DRAFT 1.1 QB Matthew Stafford

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by DTroppens

I think one thing we learned is that maybe we learned in his absence is that Kevin Smith is not only not the answer, but maybe not even serviceable. Morris has outperformed him since he's entered the starting lineup. I don't think that much about Morris, but we see him occasionally making it to the second tier of the defense and seemingly you feel better about him getting closer to the maximum out of his runs. You hardly felt this about Smith, but people gave the offensive line much of that heat because I think they wanted Smith to be at least part of the answer. But right now Morris has shown to be much more capable than Smith ever was this year.

I agree actually. It pains me to say that, because I loved Kevin Smith in college (was at UCF during that time), but he may not be the RB I thought he could be.

He will likely get another chance next year to prove this year was a fluke, but I certainly am no longer mentioning him when I talk about the talent to build this team around.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

That's simply not true.

How so? By which metric?

The fact you would still rather have Sanchez over Stafford is incredibly amusing. Sanchez, in a much better situation, was less successful than Stafford.

Your Lions predictions have provided me much amusement, so I'm glad I can return the favor...

I'll put my "Jamarcus Russell will be better than Matt Stafford this year" prediction up against your "the Lions will go 8-8 this year" prediction in terms of sheer comedic value.

I have no problem admitting I woefully underestimated the talent on Detroit's roster. I expected more out of the running game and I expected more out of Bryant Johnson.

That's great. Maybe you should take the opinions of those of us who told you beforehand how untalented they were a little more seriously from now on?

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by Buddha

How so? By which metric?

Play on the field?

That's great. Maybe you should take the opinions of those of us who told you beforehand how untalented they were a little more seriously from now on?

Except that the credibility you gained by properly evaluating the talent on the roster is loss when you make statements like you would rather have Sanchez over Stafford.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Was it a fantastic year compared to Peyton Manning and Drew Brees? Of course not.

Was it a fantastic year for a rookie QB? Absolutely.

What more did anyone want from a rookie QB?

But now you're changing your tune. All year long you kept telling all of us that Stafford was having a good year for ANY QB. That QB was not a position of weakness and that he was in the top half of QBs in the league.

If you couch your praise for Stafford in terms of potential or in terms of how he did as a rookie, then almost all of us can certainly agree that he was fine. But when you start comparing his season to those of all other NFL QBs and still telling us that he was good, then that's when your argument falls apart, IMO.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Play on the field?

Oh. So you mean the "Norman, I watch every single game in the NFL every week so I know" metric. I missed that one.

In other less homerific stats, Stafford ranks pretty low.

FO has him as the third worst starting QB in the NFL going into week 16. I wouldn't be surprised if he finished lower than Cassell. He'll certianly be lower than Sanchez.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | QUARTERBACKS 2009

You should call Aaron Schatz and let him know he's full of ****.

Except that the credibility you gained by properly evaluating the talent on the roster is loss when you make statements like you would rather have Sanchez over Stafford.

So then how much credibility do you have in picking them 8-8? Saying the Redskins were the most talented team in the league? Guaranteeing that the Lions were better than the Raiders and Chiefs? Saying the Lions had a solid foundation with players like Smith and Avril?

Coming in after the fact and saying you were wrong doesn't give you credibility, it just means you can recognize you were wrong.

I remember you once saying that we'll see at the end of the season who was right on the Lions, you or me. Well, it's the end of the season, Norm. Who was right?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Originally Posted by sagnam

While I agree that Stafford was better at getting the ball out quicker than we've seen from the Lion QBs in years past, I think the protection looked better than last year for Culpepper as well and Culpepper didn't seem to get the ball out any quicker than last season.

Which is why I said I think it was 'some part of the reason' the line looked better, as opposed to 'a large part of', or 'mostly due to'.

