OK, the Lions were ranked very low on defense. But that same defense gave up 38 to the Eagles, who might be the best team in the NFC, 27 to the Commanders, and 28 to the Vikings, considered a serious playoff contender. The Seahawks are the only team that has put up 40 against them this season, and they did it by a lot - the 48 they scored is much closer to 50 than to 40.
This is like when @keasley45
were arguing, based on Geno Smith's actual performance in games last season plus preseason games this year that Smith might actually be a decent stopgap this season (the haters are constantly trying to transform this into "they're Smith fans" or "they think Smith is great" or equally silly things that @keasley45
have repeatedly said they don't
believe), and the group of fans here on .NET rooting for Seahawks failure post-Wilson wanted to throw out Smith's performance against the Jaguars, because the Jaguars sucked. Yes, the Jags sucked. But no other quarterback had even close to the number of consecutive completions against the Jags as Smith did. Smith performed better against the Jags than a bunch of more-highly regarded QBs like, say, Josh Allen, whose Bills LOST TO those awful Jags a week after Smith picked them apart.
Yes, the quality of the opponent matters, but that doesn't mean the performance of the Seahawks offense (and Smith in particular) shouldn't count when it's better than those of more-highly regarded teams' offenses.