1st game 1:00 DETROIT LIONS @ New.Orleans game day

kellmellus50 · Post #1 » by **kellmellus50** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:12 pm

Since Mich beat irish upset,i beleive the lions will do the same upset N.orleans.Defence will shine and stuff the run. Staffort to Johnson will be a hot combo.Det Wins 31-27

Megatron is going to get mega yards from rookie matt , running back kevin will run mega yards, mega tight end brandon with catch a few. Which will be mega win for lions

Liqourish · Post #2 » by **Liqourish** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:46 pm

I sure hope so. I have a good feeling about this game. Even if the Lions lose, I think we'll see good things on the field. I really like Stafford/Johnson. They have good chemistry already. If Stafford and Calvin can get familiar with positioning, they could be lethal together.

I just hope Stafford keeps looking for Calvin throughout the game and not only a couple times like the QBs last year. Calvin had 10 games last season where he got 5 or less looks during a game. No games last year did Calvin get 10 or more looks. That is unacceptable.

I understand we need to work on the run game. Kevin Smith and Aaron Brown will help us condense the defense down inside. But if you aren't looking to open up the field for your best receiver, Whats the point?

I want to see Pettigrews blocking ability more this game than his receiving ability. We need our oline to give Stafford time to look downfield.

We'll need our offense to step this game too. I know New Orleans likes to score, but we have to keep it close enough for our offense to win it. Our linebacking corp is much improved. Our safeties are improved. Our tackles should be better. Let's see how it goes.

1 o'clock on FOX.

mastertang · Post #3 » by **mastertang** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:20 pm

14-0... not a good start

kellmellus50 · Post #4 » by **kellmellus50** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:51 pm

mastertang wrote:14-0... not a good start

Give to lions time its 14-10 they will come back in the second half.

Post #5 » by **ajaX82** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:58 pm

really strange game so far

TSE · Post #6 » by **TSE** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:06 pm

We had a strong KR and PR in this game plus a defensive TD. If you can have those 3 types of things happen that usually gives you a win. But we just don't have the talent. Until we purge the underachieving players and take gambles on some young guys with upside it's going to be statistically improbable for us to achieve true greatness. Really, the only way that we can make the playoffs this year is if Stafford can play at an exceptional level. We don't have an alternative solution to win if he plays at just a satisfactory level.

kellmellus50 · Post #7 » by **kellmellus50** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:20 pm

TSE do you think the lions should start culpepper next game?The reason i am saying this is 3 INTS,you cannot give up 3ints and expect to win period!!!!!

You know what burns me up is det could have jay cutler for their 2nd rd draft choice which was earyier than chiago's but det decieded to stand pat and draft stafford big mistake!

Post #8 » by **ajaX82** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:41 pm

Defense is still horrible by all accounts. ugh

Stafford was pretty decent. It was his first start. it was on the road. He was down the whole game. Cant really be too upset with him. And the running game never, ever got going. Hard to succeed with all that.

could have been worse. We could have been watching Jake Delhomme and his huge new extension suck

TSE · Post #9 » by **TSE** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:41 pm

Culpepper has no long-term value for us, so I wouldn't play him under any circumstances. I would first choose to play Stanton, if he's healthy, because he is still our best bet for the greater good of the team, and playing him helps us identify what his value is for the future as a possible #2 or as trade bait to help us rebuild for the future by cashing him in.

If Stanton is not healthy (moot point 'cause I doubt he is), then I would rather just give more time to Stafford so that he has more time to practice. I would not choose Cpep even if I think he gives me a better chance to win today, because I think that is a futile strategy for the reason that we are not setup to win at other positions. i.e. Ernie Sims. If we truly wanted to win with our best players, then Ernie Sims can't be a part of this football team because he has hurt us so much in the past. Same thing goes for Backus on offense because he is too old and too expensive and too average to win now and in the future, he needs to be recycled into a new asset. So as long as there is a lack of logic at other positions, I disqualify the notion of playing Cpep to "win now". It just doesn't compute for me w/o other positional strategies to complement that decision.

Any way you slice it, I would trade Cpep just so i could get SOMETHING in return, then we wouldn't have to even ask the question of whether or not Cpep should play, cause I'm trading him in, along with other players like Sims and Backus. We need to move on from those guys and build for the future, and it's better for us if that process starts today, and not tomorrow, or next week, or after the trade deadline, or after next offseason, or after the next draft, or after Week 1 next year when all of a sudden we say to ourselves, "where did the time go", and then find out we are stuck in "no man's land".