I agree the line was better. I also think Stafford getting rid of the ball more quickly than other Lions quarterbacks of the past helped make the line look better. These two worked together, IMO, to realize a nice improvement with regards to pass protection. Being a thread that discusses Stafford, I saw a tie-in regarding offensively line play with something he did well, so I commented on it.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by Buddha

But now you're changing your tune. All year long you kept telling all of us that Stafford was having a good year for ANY QB. That QB was not a position of weakness and that he was in the top half of QBs in the league.

That's not true. I said Stafford's performance in certain games shows that he belong on the same field as some of the better QB's in the NFL. He played extremely well against Washington and Chicago. Then he got hurt. He had a great game against Cleveland, and got hurt again.

If you couch your praise for Stafford in terms of potential or in terms of how he did as a rookie, then almost all of us can certainly agree that he was fine. But when you start comparing his season to those of all other NFL QBs and still telling us that he was good, then that's when your argument falls apart, IMO.

Not at all. Oakland, Kansas City, Buffalo, NYJ, Washington, Cleveland, Carolina - all teams that would have benefited by having Stafford as their QB over who they currently have. Saying that Stafford is not a source of weakness on the Lions, that Stafford could start today on other teams, is being factual.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Oh. So you mean the "Norman, I watch every single game in the NFL every week so I know" metric. I missed that one.

In other less homerific stats, Stafford ranks pretty low.

FO has him as the third worst starting QB in the NFL going into week 16. I wouldn't be surprised if he finished lower than Cassell. He'll certianly be lower than Sanchez.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | QUARTERBACKS 2009

You should call Aaron Schatz and let him know he's full of ****.

Stats are overrated. Again, anyone that has watched the games would not rank Sanchez over Stafford. Sanchez is asked to manage the game, averages 10 less passes a game than Stafford and plays with a superior running game - yet has 20 INT's and less TD's.

FootballOustiders does a lot of good work, but would anyone say that Craig Knull has played better than Stafford? That Brady Quinn has? That Derrek Anderson has?

To quote Coach John Fox, Stats are for Losers.

So then how much credibility do you have in picking them 8-8? Saying the Redskins were the most talented team in the league? Guaranteeing that the Lions were better than the Raiders and Chiefs? Saying the Lions had a solid foundation with players like Smith and Avril?

I'm a fan, I give my team the benefit of the doubt. The Lions had a chance to win at Chicago, vs Pittsburgh, vs St. Louis, at Seattle, vs. Arizona.

I know you take pleasure in predicting the Lions failures, sorry if I am going to be optimistic about my team.

The Lions have a better foundation to build on that Oakland and Kansas City.

No one can blame the Redskins woes on lack of talent.

It appears I was wrong about Kevin Smith, Cliff Avril still has a future.

Coming in after the fact and saying you were wrong doesn't give you credibility, it just means you can recognize you were wrong.

I remember you once saying that we'll see at the end of the season who was right on the Lions, you or me. Well, it's the end of the season, Norm. Who was right?

I was right about Stafford, you were right about the team as a whole.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Saying that Stafford is not a source of weakness on the Lions, that Stafford could start today on other teams, is being factual.

That's your OPINION. That is not a fact.

Fact: Stafford threw 20 interceptions.
Opinion: Stafford could start for Carolina.

IF Stafford were playing for those teams and contract/draft status/age/future development were not an issue, I doubt he would start for the Washington or Carolina (he's actually very similar to Delhomme in terms of production. Campbell was much better and it's not even close). He'd be in the conversation in KC and Cleveland (both of whom had more experienced QBs) and the Jets, who had a QB with a similar profile agewise. He would certainly have been the preferred starter in Oakland and Buffalo.

[sagnam]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Saying that Stafford is not a source of weakness on the Lions, that Stafford could start today on other teams, is being factual.

But this year in a majority of the games he played, Stafford was a weakness.

Stafford would have started on many teams because of the experience he would gain to benefit those teams in future seasons, not necessarily for what he would have contributed to those teams this season.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by Buddha

That's your OPINION. That is not a fact.

