DRAFT 1.1 QB Matthew Stafford

[kgeorge78]

I am because it's driving me crazy!

[kgeorge78]

Originally Posted by Buddha

No I don't. a realistic assessment of your starting quarterback does not mean you hate him.

But you're welcome to think I do, I couldn't care less.

Let me beat you to the punch: I don't think Barry Sanders was the greatest running back of all-time. I don't think Jack Morris belongs in the hall of fame. i think the US soccer team stinks.

You can join the long line of people who say I hate the Lions, the Tigers, and america. welcome to the club!

Barry was the greatest. Jack does belong in the Hall (Based on his post season performances alone) and I hate soccer. I'm sure they suck as well so we agree on something.

[vdlion717]

Originally Posted by DaBishop

What is this "it" you're talking about? Because as far as intangibles go, Sanchez has Stafford beaten hands down in my opinion. I wish I knew what the heck you're seeing that makes you think Stafford has "it" but Sanchez doesn't. Sanchez had one of his best NFL games on the biggest stage of the season against the #4 defense in the league and what was being called by all reports leading into the game the best cornerback duo in the league. How exactly does that tell you he doesn't have "it". Sounds like you just want to justify your homer opinion of Stafford.

Seriously? He complete 12 passes for 182 yds and a single TD... HE didn't win anything! He was rarely touched in that game and the playfakes and rollouts were leaving everybody wide open... I don't recall one tough pass in that game yesterday.

But that really wasn't my point at all I don't think Sanchez is bad, just that he doesn't have to do a single thing and his team will be competitive. I really dont think he won any of his games by himself, and he really only was the cause of one of their losses IIRC.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Also, all this talk about how much Stafford "had" to throw the ball because the Lions sucked. So what? That gave him more opportunities to succeed and prove he was better. He didn't, IMO. At the end of the day, the results were similar.

There is no real reason to address most of your comments as I have in one way or another before, but this quote is particularly noteworthy in it's ridiculousness.

Having to throw more balls doesn't give you more opportunities to succeed - it gives you more chances to fail. When you are forced to throw the ball 40 times a game, you play with more defenders dropping into coverage, you play with your safeties playing pass first, you play with far more risky throws and you have to read a lot more.

For example, a huge portion of Sanchez's throws consisted of play action passes and short, safe passes (the Jets weren't asking them to drive them down field, the Lions are).

To pretend like Stafford's stats in any way benefited from the fact that, as a rookie, he was asked to BE the offense displays a severe misunderstanding of the game today.

The whole reason for the (now incorrect) belief that "a strong defense and a strong running game a successful team make" is that it removes the importance of QB play from a team. Since, back in the day, there were a far lesser percentage of elite QB's in the league - downplaying the importance a QB plays on a team was a huge thing for many teams.

The Falcons used this game plan with Ryan. The Ravens did it better with Flacco. The Jets tried it with Sanchez, but Sanchez still struggled all year (his numbers were far worse than the other two - thus the degree of my criticism for him, he had no business throwing 20 INT's in that offense).

Stafford didn't have that luxury. The fact he was as successful as he was (as a 21 one year old rookie) is all the reason anyone needs to be excited about him.

Stafford's talent has never been an issue - the key to his success was how he meshed with the team. Schwartz seems to love him and, after Cleveland, his entire team would sacrifice their body for him. That is why the Cleveland game is so important - not because it was an impressive win (we all know Cleveland wasn't an elite team), but because it was an impressive display by the man who is now a team leader. That's where most rookie QB's fail - that's why most QB's who enter as Jr's fail.

Stafford has passed the most crucial test a QB faces.

And I will say that, after yesterday, Sanchez has as well. The importance of Sanchez's game against the Jets cannot be stressed enough. I still have doubts about his physical ability - but he won over the team yesterday.

[vdlion717]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

There is no real reason to address most of your comments as I have in one way or another before, but this quote is particularly noteworthy in it's ridiculousness.

Having to throw more balls doesn't give you more opportunities to succeed - it gives you more chances to fail. When you are forced to throw the ball 40 times a game, you play with more defenders dropping into coverage, you play with your safeties playing pass first, you play with far more risky throws and you have to read a lot more.

For example, a huge portion of Sanchez's throws consisted of play action passes and short, safe passes (the Jets weren't asking them to drive them down field, the Lions are).

To pretend like Stafford's stats in any way benefited from the fact that, as a rookie, he was asked to BE the offense displays a severe misunderstanding of the game today.

The whole reason for the (now incorrect) belief that "a strong defense and a strong running game a successful team make" is that it removes the importance of QB play from a team. Since, back in the day, there were a far lesser percentage of elite QB's in the league - downplaying the importance a QB plays on a team was a huge thing for many teams.

The Falcons used this game plan with Ryan. The Ravens did it better with Flacco. The Jets tried it with Sanchez, but Sanchez still struggled all year (his numbers were far worse than the other two - thus the degree of my criticism for him, he had no business throwing 20 INT's in that offense).

Stafford didn't have that luxury. The fact he was as successful as he was (as a 21 one year old rookie) is all the reason anyone needs to be excited about him.

Stafford's talent has never been an issue - the key to his success was how he meshed with the team. Schwartz seems to love him and, after Cleveland, his entire team would sacrifice their body for him. That is why the Cleveland game is so important - not because it was an impressive win (we all know Cleveland wasn't an elite team), but because it was an impressive display by the man who is now a team leader. That's where most rookie QB's fail - that's why most QB's who enter as Jr's fail.

Stafford has passed the most crucial test a QB faces.

And I will say that, after yesterday, Sanchez has as well. The importance of Sanchez's game against the Jets cannot be stressed enough. I still have doubts about his physical ability - but he won over the team yesterday.