So not counting playing Stanton (again moot point, just covering my bases) and letting our options manifest themselves after giving him a crack to develop into an asset, and If we aren't going to bother trying to solve our other positional problems, then our best bet is to pray that Stafford learns quickly and suddenly transforms into an exceptional player to overcome our other positional disadvantages and mismanagement of player assets.

Long story short, the team needs to do major trading and re-arranging, otherwise if we don't make the playoffs this year, then we could be staring at the same situation next season and the year after when we don't have to. This team CAN be the best team in the NFL for the 2010-2020 decade if we simply CHOOSE to want that, and the person who makes that choice MUST also have a brilliant logical mind. Those are the only 2 things we need to have in order to create a dynasty with the core resources we have in the present day. (assuming Stafford doesn't bust out for the long-term as well obviously or that throws an additional wrench into the equation)

kellmellus50 · Post #10 » by **kellmellus50** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:46 pm

M. Stafford QB rateing is 27% are you kidding me!!!!!!!!!

TSE · Post #11 » by **TSE** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:29 am

kellmellus50 wrote:M. Stafford QB rateing is 27% are you kidding me!!!!!!!!!

Well if he ends up playing 200 games in his career and this ends up being his lowest rating in a game, then that would be one positive way of looking at it!

Post #12 » by **Icness** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:33 am

Thoughts:
--Stafford did what I expected of a rookie making his first start on the road. Some nice throws, some terrible decisions. I like how he handled pressure with his feet, but he's gotta not stare down his receiver so badly.

--the defensive front is just awful. NO was playing with a backup LT and we got nothing on him, nothing! Way too easy for blah RBs like Mike Bell to get thru the line and into space.

--not as worried about the secondary because it played a lot like how TEN's has played; they're going to make more plays because they gamble more and try to confuse the QB. Brees was just too savvy and an occasional pass rush would help, and he exploited the weak spots that come from taking more chances. The turnovers are very encouraging. Not every team has Drew Brees, keep that in mind.

--we have found both a PR and a KR. Northcutt and Brown both are upgrades.

--this goes for the Saints, but in leading up to the draft the big knock on Malcolm Jenkins was that he was too slow. then he goes out and chases down Aaron Brown--the fastest Lion by a good margin--catching him from behind. I told people Jenkins was fast enough, screw you McShay!

--Jeff Backus had a nice game. Dom Raiola did not. Cherilus still cannot kick step outside. Loved seeing Peterman out on that screen, and he reliably got to the 2nd level on run blocks.

--the Delmas TD got everyone at the bar I was at on their feet and cheering. This guy has "fan favorite" status already and I don't think it's just because I was 50 miles from K-Zoo. We're blessed to have this guy.

kellmellus50 · Post #13 » by **kellmellus50** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:38 am

HOUSTON -- After getting a pregame pep talk from Broadway Joe himself, Mark Sanchez couldn't help but sparkle in his debut in the NFL.What a pep talk," a beaming Sanchez said. "That was Joe Namath, just taking all the credit from himself and throwing it back to me and just saying, 'Good luck.' To hear that from a legend like that, it just kind of gives you the chills. It was something special to be a part of, an emotional start, an emotional little pep talk."

Namath said Sanchez's performance didn't surprise him.

"No, I was hopeful and I'm satisfied more than I thought I'd be," Namath said. "His offensive line did a hell of a job, but he did a great job of finding time with his feet, just to move subtly ... I don't doubt even a little bit that he doesn't have poise.

Sanchez, won his game the fifth overall pick in this year's draft, threw for 272 yards and a touchdown 18-31

Maybe det should have taken sanchez

TSE · Post #14 » by **TSE** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:54 am

Not to mention that the team that got him did so with a lower pick and saved a bundle of cash.

Post #15 » by **Icness** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:54 am

Sanchez has a great OL and an aggressive, talented defense that gives him some margin for error, and therefore more comfort. Plus Houston's secondary is still awful, while the Saints actually have some decent CBs and a savvy vet like Darren Sharper out there.

For the record though I did say that Sanchez would be a better pro, though probably not right away. I wouldn't have taken either guy #1 overall, I would have taken Aaron Curry. But I'm happy with Stafford and I have faith in him.