Early Vegas Line: Lions favored by 2

Yeah it pisses me off when a coach opts to push a team back on 3rd down. I would much rather take away their oportunity altogether. You can overcome a yardage deficit but not if you were never given enough chances.

If Stafford has a rough start you can bet your ass he will be pulled.

Not a chance. He's their franchise QB. They left him in with a paralyzed arm last year.

7Q01821q-Hg

It seems anytime a team is favored by 3 or less just means they have no clue and it will be too close to call until the better defense (SKINS) gets a turnover. Im suprised with Stafford coming back that doesnt raise doubt but they are a decent run team but they probably couldnt factor in us having Big Albert is "Game shape". Theres no telling how disruptive he may be up the middle. Skins win by 13.

It's funny how Vegas works. Not only do they have to consider everything that could affect the outcome of the game, but they also have to think about weather or not the odds they provide will serve as motivation for the teams involved.

Keep in mind that Vegas betting odds are not designed to predict a winner, they are designed to even out the action on both teams so the house doesn't get stuck with a huge payoff. You will see certain teams with a large betting fan base often get points in games, not because they are the better team, but because there is so much action on that team that the booking houses up the spread to try and push action to the dog. If the increased spreads don't work to even out action, they'll shut down the game to new bets to protect against payoff risk.

Make no mistake, Vegas doesn't care who wins, just as long as they get their vig.

I'd say that grabbing Stafford's rookie stats aren't going to do very much to tell you what Stafford is going to play like. It'd be much safer and smarter to take Shaun Hill's 2010 line, the QB rating of 79.6, and plug that in for Stafford.

We don't really know what Stafford can accomplish in excess of that, perhaps nothing, but that would be the level of expectation for Stafford's play over the second half of the year, given that Hill was no. 2 on the depth chart there in camp.

Just because Hill was playing at a higher level this year compared with Stafford's rookie numbers from last year in no way means as soon as you plug Stafford back in that those numbers will remain constant IMO. Stafford hasn't played for a full season and has been out since week one of this season. There are bound to be a lot of nerves and rust to come off.

Why would he automatically get better this season, just because he is not a rookie anymore? I don't think he has had the chance to develop as he was oft injured last season and only played in one game so far this year. He doesn't have a lot of experience to fall back on either. I just think that until he proves he can play better than he did last year I would rather have him than have Hill starting and playing the way he has been playing. That's all I am saying...

Just because Hill was playing at a higher level this year compared with Stafford's rookie numbers from last year in no way means as soon as you plug Stafford back in that those numbers will remain constant IMO. Stafford hasn't played for a full season and has been out since week one of this season. There are bound to be a lot of nerves and rust to come off.

Why would he automatically get better this season, just because he is not a rookie anymore? I don't think he has had the chance to develop as he was oft injured last season and only played in one game so far this year. He doesn't have a lot of experience to fall back on either. I just think that until he proves he can play better than he did last year I would rather have him than have Hill starting and playing the way he has been playing. That's all I am saying...Well, my question is: what was he expected to prove to you over the last six weeks? Other than the fact that maybe, he gets hurt a little easier than you'd like from a first overall pick, the absence of the opportunity to show that he's better than he was as a rookie hardly means we should not expect Stafford to play better than he did as a rookie.

If he's going to be the Lions franchise quarterback, then yeah, that burden of proof is on him to justify his draft value. As far as performing as well or better than the middling numbers of a guy who was signed specifically to be Stafford's backup, that has to be the expectation here. Hill simply proved that a guy who failed elsewhere could perform at expectation in the Lions offense. So if Stafford is an out and out disaster in the next nine games -- you blame Matt Stafford for it. Not his coaching or his offense. But if Stafford's not a disaster, then he will play as well as Hill because we know what Hill is and what kind of help he has in Detroit: some.