September 25, 2017, 07:07:27 PM

Author Topic: Matt Stafford  (Read 708 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2017, 11:28:54 AM »
You throw out anyone with less than 200 pass attempts.

Stafford is still not in the top ten.

Having said all that, I understand why the Lions had to sign him.  They really do not have anyone to bluff with. So they had no leverage on the price.  It was either sign him or face a fan and press mutiny.

Stafford is an above average QB, and as far as being a pure passer, he is good.  But his W L record against above .500 teams, plus his record in the playoffs bugs me.  And don't forget, he had the great Calvin Johnson to throw to for awhile.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 11:29:37 AM by Gregg »

Online Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2958
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2017, 05:28:35 PM »
Passer rating is an interesting stat, but look at Brett Favre's career stats and you realize that it isn't a great measure.

Stafford has been held back by injuries and a poor front office in Detroit.  That front office makes a lot of mistakes, paying Stafford wasn't one of them IMO.
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 983
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2017, 06:09:03 PM »
To be a winning team, you have to have one. If you don't have one, the first thing a GM needs to do is get one. Not everyone has one. When you have one, you keep that one because you never know when you will get another one. Inorder to keep one, you must pay one. It is much better to pay one, than not have one.   

Offline Leader

  • Global Moderator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11265
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2017, 07:20:27 PM »
To be a winning team, you have to have one. If you don't have one, the first thing a GM needs to do is get one.

Not everyone has one. When you have one, you keep that one because you never know when you will get another one. Inorder to keep one, you must pay one. It is much better to pay one, than not have one.   

Interesting comment. Made me think: "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?"

Think of Indy. They landed the "QB of eternity" in Andrew Luck. Too bad they had a lousy GM - and hung on to that lousy GM way past time he'd not done enough to protect Luck with an NFL caliber OL. Nice, shiny new WR's. Great - but the guy was getting routinely POUNDED behind that OL and now he's got a serious shoulder injury. The jury's still out how badly that shoulder will / could affect Lucks career.

So yeah - the you've "gotta have one" theory applies to QBs and GMs.

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2017, 09:38:01 PM »
What happened was that the league sold out to offense when it changed the rules in the seventies, especially those on bump and run defense and holding.

They figured fans would rather see 42-40 close games rather then 17-14 close games.  I disagree, but what do I know?

Secondly, when Bill Walsh revolutionized passing offense in SF, even before Montana, he showed teams they could have good offenses without having a star running back.  That further turned the NFL into a passing league.

Before those things took hold, it was quite possible to win an NFL title or get to a Super Bowl without a Pro Bowl type QB.  Like say Concannon/Wade in Chicago, or Bill Kilmer in Washington, or Jim Plunkett in Oakland.

After that, it was really rare for a team to do something like that.  With  few exceptions, you had to have a great defense, like the Bears did with McMahon, or the Ravens with Dilfer.

And in general terms, that is why you have this incredible reliance on QBs today. But even with that in mind, there have been teams who did get to the SB in this millenium without exceptional QB's e.g. Rex Grossman with the Bears, and Jake Delhomme with the Panthers.

But GM's think its easier to win with the talented QB;and that is why Stafford, who has never actually won a playoff game, gets what he does.


« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 09:42:19 PM by Gregg »

Offline LMG

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4388
  • PackerChatters Site Owner
    • PackerChatters.com
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2017, 10:23:46 PM »
Not sure what your issue is with with your 'dissing' of Stafford but to me it doesn't wash.


Clue....take a look at his supporting cast during his career. I don't buy the Calvin Johson reference as that only gave them 2 men on offense. Who were the players on D?


It is a team sport....not just a couple of guys.


Stafford just needed/needs support to take his team forward to the next levels.


Look at it this way... what would Rodgers stats (yours) be with that team?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 10:47:13 PM by LMG »
If you are not the lead dog the view never changes.

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2017, 10:33:59 PM »
I am not dissing Stafford, I am just trying to show how this QB mania got started and gets worse each year.

BTW, it was not just the great Calvin Johnson; he also had what I think was the best defensive player in the NFL at the time,  guy by the name of Suh.

Offline LMG

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4388
  • PackerChatters Site Owner
    • PackerChatters.com
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2017, 10:48:04 PM »
I am not dissing Stafford, I am just trying to show how this QB mania got started and gets worse each year.

BTW, it was not just the great Calvin Johnson; he also had what I think was the best defensive player in the NFL at the time,  guy by the name of Suh.


Suh??? Oh please!!


Who were the other 10?
If you are not the lead dog the view never changes.

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2017, 11:26:16 PM »
Wait a minute.

The guy has the best WR in the NFL at the  time, plus probably the best defensive player also, and you want me to go through the whole line up?

Stafford has been there for 8 years.  That is a lot of different line ups to examine.

Online Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2958
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2017, 08:00:41 AM »
Wait a minute.

The guy has the best WR in the NFL at the  time, plus probably the best defensive player also, and you want me to go through the whole line up?

Stafford has been there for 8 years.  That is a lot of different line ups to examine.

But that was the issue Gregg.  They tied up an enormous amount of money in Suh and Johnson, and then missed on a ton of picks.

They never gave Stafford a complete team, let alone even a good team around him.  And they still do it- Laken Tomlinson is there latest first round bust. 
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2170
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2017, 10:36:35 AM »
Its one of those glass half empty or half full things.

The best showing the Lions ever made in the playoffs was when they had Suh and Johnson against a Romo/Murray Cowboys team.

That particular Lions team also had Golden Tate, and Reggie Bush and Ebron/Pettigrew at TE.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2017, 11:03:46 AM »
I think that the Lions feel Stafford is worth the money and he could prove it with a better OL in front of him.

IMO, that's why the went out and got Lang and Wagner in FA.

Last year (2016) they drafted Taylor Decker, Graham Glasgow, and Joe Dahl. (I think they already knew that Laken Tomlinson was a bust)

This years draft additions of Kenny Golladay (WR) and MIchael Roberts (TE) should be nice additions to their skill positions.

Golladay has gotten rave reviews through TC/pre-season, and Roberts is the best (or one of the best) run blocking TE in this years draft, and he also managed to catch 16 TD's for Toledo in 2016. He's a big red zone threat, and with Ebron, could give DET that 2-TE set like GB intends to employ.

With better OL play, Stafford could play lights out.......................but only time will tell.

Offline Bignutz

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2017, 12:59:34 AM »
Stafford is a damn good QB.
   


Good but not worth that kind of money.

Offline LMG

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4388
  • PackerChatters Site Owner
    • PackerChatters.com
Re: Matt Stafford
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2017, 09:53:30 AM »
Maybe so but Stafford is getting paid what the market value is.
If you are not the lead dog the view never changes.