Slow Clap...

Your echo my thoughts to the T... Bravo.

[cruzer1]

Another point I'd like to make is that the Lions, to my knowledge, haven't given Stafford a color chart to know when and where to go with a ball. Also, in the Jets 10 wins, Sanchez has thrown over 200 yards once. They win in spite of him, not because of him.

[goldenbeast]

Originally Posted by cruzer1

Another point I'd like to make is that the Lions, to my knowledge, haven't given Stafford a color chart to know when and where to go with a ball. Also, in the Jets 10 wins, Sanchez has thrown over 200 yards once. They win in spite of him, not because of him.

I wouldn't say they win in "spite" of him. I would say they win with him not because of him. Sanchez is an accurate passer but he doesn't have the cannon Stafford has. Sanchez can make passes. He's also a good scrambler. He isn't completely dependent on his team ie Trent Dilfer. But we also have to remember Stafford was picked 1st in the draft and Sanchez was picked 5th. Stafford was guaranteed over 40 million dollars while I think Sanchez got 29 guaranteed. So Stafford should be the better QB.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by goldenbeast

I wouldn't say they win in "spite" of him. I would say they win with him not because of him. Sanchez is an accurate passer but he doesn't have the cannon Stafford has. Sanchez can make passes. He's also a good scrambler. He isn't completely dependent on his team ie Trent Dilfer. But we also have to remember Stafford was picked 1st in the draft and Sanchez was picked 5th. Stafford was guaranteed over 40 million dollars while I think Sanchez got 29 guaranteed. So Stafford should be the better QB.

It could be argued that the Jets gave up more for Sanchez than the Lions for Stafford.

[DTroppens]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Stafford's talent has never been an issue - the key to his success was how he meshed with the team. Schwartz seems to love him and, after Cleveland, his entire team would sacrifice their body for him. That is why the Cleveland game is so important - not because it was an impressive win (we all know Cleveland wasn't an elite team), but because it was an impressive display by the man who is now a team leader. That's where most rookie QB's fail - that's why most QB's who enter as Jr's fail.

Stafford has passed the most crucial test a QB faces.

And I will say that, after yesterday, Sanchez has as well. The importance of Sanchez's game against the Jets cannot be stressed enough. I still have doubts about his physical ability - but he won over the team yesterday.

Did Stafford show the inner-strength to be that leader at QB that the Lions need against Cleveland and in following games by just being on the field? Yes. But, Charlie Batch showed great strides when it came to leadership in his first season as well. Maybe he had a bit more talent and maybe he didn't come on the field with the staff chasing him, but he did show great character and was a leader.

But those things don't matter much if your performance on the field isn't overly impressive. Stafford has had a few nice games. But he's also had a couple bad games for every good game. That's not to say he sucks or anything. He's a rookie QB. He had a sucky season based on pure production. But, on a team like this and him being a rookie, much of that was to be expected. So we all give him a "pass" for some of his actual production. The first year is never the year you are going to say "Yup, this guy is going to be all-world" unless the guy was all-world his first year already.

I think that what he showed in terms of possibly being a leader on this team was the greatest stride he took this year. I think he showed something there. But, sometimes I think people make it out to be a bit more than it is right now. If he starts next year at about the same performance that he produced last year, much of that talk about him "being a great leader" won't matter. You have to produce eventually to be a leader.

I think people are counting chicks before they are hatched much too quickly when it comes to Stafford. I don't understand this great need to make him more than what he's actually been up to this point. No one is going to call him a bust after this year. It would be silly. But, I think a lot of people (including yourself) has a tenedency to remember all the good and forget the bad and say the good is all that matters. The bad, well, that'll all go away in due time. That's the sense I get from a lot of Lions fans, including on this board.

[DTroppens]

Originally Posted by cruzer1

Another point I'd like to make is that the Lions, to my knowledge, haven't given Stafford a color chart to know when and where to go with a ball. Also, in the Jets 10 wins, Sanchez has thrown over 200 yards once. They win in spite of him, not because of him.

What did the Lions do with Stafford this year - lose because of him, lose with him sharing some of the blame, lose despite the fact he was good? I get the feeling most Lions fans suggest it was lose despite the fact that Stafford was good. I don't know if that's what you think, but I think that's a prevailing thought of many Lions fans.
----------------
And to those wanting to fight so hard to prove Sanchez was certainly no better than Stafford but probably worse than Stafford, why is that so important to you to fight that battle? Is it just because that's what MBs are for and there's not much else to talk about. Or is there this burning desire that you want to think the Lions made the right choice? Really, no one can answer that one yet. Or is it something else. Why is there this strong battle to want to "prove" Stafford is better after one year?

[Johnny Mac]

Originally Posted by DTroppens

What did the Lions do with Stafford this year - lose because of him, lose with him sharing some of the blame, lose despite the fact he was good? I get the feeling most Lions fans suggest it was lose despite the fact that Stafford was good. I don't know if that's what you think, but I think that's a prevailing thought of many Lions fans.

I am not sure, I think there was a couple games where we lost and he should get some of the blame. But look at this team, last 2 years they are 2-8 when he starts and 0-22 when he isnt the starter. I also think he is the reason we won the Cleveland game, and he did a pretty good job in the other win. But on the other hand he is probably a big reason we lost the Seattle game. But I surely dont think we are losing games because of him, just because we havent won any without him.

Looking at Sanchez game log I dont see any games where I would say "he is the reason they won". But I would look at games like the NO game, the BUF game, the NE game and the Atlanta game and say man if they had an NFL average qb those games they probably win. Want proof they are winning in spite of him, he was 8-16 63 yds in a win, 7-15 104 yds in a win, 9-16 143 yards in a win. I mean would the Lions have won any of those games with performances like that from their QB?

