB than all 3 of them but will probably have an easier path to the hall of fame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

another way to look at it is that in terms of football legacy, Tom Brady will be longer remembered for his SB wins that Matt Stafford will be for having signed a contract making him the highest paid QB. If Stafford's objective in playing pro ball was to be the highest paid, that should be fine with him. Clearly that has not been Brady's focus, and that's been fine with him too.

So are the 14 players who signed larger contracts after Stafford going to be remembered for their contract? Tom Brady is on pace to earn over $300 million. He hasn't exactly volunteered his services either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

So are the 14 players who signed larger contracts after Stafford going to be remembered for their contract? Tom Brady is on pace to earn over $300 million. He hasn't exactly volunteered his services either. 

Brady has played to age 44 to get there. But in the same way, all the guys that won rings since Brady will be remembered more for those than all the guys that signed bigger contracts than Stafford will be remembered for that. It appears fandom does regard successful careers as those that win more than those that generate the biggest contracts even if players often opt for the latter. The counter would be that Arod was pretty famous for the having the biggest contract in baseball for a few years, but as he was also maybe the best player in baseball for a number of years his fame was justified either way.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Brady has played to age 44 to get there. But in the same way, all the guys that won rings since Brady will be remembered more for those than all the guys that signed bigger contracts than Stafford will be remembered for that. It appears fandom does regard successful careers as those that win more than those that generate the biggest contracts. The counter would be that Arod was pretty famous for the having the biggest contract in baseball for a few years, but as he was also maybe the best player in baseball for a number of years his fame was justified either way.

Brady currently makes more than Stafford and when Brady signed his extension back in 2010, it made him the highest paid player in the NFL at the time. It wasn't till late in his career when he started taking less and even then he was still among the highest paid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hongbit said:

Is Matthew Stafford a Hall of Famer?

My answer is yes but the question probably should be are Matthew Stafford, Phillip Rivers, and Matt Ryan Hall of Famers.   They all have the same resume and if you take one then you have to take them all.    They will all get in.   Big Ben is very similar to these 3 but this is where his 2 Super Bowls separate him and have him already in as a lock. 

stafford will not be a hall of famer without playoff success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way some people defend the lions no matter what is hilarious.  theyre the worst franchise in american sports history.  yeah, theyve had some great players whose careers have been squandered in a history of failure. just embrace it and stop arguing just to be a contrarian.

william clay ford ruined this franchise.  now that he is gone, they have a shot at becoming a good team.  be happy.  but dont be stupid and think they're actually not a tire fire of a franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, buddha said:

the way some people defend the lions no matter what is hilarious.  theyre the worst franchise in american sports history.  yeah, theyve had some great players whose careers have been squandered in a history of failure. just embrace it and stop arguing just to be a contrarian.

william clay ford ruined this franchise.  now that he is gone, they have a shot at becoming a good team.  be happy.  but dont be stupid and think they're actually not a tire fire of a franchise.

In what way was Stafford, Johnson and Suh's career ruined? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, buddha said:

the way some people defend the lions no matter what is hilarious.

If you're referring to people who have said that SJS (Stafford, Johnson, and Sanders) didn't have ruined careers by being on the Lions, then I don't think those people are defending the Lions.

Personally, I'm saying that the measurement of a successful career depends on what tool you're using to measure and for the players it very much depends on their personal desires.  If you define a player as successful when their team wins... then sure... the Lions have "ruined" the careers of SJS (and whomever else you wanna throw in the mix). But I think it's entirely possible to recognize a player as being successful individually even if the team didn't win a lot and I look no further than the HOF as proof of this.

(The other obvious measuring stick is money, which SJ got plenty of and Sanders isn't in the poor house either.)

A rebuttal from someone above (forgot and way to lazy to look it up) is that if asked the biggest regret that various great past players have it is often not winning the big game. I don't doubt that that's true at all.  But that doesn't preclude a player (or fans) from considering a career to be successful.  Marino, for example, could easily say: "Yeah, I had a great run in the NFL... I regret not winning a SB, but still, I had a LOT of success, made a lot of friend, earned a lot of money, etc. etc."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

If you're referring to people who have said that SJS (Stafford, Johnson, and Sanders) didn't have ruined careers by being on the Lions, then I don't think those people are defending the Lions.

Personally, I'm saying that the measurement of a successful career depends on what tool you're using to measure and for the players it very much depends on their personal desires.  If you define a player as successful when their team wins... then sure... the Lions have "ruined" the careers of SJS (and whomever else you wanna throw in the mix). But I think it's entirely possible to recognize a player as being successful individually even if the team didn't win a lot and I look no further than the HOF as proof of this.

(The other obvious measuring stick is money, which SJ got plenty of and Sanders isn't in the poor house either.)

A rebuttal from someone above (forgot and way to lazy to look it up) is that if asked the biggest regret that various great past players have it is often not winning the big game. I don't doubt that that's true at all.  But that doesn't preclude a player (or fans) from considering a career to be successful.  Marino, for example, could easily say: "Yeah, I had a great run in the NFL... I regret not winning a SB, but still, I had a LOT of success, made a lot of friend, earned a lot of money, etc. etc."

the lions left hall of famers' careers incomplete because they have always failed to hire a management team that could bring them sustained organizational success.  period.

the term "ruined" is open to interpretation.  the sentiment of making fun of the lions' organizational ineptitude by stating that you dont want players you like to come here because the organization will always be a failure should be a joke we can all share in.

its the nature of internet message board posters to argue incessantly over what the term "ruined" means. that silliness aside, realizing the lions have left talented players' careers unfulfilled in terms of organizational success is not disputable.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

In what way was Stafford, Johnson and Suh's career ruined? 

 

1 minute ago, buddha said:

 

its the nature of internet message board posters to argue incessantly over what the term "ruined" means. that silliness aside, realizing the lions have left talented players' careers unfulfilled in terms of organizational success is not disputable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

So you'll do a drive by saying some will defend the Lions no matter what, which is what nobody here is doing, and not actually answer the question at hand.

so you'll keep incessantly arguing for page after page after page after page after page about the meaning of the word "ruined" until somebody says "you're right mb, they werent ruined, but they were left incomplete and unfulfilled because of organizational ineptitude."  which is more or less what i said above.  but since i didnt say "they werent ruined", you felt the need to comment and continue this stupid thing going for another few posts.

and then you'll go and find something in that sentence that you dont agree with and spend the next ten pages arguing about that.  so please, continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, buddha said:

so you'll keep incessantly arguing for page after page after page after page after page about the meaning of the word "ruined" until somebody says "you're right mb, they werent ruined, but they were left incomplete and unfulfilled because of organizational ineptitude."  which is more or less what i said above.  but since i didnt say "they werent ruined", you felt the need to comment and continue this stupid thing going for another few posts.

and then you'll go and find something in that sentence that you dont agree with and spend the next ten pages arguing about that.  so please, continue.

And yet I hadn't posted about it in over 15 hours until you came along and revived it. Then, you made an accusation that people were defending the Lions no matter what which is simply not true. 

Edited by Motown Bombers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...