Fact: Stafford threw 20 interceptions.
Opinion: Stafford could start for Carolina.

IF Stafford were playing for those teams and contract/draft status/age/future development were not an issue, I doubt he would start for the Washington or Carolina (he's actually very similar to Delhomme in terms of production. Campbell was much better and it's not even close). He'd be in the conversation in KC and Cleveland (both of whom had more experienced QBs) and the Jets, who had a QB with a similar profile agewise. He would certainly have been the preferred starter in Oakland and Buffalo.

Stafford would play for Washington if, for no other reason, the owner wanted Campbell out of there. He would have started for Carolina (mid season at least) because his upside was much higher than Delhomme's. Of course I also would expect Stafford's production to improve in Carolina by having a running game he could count on and not being asked to throw the ball 37 times a game.

[sagnam]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Stats are overrated.

Ok.

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Again, anyone that has watched the games would not rank Sanchez over Stafford. Sanchez is asked to manage the game, averages 10 less passes a game than Stafford and plays with a superior running game - yet has 20 INT's and less TD's.

Uh, those are all stats. The difference is those stats support your position.

Do you realize how that reflects upon you?

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by sagnam

But this year in a majority of the games he played, Stafford was a weakness.

No. Not when you look at the team as a whole.

Seattle was a real bad game for Stafford, that was not true for the majority of the games he played in.

Stafford would have started on many teams because of the experience he would gain to benefit those teams in future seasons, not necessarily for what he would have contributed to those teams this season.

Certainly. The NFL isn't simply a one year league, decisions have to be made with some part of your eye turned toward the future.

[Hongbit]

Overall, I was impressed with Stafford. Nobody can deny that there were flashes of greatness this year. As much I don't want to stick my finger back into the light socket, I think he may finally be the one. All of that said, unless you have a prior agenda that you are still trying to protect, there's really no way to see Stafford's season as fantastic.

He had a couple fantastic games but had just as many horrible ones (if not more). He missed a bunch of games due to injury and was unable to finish the season. I don't place a ton of weight in QB stats, but those sucked too.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by sagnam

Uh, those are all stats. The difference is those stats support your position.

Do you realize how that reflects upon you?

Haha, not my best choice of words but let me explain myself.

Looking at the amount of passes both Sanchez and Stafford were asked to throw in a game, you can see what both QB's were asked to do.

Sanchez was asked to throw the ball 25 times a game.

Stafford was asked to throw the ball 37 times a game.

Now those stats don't tell you which QB is better. It does tell you about the gameplan.

A game manager (as Sanchez was) that throws 20 INT's is a bigger red flag than a QB asked to win games (which Stafford was) throwing 20 INT's.

[sagnam]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Certainly. The NFL isn't simply a one year league, decisions have to be made with some part of your eye turned toward the future.

But the fact that he has potential and that he played OK considering the team he was playing on and he's a rookie does not mean he was fantastic.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by Hongbit

Overall, I was impressed with Stafford. Nobody can deny that there were flashes of greatness this year. As much I don't want to stick my finger back into the light socket, I think he may finally be the one. All of that said, unless you have a prior agenda that you are still trying to protect, there's really no way to see Stafford's season as fantastic.

He had a couple fantastic games but had just as many horrible ones (if not more). He missed a bunch of games due to injury and was unable to finish the season.

It was a fantastic year for a rookie QB considering the situation he was placed in.

He did not have the luxury Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco or Mark Sanchez has had. He was not asked to throw the ball 25 times a game and let the running game carry the offense. He was asked to make things happen and be the driving force of the offense.

To put that responsibility on a 21 year old rookie QB and have him be able to handle that with some success is a tremendous sign for the future.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by sagnam

But the fact that he has potential and that he played OK considering the team he was playing on and he's a rookie does not mean he was fantastic.

Now we arguing word choice. It was a very positive year for a rookie year. Is that better?