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by DTroppens

Did Stafford show the inner-strength to be that leader at QB that the Lions need against Cleveland and in following games by just being on the field? Yes. But, Charlie Batch showed great strides when it came to leadership in his first season as well. Maybe he had a bit more talent and maybe he didn't come on the field with the staff chasing him, but he did show great character and was a leader.

Yes, but having great leadership and great character isn't enough to simply be a great QB. You also need talent. Stafford is exponentially more talented, physically, than Charlie Batch.

But those things don't matter much if your performance on the field isn't overly impressive. Stafford has had a few nice games. But he's also had a couple bad games for every good game. That's not to say he sucks or anything. He's a rookie QB. He had a sucky season based on pure production. But, on a team like this and him being a rookie, much of that was to be expected. So we all give him a "pass" for some of his actual production. The first year is never the year you are going to say "Yup, this guy is going to be all-world" unless the guy was all-world his first year already.

I would disagree completely with the notion that he had a 2:1 bad to good game ratio.

Stafford had three A quality performances: Washington, Chicago and Cleveland. He had one B quality performance against Minnesota (2nd game).

Stafford had an awful game @ New Orleans, @ Seattle, vs. St. Louis and vs. Green Bay. You could throw in the Cinci game if you wanted to as well.

Considering the fact the New Orleans game was against a very good defense and his first NFL start ever and the other three were games coming off of injury - I don't think it's a stretch to say that his rookie year was pretty darn good. The St. Louis game he was playing without CJ and had a ridiculous number of dropped passes.

You throw in the fact Stafford was asked to throw the ball more than any other QB in league, had little help in the run game, led the division in dropped passes and had our defense ( combined with two separate injuries) and you HAVE to be impressed with the kid.

I think that what he showed in terms of possibly being a leader on this team was the greatest stride he took this year. I think he showed something there. But, sometimes I think people make it out to be a bit more than it is right now. If he starts next year at about the same performance that he produced last year, much of that talk about him "being a great leader" won't matter. You have to produce eventually to be a leader.

No, if Stafford is showing the same performance in two years that he showed this year- the "being a great leader" won't matter.

I think people are counting chicks before they are hatched much too quickly when it comes to Stafford. I don't understand this great need to make him more than what he's actually been up to this point. No one is going to call him a bust after this year. It would be silly. But, I think a lot of people (including yourself) has a tenedency to remember all the good and forget the bad and say the good is all that matters. The bad, well, that'll all go away in due time. That's the sense I get from a lot of Lions fans, including on this board.

And I think people are so gun shy about finding anything positive with the Lions that they fail to see anything resembling hope. It's an understandable reaction to years of futility.

[Johnny Mac]

Originally Posted by goldenbeast

I wouldn't say they win in "spite" of him. I would say they win with him not because of him. Sanchez is an accurate passer but he doesn't have the cannon Stafford has. Sanchez can make passes. He's also a good scrambler. He isn't completely dependent on his team ie Trent Dilfer. But we also have to remember Stafford was picked 1st in the draft and Sanchez was picked 5th. Stafford was guaranteed over 40 million dollars while I think Sanchez got 29 guaranteed. So Stafford should be the better QB.

You know Sanchez only completed 53 % of his passes this year, the same number that Stafford did. And its even worse IMO, because the games I watched the NYJ play this year they had a dominant run game and teams were stacking the box and Sanchez had a lot of open guys to throw to.

I think its silly to argue who is a better QB after both had their rookie years. Both had subpar seasons by NFL standards but its ok their rookie years. The next two years are going to be where we see who takes the necessary steps forward. At this point I thought Stafford was better out of college and Sanchez has not shown me anything in the NFL to change my mind. So if the draft was re-held today I would still take Stafford.

[DTroppens]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Yes, but having great leadership and great character isn't enough to simply be a great QB. You also need talent. Stafford is exponentially more talented, physically, than Charlie Batch.

He may have more talent than Batch. But to this point he hasn't proven anything more than Batch did during his first year in terms of his production.

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

I would disagree completely with the notion that he had a 2:1 bad to good game ratio.
Stafford had three A quality performances: Washington, Chicago and Cleveland. He had one B quality performance against Minnesota (2nd game). Stafford had an awful game @ New Orleans, @ Seattle, vs. St. Louis and vs. Green Bay. You could throw in the Cinci game if you wanted to as well.

For someone that says you completely disagree, you almost totally agreed. I agree with the three quality performances you mentioned. I think he may have had one "A" game, an that was the Cleveland game. Washington and Chicago were not "A" games. I think I notice a tendency here. If it's good, that means an additional full grade up for him if that's possible. The Vikings game you mention can't be anything higher than a C.

I think the others you have to look at as pretty lousy games. Were there reasons for that poor play that can be attributed toward the games? Sure. Any rookie is going to have bad games, but he had five games with passing ratings of 50 or worse. There better be good reason if you are going to give those games anything higher than an E. That's terrible production from your QB regardless the situation. The game outside that was the first Vikings game - and he wasn't effective in that game. Two picks, limited yardage. Even if you don't want to give that an E, a D isn't a passing grade. I'll stick with my 2-to-1 comment. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

You throw in the fact Stafford was asked to throw the ball more than any other QB in league, had little help in the run game, led the division in dropped passes and had our defense - mixed with two separate injuries and you HAVE to be impressed with the kid.

