[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Washington is not a bad defense, neither is Chicago.

Washington is a really good run defense and a below average pass defense. Chicago was a decent run defense and an average pass defense (until yesterday, and their numbers will obviously show a drop).

Neither is a really great defense. Against each, Stafford had a good game. Not great, not amazing, he didn't singlehandedly win either game. He played well.

I can admit Stafford had a dreadful game on Sunday, but your unwillingness to give Stafford credit for his success is telling. For some inexplicable reason you seem to allow people that have a high opinion for Stafford (like cruzer and I) to foster some inane ill will against the kid. It's quite baffling, actually.

Well, I don't have a problem giving Stafford credit for his success. However, I choose to see his success in the proper context: ie.: he had GOOD games, not great games, and he certainly didn't single handedly win anything.

I think I've been pretty fair to Stafford. I think you've been a sycophant. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you want to be, but to say you don't have rose colored glasses when it comes to Stafford is to deny reality.

Why can't it mean both? Sammie Lee Hill was good enough for the Lions to surrender a talent like Shaun Smith. Sammie Lee Hill is apparently better than all options in the free agency and low end trade bait. Sammie Lee Hill's appearance in the starting lineup is not simply a commentary about how he places on our team, but how he ranks against available talent in the league as a whole.

A talent like Shaun Smith? Really? You mean the guy who is so talented he's currently not on any NFL roster? That guy? Yeah, I imagine that Hill was so good he could beat out a guy who's not on anyone's roster at the moment. He must be the next Mean Joe Greene.

Does starting for a team that went 0-16 mean that Sammie Lee Hill is going to be an all star?

Not to ME it doesn't...

Am I stating that Sammie Lee Hill is going to have Pro Bowls in his career? Absolutely not. What his starting does demonstrate, however, is that he is at least a player. He is at least, as a rookie, better than every veteran on the Lions - no matter how low that mark was. Gaining a contributor in the fourth round is ALWAYS a good thing.

Look, I like Hill! I like him a lot. But he hasn't shown much of anything yet. He's a project, because he's starting on this team with the worst defensive line in the league means very very very little.

Levy's credit is not simply demonstrated in his ability to crack the starting line up, but by his production on the field. Why can you not admit the fact that a player that has played well, as Levy quite obviously has, did play well? Do you need for every player the Lions draft to be a bust? Would that satisfy you? Validate you?

He's been ok! OK! He's not Lawrence ****ing Taylor for God's sake!

I never said he's a bust, I said it's not a big deal that he's starting over sub-par NFL players! He's shown flashes, that's an accurate assessment, IMO.

We shall see.

How much time has he seen so far?

Sure.

There you go! It's good to see you coming to your senses.

He's inconsistent at this point. He has flashes of brilliances, flashes of blunder. When Stafford is on - as he was against the Redskins, as he was against Chicago, as he was in the first quarter of Sunday's game he looks like a good NFL QB.

ANNNNNNNNNNNNND STOP!

I agree with that. He has looked at times this season like a good NFL quarterback.

To me, that separates him from the 2% of the league that isn't named Jamarcus Russell and Derrick Anderson.

The kid has talent, we've seen some of it. He's also got weaknesses, the same weaknesses he had at Georgia. If he can improve on those weaknesses, he might be Phillip Rivers or Jay Cutler. If he can't, he'll be Jeff George.

But the QB has not been a weakness for this team. We need better receivers, we need improved play at guard, we need improved play from the defense - but the QB has not been a chronic weakness this year. Was it a weakness yesterday for three quarters? Absolutely.

I don't see how you can say that a guy with a QB rating of 55 isn't a weakness on the team. FIFTY-FIVE! He's had two productive games (which were good games, not great games) and he's had four VERY subpar games. VERY SUBPAR.

And Stafford could have five 5 touchdown games and you would criticize him for not throwing 6, right?

Again, ********. I look at Stafford as a rookie with potential. You look at Stafford as more talented right now than Peyton Manning.

Who is being more realistic?