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

To quote Coach John Fox, Stats are for Losers.

Especially when they disprove what you think you saw, right?

I'm a fan, I give my team the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, I know. I read your predictions.

I know you take pleasure in predicting the Lions failures, sorry if I am going to be optimistic about my team.

Nobody gives a damn one way or another how anyone roots for their team (or at least they shouldn't). It's when you start acting like a ****ing know-it-all about the Lions and Matt Stafford and belittling those who disagree with you when it gets annoying.

The Lions have a better foundation to build on that Oakland and Kansas City.

Baloney. They all have talent issues. The Lions have more talent issues than the Raiders do. The Raiders have issues at QB that the Lions (hopefully) don't have.

No one can blame the Redskins woes on lack of talent.

No one can realistically look at that roster and call it the most talented in the league. It has stars, but very little depth.

It appears I was wrong about Kevin Smith, Cliff Avril still has a future.

A future as a couple years of a back-up DE then out of the league, yes. He'll never be a building block on any team. He's no better than Mark Anderson on the Bears.

[quoe]I was right about Stafford, you were right about the team as a whole.[/QUOTE]

I was right about Stafford AND the team as a whole. In fact, if anything, I was a little optimistic about the team as a whole. IIRC, Dr.Who, Hongbit and a couple others were more right than I was. I tend to get a little optimistic before the season starts.

[sagnam]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Haha, not my best choice of words but let me explain myself.

Looking at the amount of passes both Sanchez and Stafford were asked to throw in a game, you can see what both QB's were asked to do.

Sanchez was asked to throw the ball 25 times a game.

Stafford was asked to throw the ball 37 times a game.

Now those stats don't tell you which QB is better. It does tell you about the gameplan.

A game manager (as Sanchez was) that throws 20 INT's is a bigger red flag than a QB asked to win games (which Stafford was) throwing 20 INT's.

I agree that Sanchez had it much easier this year considering he had one of the best running games in the league and one of the best defenses as well. It's also important to note that Sanchez was pretty bad this year as well.

It's also important to note that Sanchez threw his 20 picks and 12 TDs in 15 games and 365 attempts while Stafford threw his 20 picks and 13 TDs in 10 games and 377 attempts. Their completion percentages were very similar as well.

The only conclusion I feel comfortable making at this point is that both QBs were bad this year.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Stafford would play for Washington if, for no other reason, the owner wanted Campbell out of there. He would have started for Carolina (mid season at least) because his upside was much higher than Delhomme's. Of course I also would expect Stafford's production to improve in Carolina by having a running game he could count on and not being asked to throw the ball 37 times a game.

All pure speculation. Certianly nothing factual about it.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

No. Not when you look at the team as a whole

In other words, the rest of the team was SO BAD, they made their rookie mistake prone QB look good.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Especially when they disprove what you think you saw, right?

No, when they don't tell the story. You can't judge a football game by stats.

Nobody gives a damn one way or another how anyone roots for their team (or at least they shouldn't). It's when you start acting like a ****ing know-it-all about the Lions and Matt Stafford and belittling those who disagree with you when it gets annoying.

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, I certainly didn't intend on being perceived as a know-it-all. I don't know when I have ever belittled anyone who simply disagreed with me.

Baloney. They all have talent issues. The Lions have more talent issues than the Raiders do. The Raiders have issues at QB that the Lions (hopefully) don't have.

The NFL is a QB driven league. If you don't have a Franchise QB, you are behind every team that does.

A future as a couple years of a back-up DE then out of the league, yes. He'll never be a building block on any team. He's no better than Mark Anderson on the Bears.

Ok.

I was right about Stafford AND the team as a whole. In fact, if anything, I was a little optimistic about the team as a whole. IIRC, Dr.Who, Hongbit and a couple others were more right than I was. I tend to get a little optimistic before the season starts.

You were right about Stafford? So he doesn't look to have a productive future here? He doesn't look like a building block for this franchise?

