Mr. Bigglesworth

MotownSports Fan
  • Content count

    38,831
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    69

Mr. Bigglesworth last won the day on September 20

Mr. Bigglesworth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,278 Excellent

About Mr. Bigglesworth

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 11/06/1973

Converted

  • Location
    Farmington Hills, MI

Converted

  • Interests
    Racquetball, running, watching sports

Converted

  • Occupation
    Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,440 profile views
  1. In contrast, the 91 Braves had an actually good season, so I didn't begrudge their decades of struggle. Or the 06 Tigers (though I can't be objective about them). I don't know, something about a blah season after a long history of blah -> World Series, doesn't seem right.
  2. The thing that cheezed me off with the Twins (not that it was fair or reasonable), was for five years the Tigers had to battle their nuts off to win a tough as **** division, and these guys had a meh season after a stretch of less than meh and win the World Series. In retrospect, they had some good young talent in 1987, but they were just weren't that good, had no history of being good, AND got to play in a cake division. They would have finished 4th in the east. Then they roll that into a World Series win. That is when I first bought into the notion the post-season is fluky. When I saw a study on the internet some 15 years later claiming the post-season is essentially random, I accepted the premise before I finished reading the abstract, because I had suspected as much for half of my life at that point.
  3. I've done this exercise and while the time frame is a little different, I recall 2000 - 2014 Browns were not much different than the Lions, with the 0-16 sinking the Lions. Take that season out and the Lions were marginally better than the Browns over the timeframe. I think the Browns now have a worse record in the 2000s than the Lions including the 0-16 season, but have not confirmed that.
  4. I have no insider information or knowledge, but the game plan against the Giants seemed very much like, 'get a double digit lead and run the clock down because they are more likely to score off their D than their O'. I think that is at least part of the reason Stafford's numbers were low.
  5. Pretty much where I am at.
  6. You did exactly what you accused me of doing. Like it or not, you did. No need to be crabby because I pointed out what begged to be pointed out. To clarify, I didn't respond to your text in full because I received an important phone call and was texting on my cell. I didn't have a chance to finish my edit. Apologies if that irritated you. Sincerely. To summarize my thoughts on your post had I completed my edit: a. Not starting off fast in the first quarter/half thing was premature and it is still premature (meaning maybe it will be an issue). Fans as a group tend to read too much into things early in the season probably because it is the only data they have. I think I said the same thing at the end of week one. b. Caldwell might not be back next year and I do think it an interesting topic. That written, I don't think that was driving any of the conversation in this thread, or much, if any, of the conversation about how lucky they have been on turnovers of the punt return or whatever in the last game thread. c. Your third paragraph, if directed at me, suggests you haven't read what I have written, which is fine, but frankly misses the mark being as objective as I can. Obviously game performances helps predict future game performance, but it seems odd to me that a number of fan presume the negatives will continue but the positives will not. That is all I am saying. That just feels to me like waiting for the shoe to drop. Take the whole thing in, apply context, etc. Consider the Lions strategy was to run down the clock on the Giants in the 2nd half, for example. At no point have I suggested what people are allowed to say or what they are, whatever that may mean. That is just rubbish.
  7. Yet you only referenced 'style points' and failed to address anything else I wrote. I’ll guess that is, how did you put it, an indication that you are unable to understand, let alone answer, the points I had raised?
  8. You are, for You have for one.
  9. But that is just it. They didn't barely win. They won comfortably in both games. They didn't play teams people thought were bad leading into the game. Most thought they would lose both games, in fact. But because they won, and on some level we don't think they are that good, the focus became discrediting the wins and why it won't continue. Maybe it won't maybe it will. But I think this is an excerise much more closely tied with waiting for the other shoe to drop than some actual merit based prognosticating. Take the time to look at the other teams in the league. Who is winning so convincingly? A couple of teams? I think they will win 9 or 10 games. They don't have the talent yet to dominate in the way fans seem to want. That is fine. They need to continue to build.
  10. Yeah, they are bad QB. And the Lions took advantage of their mistakes. That is what good teams do. That is also exactly the sort of thing the Lions struggled doing in the past. But doing so now doesn't count as a positive because we are waiting for the other shoe to drop and it is easy to critique a team in the interim. How many teams have objectively played better than the Lions so far? Of those, how many did you expect to be worse than the Lions going into the season?
  11. Not exaggerating an inch, my whole life (I am 44) I have heard Lion fans complain about being disorganized in general and taking stupid penalties and ***giving*** games away. And I think those were very fair criticisms / an accurate assessment. Now the Lions go out and let the other team beat themselves for 2 games and fans as a group are grousing about there not being enough style points associated with the wins. Honestly, I feel like asking where does the nerve even come from for a fan to ask for that (a general fan, not you specifically). The Lions aren't that kind of good / aren't at that level now. They need even more talent to do that. Hopefully they build to it over the next few years but they objectively are not there now. In summary, I think they need to continue to focus on minimizing their mistakes and controlling games where possible (i.e. capitalizing on the other guy's mistakes) before worrying about putting a bow on top, so to say.
  12. I believe clean games are relatively rare and I think fans as a group have an unrealistic expectation of how frequently good teams have them as well as reading too much into them when they happen. Teams that minimize their mistakes and capitalize on the other teams mistakes tend to be the successful teams. Valenti touched on this some on Tuesday. Paraphrasing, he essentially claimed the Giants played like we normally associate with the Lions and the Lions played like the Giants of the past 10 years. Just took the lead, gradually built on it, let the D take over and ground it out, never really allowing the game to really be in doubt (as is possible inside an NFL game). The Giants, OTOH, couldn't get anything going, made unforced errors, couldn't protect their QB. It is an effective formula and most winning teams employ it. The only team winning sexy routinely is the Patriots, and the Lions aren't them. Alternately, the Lions don't have enough talent to win convincingly if the other team isn't making mistakes. They can only win convincingly if the other team has some fundamental struggles a fan could point to.
  13. Tuck the Fwins.
  14. I would tell him to eat a d***, though probably not as polite as that.
  15. Zimmerman would have allowed a HR over the sign on the fly.