You throw the "having to throw the ball more than ...." comment whenever you get the chance it seems. It is a legit point. But it's legitimacy DOESN'T RAISE HIS GRADE because it was the case. You act as though, well he threw the ball more than any rookie and that wasn't a great thing, so let's raise his grade 1.5 grades. The fact is he was asked to throw the ball and he's being asked to produce. He didn't do it. Were there factors for that. YES. So don't overly penalize him for it. But you act as though we start with a C for Stafford's grade and then raise it to a B+ because this was the scenario he faced frequently last year. BTW, three of his worst games he threw the ball 33 or less times. The injury is a very legit consideration, but he was still put out there as our best option at the spot. If Stafford was producing 90 ratings and then fell to 45, one would be more apt to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even then, I am apt to give him some benefit of the doubt. But I'm not going to assume if not hurt, he suddenly would've been a 90 rating QB. The three games after the bye week until the injury he had two games in the 40s range and another in the 70s. That's probably what you have to guess he would've done if not injured. And that's not good. I think a lot of the thought was he would've been the Browns game, just a tad worse the rest of the way. At least that must be what people are thinking if they want to take those injury games and say "he would've been better if not for the injury." Sure, he would've been better. But how much better. His past four games indicate he would've been the spotty rookie QB he actually was. Not becoming an unpolished Joe Montana overnight. In short, this line of thinking has more credibility when there's an established track of success before the injury. Before the injury he didn't have that established track record. So, it's hard to give it to him as thought it was a given he was going to be tremendously better.

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

And I think people are so gun shy about finding anything positive with the Lions that they fail to see anything resembling hope. It's an understandable reaction to years of futility.

There can be some truth to this, but I think even the most staunch negative person about Stafford (it may be me) has pointed out positives during the games that he's been good. That Cleveland game he did exactly what you suggested earlier - he showed great leadership. He showed a ton of what makes him who he is. That's great to see and it may be a tremendous attribute in the future. Heck, it'll be a tremendous attribute as he learns how to be an effective QB in the NFL. But there is reason why people (including myself) say he didn't have a good season. At the end of the day you are graded for production, and his production lacked severely. Just check the stats. As bad as Culpepper was, it's hard to decide who had the better season, especially once one looks at the statistics. Without looking, I think Stafford only wins by a bit. He was throwing picks over 5% of the time. That's not a good QB. Even Cutler didn't average a pick every 20 throws, and he had 26 of them. But, even with all the negative talk I've placed, I don't put a huge amount of stock into this year. You expect a rookie QB in this scenario to fail (one of the reasons why I don't like making picks like this). You expect them to struggle a ton if they are first-year starters regardless of the scenario. Some don't but most do. Knowing that, you look at this season as a great experience that he can put under his belt and move on. It's what he does after a playing-filled first year that matters. At the end of his career we won't be rating him on this year no matter how any of us thought about this season. It's what he does in year two, and probably even more important year three when he should be ready to blossom. But I see nothing wrong with people suggesting what Stafford was this year. He was one of the contributing factors to why the Lions lost most of the games he played in this year. He also was a key factor to why they won both games, and that's nice to realize as well. Two other QBs on this team can't say that.

[DTroppens]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mac

Y
I think its silly to argue who is a better QB after both had their rookie years. Both had subpar seasons by NFL standards but its ok their rookie years. The next two years are going to be where we see who takes the necessary steps forward.

I agree.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Originally Posted by kgeorge78

Barry was the greatest. Jack does belong in the Hall (Based on his post season performances alone) and I hate soccer. I'm sure they suck as well so we agree on something.

Barry Sanders was a top 5 RB all-time, IMO, but I don't think he was the best. He was probably the most elusive back ever.

Without exaggerating an inch, there are 25 men, possibly 50, who are more deserving of the HoF than Jack Morris. Of course, given the last two HoF selections, the BBWAA will probably vote in Morris in 2011, because they apparently don't bother to truly study the issue of how effective a given player was, and instead choose to buy into a bunch of hype. Also, Jack's post-season record is nothing special.

I think the US soccer team is OK, but is definately is nowhere near to being an elite team.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

Barry Sanders was a top 5 RB all-time, IMO, but I don't think he was the best. He was probably the most elusive back ever.

Without exaggerating an inch, there are 25 men, possibly 50, who are more deserving of the HoF than Jack Morris. Of course, given the last two HoF selections, the BBWAA will probably vote in Morris in 2011, because they apparently don't bother to truly study the issue of how effective a given player was, and instead choose to buy into a bunch of hype. Also, Jack's post-season record is nothing special.

I think the US soccer team is OK, but is definately is nowhere near to being an elite team.

I see you hate the Lions, Tigers and America too. Nice.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mac

I think its silly to argue who is a better QB after both had their rookie years. Both had subpar seasons by NFL standards but its ok their rookie years. The next two years are going to be where we see who takes the necessary steps forward. At this point I thought Stafford was better out of college and Sanchez has not shown me anything in the NFL to change my mind. So if the draft was re-held today I would still take Stafford.

I agree with most of that.

[84 Lives!!!]

Originally Posted by Buddha

...Although he wasn't my first choice, I like Stafford... I like Sanchez better, but I could be wrong...

Just so I have this correct:

If you controlled the Lions draft selection last year, and had a choice of either Stafford or Sanchez (ONLY those two, to exclude other variables...), you would pick Sanchez and let Stafford fall to the Jets?

Because you like Sanchez better than Stafford?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I see you hate the Lions, Tigers and America too. Nice.

I love to hate and I hate to love.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by 84 Lives!!!

Just so I have this correct:

If you controlled the Lions draft selection last year, and had a choice of either Stafford or Sanchez (ONLY those two, to exclude other variables...), you would pick Sanchez and let Stafford fall to the Jets?

Because you like Sanchez better than Stafford?

Before the draft I said I wanted a left tackle. Sanchez was, IIRC, my third choice.

But yes, I would have taken Sanchez over Stafford. I liked him more coming out of school.