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

were right about Stafford? So he doesn't look to have a productive future here? He doesn't look like a building block for this franchise?

Did I say that?

And as for your supposed lack of belittlement, check the game threads.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by sagnam

I agree that Sanchez had it much easier this year considering he had one of the best running games in the league and one of the best defenses as well. It's also important to note that Sanchez was pretty bad this year as well.

It's also important to note that Sanchez threw his 20 picks and 12 TDs in 15 games and 365 attempts while Stafford threw his 20 picks and 13 TDs in 10 games and 377 attempts. Their completion percentages were very similar as well.

The only conclusion I feel comfortable making at this point is that both QBs were bad this year.

The reason I disagree is that no QB in this league was asked to throw more times a game than Matthew Stafford. When you ask a rookie QB to throw 37 times a game, you are going to get a ton of INT's. It could have been a lot worse.

How many of those INT's came late in the game when Stafford was having to make a play? The amount of INT's you throw is always going to be higher when you are FORCED to throw the ball due to playing behind and having an ineffective running game.

[sagnam]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

How many of those INT's came late in the game when Stafford was having to make a play? The amount of INT's you throw is always going to be higher when you are FORCED to throw the ball due to playing behind and having an ineffective running game.

How many of Sanchez's interceptions were in games they were trailing late.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by sagnam

How many of Sanchez's interceptions were in games they were trailing late.

I believed the Jets only had one game where is team was trailing greatly behind - the second New England game. The rest of the games were decided by one or two scores where running the ball was still very much an option.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Did I say that?

Your doubt and criticism of Stafford is well documented. Before and after his arrival in Detroit.

And as for your supposed lack of belittlement, check the game threads.

I believe that was a treatment reserved for you, after all - I didn't want you to feel awkward being the only one.

[DTroppens]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Stats are overrated. Again, anyone that has watched the games would not rank Sanchez over Stafford. Sanchez is asked to manage the game, averages 10 less passes a game than Stafford and plays with a superior running game - yet has 20 INT's and less TD's.

I don't know if you realize you did this, but you just said stats are overrated and then used stats to support your case. The 20 interceptions in less attempts isn't very encouraging. I think you certainly have a point there. However, you mention the superior running game. I'm wondering if that running game may have "taken" some of those TD chances away from him.

EDIT: Sorry Sagnam. I noticed you brought this up.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Your doubt and criticism of Stafford is well documented. Before and after his arrival in Detroit.

Is that the same as this:

"So he doesn't look to have a productive future here? He doesn't look like a building block for this franchise?"

I don't know if he'll ever be a great QB. He might be. However, I wasn't ready to proclaim that he was a great QB before he was ever drafted, unlike yourself.

I believe that was a treatment reserved for you, after all - I didn't want you to feel awkward being the only one.

Actually, it wasn't. You reserve that treatment for anyone who dares think that Matt Stafford might not be the greatest QB since Peyton Manning.

I'm not an anti-Stafford guy, I just don't think he's shown anything yet but potential. Unlike most of the other people who have reservations or questions about Stafford, I'm an *******. So when I have those reservations, I voice them.

Contrary to your belief, I like the Lions. I just don't need to fellate them to show them I like them.

[Buddha]

Sanchez with a playoff win and a QB rating in the game of 139.4.

If only he were as good as Matt Stafford...

[tigerkid23]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Sanchez with a playoff win and a QB rating in the game of 139.4.

If only he were as good as Matt Stafford...

haha...I'm begining to think you just like to start arguments.

Sanchez had a terrific day today. He's in a very good situation, but he took full advantage of that situation today. He was phenemonal with the play-action plays and put his receivers in good positions to make plays. I don't know whos better. Actually, it's too early to tell, but Sanchez took a big step forward tonight.

[cruzer1]

Talk about a great situation, with a great running game, and a great defense; he should have done that all year.

