With KC getting Jones back and Kelceās injury not serious. They are going to be just fine now. Probably win 12 or 13 games still
See ya in the super bowl bitches!
I think we lose by 3 if they have Kelce and Jones.
I am not being negative in anyway. We played just good enough to win without those 2. Dan said they had to clean some things up and I think we see a cleaner game this week against the Seagulls.
Thatās just it ā¦ and thatās why the asterisk statement was so ignorant.
Nobody knows what would have happened. Kelcey may have been lit up on the first play of the game. Who the f knows. He may have fumbled into the arms of Benito slowmo Jones for a 99 yard TD return.
What if Jamo played and had 400 yards receiving and 6 TDās?
Itās all stupid conjecture. Tirico made a dumb comment, and admitted it.
I just checked ā¦ KC has a big 0-1 next to their name, and I didnāt see an asterisk anywhere.
What if Mosely played and Toney never got open to drop his passes.
Yep.
What if Suh would have taken our offer instead of the Dolphins offer.
Our last 8 seasons should have asterisks.
NooooāKC lost because The Detroit Lions scored more points in THEIR Stadium !!!
If thatās an excuse, we didnāt have Jamo.
Looks like the Chiefs just signed Jones to a one- year deal per Adam Scheffler. No details as of yet. Long thread about it on their forum. Didnāt see it noted here and didnāt want to waste a thread.
Iāll assume if the Lions ever lose a game by a point because Amon and Hutch are out that Iāll be one of the few saying they would have made a diiference.
Nope. False equivalency.
Looking back at all of the games weāve lost, has any prominent TV host said put an asterisk next to it because Kenny Golladay was faking a hip injury?
No.
The Lions lose, 20-14?
I doubt it.
I know the Lions have never hosted the opener as Super Bowl champs.
When the Lions had Suh, how many teams had to put asterisk on the wins when he was out on suspension?
Ha. āLose by 3ā is so oddly specific.
Hereās whatās odd to me about the whole with/without Jones and Kelsey thing.
To me, the issue isnāt whether KC for the Lions, at full strength, is the better team RIGHT NOW. I think even mostly Lions fans would agree. (I also think itās possible that by seasonās end, it really may not be quite so obvious.)
AND ābetterā teams lose to āworseā teams all the time. And Iām not talking completely-fluke s***. If our Lions played the Chiefs at full strength on a neutral field 10 times Iād EXPECT them to win at least 3 times, maybe 4. By the end of the season it could be 5 outta 10. Far-fetched? A few things need to go right, including health. But imagine Jamo gets his route-running together, loses the dropsies, and he and Goff find themselves on the right page? That the secondary irons out their comms issues? That the rookies thrive?
Points is that, in my view, these Lions probably arenāt yet a top-5 NFL team BUT theyāre already good enough that they doāt need a fluke to beat the top team. (Flip side is that theyāll probably drop a game or two to lesser teams along the way too.0
If they both were playing, we would have played them differently all together. Sooooooo I still seeing a Lions win.
Or when Calvin Johnson and Nate Burleson were both out?
I donāt remember hearing talk about an asterisk.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.