IIRC, I was ok with the Stafford pick because they need a QB, but liked others more. I don't remember what I thought about Pettigrew but in hindsight, I think it was ok (but would have rather gone defense or oline). Delmas was ok, I guess. I hated the Levy pick. I hated the Williams pick. I liked the Hill pick and, some might be surprised, the Murtha pick.

One things for certain: There's a reason why I'm not a scout (says the man who loved the Darko AND Mike Williams picks!)

[goldenbeast]

Don't forget Sanchez has over 200 yards passing and 2 TDs if Edwards catches the ball.

[goldenbeast]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

It could be argued that the Jets gave up more for Sanchez than the Lions for Stafford.

Actually, the Jets gave up very little to move from 17 in the first round to number 5. I mean Mike Ditka gave up his enitre draft for the Ricky Williams trade.

[DaBishop]

Originally Posted by cruzer1

Another point I'd like to make is that the Lions, to my knowledge, haven't given Stafford a color chart to know when and where to go with a ball. Also, in the Jets 10 wins, Sanchez has thrown over 200 yards once. They win in spite of him, not because of him.

I'm not going to argue this point, but I will say this doesn't do anything to prop up your argument that Stafford is better because the Lions didn't win at all. You want to say that he won the Cleveland game single-handedly that's great I guess, but you can't hold it against Sanchez that he didn't have to do much against the worst teams he played.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by DTroppens

He may have more talent than Batch. But to this point he hasn't proven anything more than Batch did during his first year in terms of his production.

Can't argue with that.

For someone that says you completely disagree, you almost totally agreed. I agree with the three quality performances you mentioned. I think he may have had one "A" game, an that was the Cleveland game. Washington and Chicago were not "A" games. I think I notice a tendency here. If it's good, that means an additional full grade up for him if that's possible. The Vikings game you mention can't be anything higher than a C.

I don't understand how you couldn't grade Washington an A game. He led two 90+ yard drives, made plays happen on his feet and with his arm. A grade games aren't simply about gaudy numbers (like Cleveland's 5 TD game) or ridiculous, career defining moments (like the last TD), but about constantly sustaining drives. About making plays by yourself. About making your team better.

Stafford did that against Washington.

In Chicago he threw for almost 300 yards in the first half. Inexplicably our gameplan in the second half went to emphasize the run instead of the pass and special teams fell apart. His performance in that game was a good performance for any NFL QB.

The Vikings game was absolutely a good, not average, performance considering the quality of defense we were going against and Stafford's own performance. He, again, led drives when he had to and was able to consistently move us down field.

I don't disagree with the fact Stafford had bad games - I have no interest in ignoring the obvious - but his bad moments were almost always met with a comparable good one. For every mistake he made, he made a tremendous play. The idea that Stafford did more bad than good simply, IMO, doesn't match up with what occurred on the field.

Now in order to be a great NFL QB you obviously can't be 50/50. But as a rookie, in the situation he was in, it's an absolutely tremendous start to what I expect to be a brilliant career.

You throw the "having to throw the ball more than ...." comment whenever you get the chance it seems. It is a legit point. But it's legitimacy DOESN'T RAISE HIS GRADE because it was the case. You act as though, well he threw the ball more than any rookie and that wasn't a great thing, so let's raise his grade 1.5 grades. The fact is he was asked to throw the ball and he's being asked to produce. He didn't do it. Were there factors for that. YES. So don't overly penalize him for it. But you act as though we start with a C for Stafford's grade and then raise it to a B+ because this was the scenario he faced frequently last year. BTW, three of his worst games he threw the ball 33 or less times.

No, you do have to weigh his production to the situation at hand.

A QB that is able to put up a great statistical game by throwing 25 times with no INT's and 1 TD is going to have a tremendous QB rating.

A QB that is forced to make plays, throwing 38 times a game with 1 TD and 2 INT's is going to have a god awful QB rating.

Does that mean the second QB is a worse QB? No. Does that mean that the second QB cost him team the game? No.

You have to look at more than simply the stats when evaluating play - especially when you are evaluating rookies and when the conversation is focused on potential. Not all games are equal, not all stats are equal.

When a QB has no running game and forced to take the game on his shoulders - his chances of throwing TD's certainly goes up, but his chances of throwing an INT increasing far more dramatically. That's basic football logic.

The injury is a very legit consideration, but he was still put out there as our best option at the spot. If Stafford was producing 90 ratings and then fell to 45, one would be more apt to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even then, I am apt to give him some benefit of the doubt. But I'm not going to assume if not hurt, he suddenly would've been a 90 rating QB. The three games after the bye week until the injury he had two games in the 40s range and another in the 70s. That's probably what you have to guess he would've done if not injured. And that's not good. I think a lot of the thought was he would've been the Browns game, just a tad worse the rest of the way. At least that must be what people are thinking if they want to take those injury games and say "he would've been better if not for the injury." Sure, he would've been better. But how much better. His past four games indicate he would've been the spotty rookie QB he actually was.

Stafford two games before Knee Injury:

QB Rating average 88.5

Stafford two games after knee injury:

QB Rating average 46.5

His QB rating then improved the next two games:

QB Rating average 90

Suffered injury in that last game and he finished the last two games with a QB rating around 44.

What you described actually happened.

As bad as Culpepper was, it's hard to decide who had the better season, especially once one looks at the statistics.

That's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by goldenbeast

Actually, the Jets gave up very little to move from 17 in the first round to number 5. I mean Mike Ditka gave up his enitre draft for the Ricky Williams trade.

Value compared to pass years doesn't change the fact that the Lions still have their second round pick, and the Jets don't.

[sagnam]

You can tell the people who've lost objectivity by the number of times they say "considering".