[Johnny Mac]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Sanchez with a playoff win and a QB rating in the game of 139.4.

If only he were as good as Matt Stafford...

They have 3 RB better than anyone on the Lions roster and a better o-line and a better defense.

Although I did enjoy his postgame interview, classic.

[vdlion717]

Sanchez came into an AMAZING situation. He benefited from the #1 rushing attack, as well as the #1 defense. For him to have similar stats as Stafford is damning to him IMO.

I could not believe the stat lines in some of his wins! Here are some examples:

VS NE - 14-22 163 yds, TD
VS TEN - 17-30 171 yds, 2TD I INT
VS CIN - 8-16 63 yds
VS IND - 12-19 106yds
VS BUF - 7-15 104yds 1TD
VS Carolina 13-17 154yds 1 INT

Are you kidding me? The guy only has to complete 7 passes for a win!? All these wins with sub 200 yard games and throwing an average of only 19 times and barely completing 11??

Actually looking at things the guy has only thrown over 200 yards FOUR times all season.
272 vs HOU
265 vs MIA
212 vs JAC
226 vs ATL

WOW. In comparison here are Staffords attempt numbers:

37,30,36,36,33,42,51,43,43,26

Stafford has to do much more with so much less that it's not even close.

However Sanchez did impress me with the win today, some very nice passes from him outside of the pocket. Then again look at his stats:

12/15 180 yds 1TD. He has do do almost nothing and his team will win.

[Vonlenska]

Originally Posted by Elaine

But the only reason you like me is because I'm a shiksa!

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

That's simply not true.

.

[nd1377]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Sanchez with a playoff win and a QB rating in the game of 139.4.

If only he were as good as Matt Stafford...

As someone said above, the Jets have the best rushing offense and the best defense in the NFL. When a team has those characteristics, they have a very good chance to succeed. All Sanchez has to do is not lose the game(see Grossman playing for Chicago or Dilfer playing for Baltimore).

[DaBishop]

...and Joe Montana was only the best QB because San Fran was such a good team.[/s] Lucky for you Detroit fans, you'll be able to continue using this logic to tell the world how much better Stafford is then the rest of the QB's in the league because your team will most likely continue to stink for years to come.

Sanchez stepped up and performed in below freezing temperatures, and should have had an even better stat line had Edwards caught that TD pass. Stafford faced exactly the same thing Sanchez did all year. Defenses crowded the box and made the rookie QB beat them. Sanchez did that far more than Stafford did. Yes the Jets had the ability to run better then Detroit so it probably led to more wins but let's be clear, the first 3 wins came on Sanchez' arm and this playoff win he did far more then "just not lose the game". The Jets running game didn't do much of anything until week 6. In fact the only better than average running game prior to week 6 was week 1 when Sanchez was absolutely phenomenal. Let's not take into account that Stafford plays in a dome and played in one cold weather game all year(an impressive 11/26 143 yards and 2 INT's against Cincinatti no less).

also, VDL, Sanchez got knocked out of the Buffalo game early on...but don't let that effect your rant.

[GuitarGod19]

Lets get it straight, Sanchez didn't win that game last night. A team that has the best O-Line, the best rushing attack, AND the best defense should be favored to win games, and SHOULD be better than 9-7. I'm not saying Marky is bad, but don't sit there and tell me he's better or that he is the reason they are winning because it's simply not the case.

[Shinzaki]

It's stupid to compare Sanchez and Stafford right now...Sanchez gets to make a number of those "roll out leisurely to the right and throw 10 yards to a wide open guy" throws because his running game and OL are so good.

Stafford has no running game to work with...teams can drop LB's into coverage so he has to get it over them and then between a CB and a safety.

He's making harder throws into defenses specifially set up to deal with him as he and Calvin (and Pettigrew...particularly in the red zone) are the only threats we have on offense.

In fairness to Sanchez...we don't know if he can do xy and z because he's only being asked to do x