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Value compared to pass years doesn't change the fact that the Lions still have their second round pick, and the Jets don't.

Although I don't think the Jets would change a thing if they could (that would include taking Stafford over Sanchez at this point). Sanchez has given them as much as anyone would expect from a rookie.

I like Stafford, but don't feel good or bad about his first season. I would have liked to have seen more out of him, but that is often the unrealistic side of me talking when you have a team with as many needs as the Lions have.

I too don't believe that Stafford had a fantastic year, but if I had to rate it with a rookie curve, I would definitely give him a 7 out of 10. Comparing him to all other QB's, he is a 5 at best this year.

I try and compare him to Peyton Manning (due to the hype of being the #1 pick and having a similar look in terms of the way they play). His first year in Indy was pretty bad, but he was able to stay injury free (unlike Stafford). After a year or two, IMO, he single handily built his offense. He had some good players around him, but he was obviously the key to this teams turnaround. He made everyone around him better and continues to do it with new players. I'm hoping that Stafford has the ability to do that! We'll see come year two and three.

[Buddha]

I don't think any of us can comment on how Stafford's injuries did or did not affect his play. Unless we're in the locker room, we have no idea.

It's kind of the same principle behind the "Stafford is making the right reads" comments you hear so many times. How would any of us know? We don't have the benefit of seeing the whole field.

It's fun to play armchair GM or armchair talent evaluator (I fail at it all the time), but lets not get too excited about our abilities to judge talent.

[DaBishop]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Value compared to pass years doesn't change the fact that the Lions still have their second round pick, and the Jets don't.

Jets have a playoff win...that's pretty good value. Didn't do it last year with Brett Favre...

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I don't think any of us can comment on how Stafford's injuries did or did not affect his play. Unless we're in the locker room, we have no idea.

It's kind of the same principle behind the "Stafford is making the right reads" comments you hear so many times. How would any of us know? We don't have the benefit of seeing the whole field.

It's fun to play armchair GM or armchair talent evaluator (I fail at it all the time), but lets not get too excited about our abilities to judge talent.

I agree. All we can do is compare him to similar rookies (at least in my mind) from the past decade or so. Stafford just doesn't stand out yet. Even when Manning was struggling in Indy, he still had about 25 TD's and 25 INT's. So he average less than 2 TD's a game. He also had around 3500 yards (it might have been closer to 4000 though). So he was averaging about 250 yards a game.

Right now, Sanchez is looking more like the next Manning than Stafford is. Although if I'm a betting man, I would bet on Stafford being more like Manning than Sanchez over an entire career. Bottom line is Stafford just had a decent year. It wasn't really good or bad IMO. If he does the same thing next year, than it will be REAL bad, but he is a rookie and he is allowed some growing pains on a bad team! That is something else that added pressure to Sanchez. If he failed, with all the help he has, than he could easily have been run out of town in a year or two. Being a rookie QB on a good NFL team is a TON of pressure that no rookie QB has had to face in Detroit! Barring a disaster, Stafford probably has another 2 FULL seasons in Detroit. That makes things a lot easier IMO.

[DTroppens]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Can't argue with that.

I don't understand how you couldn't grade Washington an A game. He led two 90+ yard drives, made plays happen on his feet and with his arm. A grade games aren't simply about gaudy numbers (like Cleveland's 5 TD game) or ridiculous, career defining moments (like the last TD), but about constantly sustaining drives. About making plays by yourself. About making your team better.

Stafford did that against Washington.

In Chicago he threw for almost 300 yards in the first half. Inexplicably our gameplan in the second half went to emphasize the run instead of the pass and special teams fell apart. His performance in that game was a good performance for any NFL QB.

The Vikings game was absolutely a good, not average, performance considering the quality of defense we were going against and Stafford's own performance. He, again, led drives when he had to and was able to consistently move us down field.

I understand now. Anytime Stafford has glimpses of brilliance, it's an A grade. My GOD. An A grade doesn't come easy. I don't see anything wrong with grading those games as Bs. You make anytime Stafford does ANYTHING positive - and I mean just about ANYTHING - HOF-like.

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

I don't disagree with the fact Stafford had bad games - I have no interest in ignoring the obvious - but his bad moments were almost always met with a comparable good one. For every mistake he made, he made a tremendous play. The idea that Stafford did more bad than good simply, IMO, doesn't match up with what occurred on the field.

Now in order to be a great NFL QB you obviously can't be 50/50. But as a rookie, in the situation he was in, it's an absolutely tremendous start to what I expect to be a brilliant career.

It's not a tremendous start. It's about what you'd expect from a rookie. Bad games, good games. More bad than good.

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

No, you do have to weigh his production to the situation at hand.

A QB that is able to put up a great statistical game by throwing 25 times with no INT's and 1 TD is going to have a tremendous QB rating.

A QB that is forced to make plays, throwing 38 times a game with 1 TD and 2 INT's is going to have a god awful QB rating.

Does that mean the second QB is a worse QB? No. Does that mean that the second QB cost him team the game? No.

You have to look at more than simply the stats when evaluating play - especially when you are evaluating rookies and when the conversation is focused on potential. Not all games are equal, not all stats are equal.

When a QB has no running game and forced to take the game on his shoulders - his chances of throwing TD's certainly goes up, but his chances of throwing an INT increasing far more dramatically. That's basic football logic.

Well, thanks for telling me what's basic football logic. I hardly had any sense of it before this post. Are there harder situations. YES. I've said it a million times. YES! But you don't grade up for not accomplishing the task on hand when you fail in these situations. You grade up when they face those adverse situations and succeed. Stafford was among the worst productive QBs in the NFL last year. Say it as much as you want he wasn't, HE WAS. Did he have adversity? Were there reasons? YES, I'll say it 1,000,000 times if you want. YES he did. But, you act as though we should make mediocre games into 33-for-43 with 372 yards and four score games because he faced those adverse situations. That doesn't compute. If he was a middle-of-the road QB this year despite the adversity I'd give it you. I'd say some of the stuff you are saying. If he was modestly below average, I may say it. But he wasn't. Not by a statistical analysis. Not by the eye test. Not by the offensive production of his arm. Not by the ability to limit turnovers. Not in his ability to win games. Throw out a few more if you want. He wasn't average, or even modesty below average. Say what you want about QB rating. It's not my favorite stat of the world, but since you POSTED IT IN YOUR RESPONSE, he was the 29th best QB in QB rating. That's 29. Is it the end all stat of the world? No. But if someone is 29 out of 32 qualifying QBs, there's something that didn't go right. That's not even competitive with being a semi-below average QB, no matter how you want to gift-wrap it. It just isn't. Joey Harrington's rookie season was considerably better, and that team wasn't loaded with talent either.

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Stafford two games before Knee Injury:

QB Rating average 88.5

Stafford two games after knee injury:

QB Rating average 46.5

His QB rating then improved the next two games:

QB Rating average 90

Suffered injury in that last game and he finished the last two games with a QB rating around 44.

What you described actually happened.

I think you know I was taking it from a point where it was obvious he was playing hurt - the shoulder.

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

That's ridiculous.

If you think Stafford was an A quarterback this year and that Culpepper graded out at an E, yeah it's ridiculous. But from a sheer productivity standpoint, it's ridiculous to suggest Stafford was an A QB, which is easy to assume he was this year based on your words you use to describe his season. I think tremendous was used a few times. That's pretty much an A. When you rate in the bottom five QBs in the NFL, it's fair to say you probably was one of the bottom third QBs in terms of your true production. That's not an A. That's not even a B in the most adverse of situations. And, because he was probably one of the 5-6 worst starting QBs this season, it's probably more like a D. Culpepper was an E. Not much difference.

[vdlion717]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I agree. All we can do is compare him to similar rookies (at least in my mind) from the past decade or so. Stafford just doesn't stand out yet. Even when Manning was struggling in Indy, he still had about 25 TD's and 25 INT's. So he average less than 2 TD's a game. He also had around 3500 yards (it might have been closer to 4000 though). So he was averaging about 250 yards a game.

Right now, Sanchez is looking more like the next Manning than Stafford is. Although if I'm a betting man, I would bet on Stafford being more like Manning than Sanchez over an entire career. Bottom line is Stafford just had a decent year. It wasn't really good or bad IMO. If he does the same thing next year, than it will be REAL bad, but he is a rookie and he is allowed some growing pains on a bad team! That is something else that added pressure to Sanchez. If he failed, with all the help he has, than he could easily have been run out of town in a year or two. Being a rookie QB on a good NFL team is a TON of pressure that no rookie QB has had to face in Detroit! Barring a disaster, Stafford probably has another 2 FULL seasons in Detroit. That makes things a lot easier IMO.

IIRC At the halfway point of this season, Staffords statistics were nearly IDENTICAL to Mannings in his rookie year, it was very strange. Stafford got hurt and that was the end of that... I don't remember the article but I'm sure somebody posted it in here at some point.

EDIT: Found the article

http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2009/1...e-in-his-first

It was his first 6 games not 8 but you get the point.

[DTroppens]

What it comes down to is the Lions knew they were probably going to get poor production from a rookie QB. But, he probably did win the job out of camp AND he is the future. The sooner he gets out there and learns, the better.

This year was almost a scrapped year. Nothing out there around Stafford. He was just learning the NFL. He was supposed to be bad, based on NFL standards of what a starting QB should be. But the experience he got this year should mean tons for him next season. And if not by then, certainly his third year.

With all this talk about good or bad this year for Stafford, it really doesn't matter at all. No one is going to ultimately judge him on what he did this year. It's the next two that he's got to show he was worth that No. 1 pick overall.

[Stormin' Norman]

Originally Posted by DTroppens

I understand now. Anytime Stafford has glimpses of brilliance, it's an A grade. My GOD. An A grade doesn't come easy. I don't see anything wrong with grading those games as Bs. You make anytime Stafford does ANYTHING positive - and I mean just about ANYTHING - HOF-like.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

It's not a tremendous start. It's about what you'd expect from a rookie. Bad games, good games. More bad than good.

Again, I disagree mainly due to the amount of pressure placed upon Stafford's shoulders. No rookie has ever been asked to throw the ball as much Stafford was this year.

Well, thanks for telling me what's basic football logic. I hardly had any sense of it before this post. Are there harder situations. YES. I've said it a million times. YES! But you don't grade up for not accomplishing the task on hand when you fail in these situations. You grade up when they face those adverse situations and succeed. Stafford was among the worst productive QBs in the NFL last year. Say it as much as you want he wasn't, HE WAS. Did he have adversity? Were there reasons? YES, I'll say it 1,000,000 times if you want. YES he did. But, you act as though we should make mediocre games into 33-for-43 with 372 yards and four score games because he faced those adverse situations. That doesn't compute. If he was a middle-of-the road QB this year despite the adversity I'd give it you. I'd say some of the stuff you are saying. If he was modestly below average, I may say it. But he wasn't. Not by a statistical analysis. Not by the eye test. Not by the offensive production of his arm. Not by the ability to limit turnovers. Not in his ability to win games. Throw out a few more if you want. He wasn't average, or even modesty below average. Say what you want about QB rating. It's not my favorite stat of the world, but since you POSTED IT IN YOUR RESPONSE, he was the 29th best QB in QB rating. That's 29. Is it the end all stat of the world? No. But if someone is 29 out of 32 qualifying QBs, there's something that didn't go right. That's not even competitive with being a semi-below average QB, no matter how you want to gift-wrap it. It just isn't. Joey Harrington's rookie season was considerably better, and that team wasn't loaded with talent either.

And what I am saying is that you can't simply evaluate a QB based purely on stats. Stats don't show you the game. Stafford's QB rating was below Sanchez's even though Sanchez had fewer TD's, the same amount of INT's and was asked to throw the ball less times with safer pass patterns.

Again, I am not talking about Stafford as he compares against Peyton Manning or Drew Brees or Matt Schaub. I am talking about evaluating Stafford as a rookie QB. I am talking about comparing Stafford's performance this year compared to rookies past, present and future - because it's absurd and ridiculous to compare his performance on the field to anything else.

I think Stafford's performance this was was as impressive as Flacco's last year, or Ryan's last year - for different reasons. Flacco and Ryan made less mistakes because they weren't put in situations to make mistakes.

I think you know I was taking it from a point where it was obvious he was playing hurt - the shoulder.

Considering there were two injuries this year, I had no idea.

If you think Stafford was an A quarterback this year and that Culpepper graded out at an E, yeah it's ridiculous. But from a sheer productivity standpoint, it's ridiculous to suggest Stafford was an A QB, which is easy to assume he was this year based on your words you use to describe his season. I think tremendous was used a few times. That's pretty much an A. When you rate in the bottom five QBs in the NFL, it's fair to say you probably was one of the bottom third QBs in terms of your true production. That's not an A. That's not even a B in the most adverse of situations. And, because he was probably one of the 5-6 worst starting QBs this season, it's probably more like a D. Culpepper was an E. Not much difference.

I am saying Stafford was an A quarterback as a rookie. I am saying that if you compare Culpepper, everything equal, have to say Stafford's year was far more outstanding because it HAS to be uplifted by his age and inexperience. That and the fact Stafford was simply more productive than Culpepper.

[Yoda]

Yet another overly-predictable Lions discussion. Cruzer and co. go "rah-rah", Buddha goes "zomg you're wrong, he sucks!!", Hongbit comes out as the voice of reason and about the only one not completely biased one way or the other or holding on to some past agenda. I have to say, I could have called this, but it was interesting none-the-less.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Yet another overly-predictable Lions discussion. Cruzer and co. go "rah-rah", Buddha goes "zomg you're wrong, he sucks!!", Hongbit comes out as the voice of reason and about the only one not completely biased one way or the other or holding on to some past agenda. I have to say, I could have called this, but it was interesting none-the-less.

Speaking of predictable, it's Yoda with no opinions on the subject at hand, but plenty of criticisms of those who do.

Come back when you have something remotely interesting to say about anything.

[Hongbit]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Speaking of predictable, it's Yoda with no opinions on the subject at hand, but plenty of criticisms of those who do.

Come back when you have something remotely interesting to say about anything.

I found his last post to be both interesting and accurate.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Speaking of predictable, it's Yoda with no opinions on the subject at hand, but plenty of criticisms of those who do.

Come back when you have something remotely interesting to say about anything.

And as usual, you deflect. And since when do I never have opinions on anything? That's new to me...

I got to watch 1 whole game this year, and highlights from a bunch of others, so I have no opinion on this subject. That's why I took the time to read the thread. To hopefully gain some understanding of how he performed. Some people are too bent on being homers that they aren't able to give a objective analysis, and some people are too bent on bringing down homerism to give a objective analysis. My general feeling is that he did exactly what was expected, sucked, but at least showed signs of potential that I don't remember ever seeing with any Lions QB, so I'll take that at least. He'll need to improve a lot next season though.

[DaBishop]

Originally Posted by Stormin' Norman

Again, I disagree mainly due to the amount of pressure placed upon Stafford's shoulders. No rookie has ever been asked to throw the ball as much Stafford was this year.

Exactly what pressure is on Stafford that isn't on any other rookie QB's shoulders? He was the QB of a team that absolutely nothing was expected of...in fact as proof, he won one game and was the 29th rated QB in the league and some fans, not naming names, are calling his season an extraordinary season. That doesn't make for a Billy Joel song by any stretch.

If any rookie QB had pressure it was Sanchez who is consistently being questioned about his play by the media...and which media? Oh only the toughest media to deal with in the US.(Pressure!) He took his team to the playoffs, won a road playoff game in sub-zero conditions against the #4 defense in the league(Pressure!), there are those who are saying his season was practically a failure and that he's just lucky he had the team he did or he'd have been even worse then he was.(Pressure!)

I don't think Stafford faced even close to the amount of pressure in his first season that Mark Sanchez did. Not even remotely.

[sagnam]

Originally Posted by DaBishop

Exactly what pressure is on Stafford that isn't on any other rookie QB's shoulders? He was the QB of a team that absolutely nothing was expected of...in fact as proof, he won one game and was the 29th rated QB in the league and some fans, not naming names, are calling his season an extraordinary season. That doesn't make for a Billy Joel song by any stretch.

If any rookie QB had pressure it was Sanchez who is consistently being questioned about his play by the media...and which media? Oh only the toughest media to deal with in the US.(Pressure!) He took his team to the playoffs, won a road playoff game in sub-zero conditions against the #4 defense in the league(Pressure!), there are those who are saying his season was practically a failure and that he's just lucky he had the team he did or he'd have been even worse then he was.(Pressure!)

I don't think Stafford faced even close to the amount of pressure in his first season that Mark Sanchez did. Not even remotely.

Here, let me template the response you are going to get. Considering __________, Stafford clearly had it worse.