Jump to content

RedRamage

What's wrong with the Offense?

Recommended Posts

I find it a waste of time to argue points that require only common sense to perceive. And at any rate, you are the one who has the burden of proof.

You are the one making the assertion (it doesn't deserve to be called an argument) that there is no connection between last year's record and this year's. You are aware, aren't you, that at the start of the season, 38 of the Lions' 53 man roster had been on the team last year. That is 72%, and includes the most important player, the QB.

So why don't you make an argument, rather than a baseless assertion, for how it is possible that the team has been wholly remade such that it is wholly disconnected from last year's team with just 28% roster turnover.

I feel fairly confident I can answer this on his behalf. 100% of the problems that the Lions had last year was due to Schwartz. If it weren't for Schwartz we would have most likely been in the Super Bowl game. Mayhew made the astute observation that Schwartz was the #1 culprit, fired him and hired Caldwell and now the Lions are on a clean slate that will soon be filled with Super Bowl victories and haters (like you and I) looking all grumpy faced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echo nailed it.

There is no burden of proof on my end, we are talking about future outcomes. There is no statistic around that allows you predict the rest of the season based on the second half of last season. And the 72% stat of returning players means absolutely nothing. It could be 53 out of 53, still wouldn't matter. No season is ever the same. One season literally has nothing to do with another, ever, in any sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel fairly confident I can answer this on his behalf. 100% of the problems that the Lions had last year was due to Schwartz. If it weren't for Schwartz we would have most likely been in the Super Bowl game. Mayhew made the astute observation that Schwartz was the #1 culprit, fired him and hired Caldwell and now the Lions are on a clean slate that will soon be filled with Super Bowl victories and haters (like you and I) looking all grumpy faced.

I wonder why he doesn't post on M-Live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder why he doesn't post on M-Live.

lol, keep being a hater. It's no skin off my back, I'm glad I can actually enjoy a lions win.

You're the type that complains about not getting $1000 when someone gives up $900.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, keep being a hater. It's no skin off my back, I'm glad I can actually enjoy a lions win.

You're the type that complains about not getting $1000 when someone gives up $900.

Troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then that was simply a misunderstanding on my part and possibly wasn't the best way to get your point across either. So to clarify, I do like big TE and WR as red zone targets, I was a huge fan of Fauria because of this. However, I think that a more talented QB will be able to get more out of those big, talented WR/TE. I think it is very much false that other QBs aren't capable of elevating their receivers. The fact that Manning was able to get so much more out of Decker/Thomas should be testament to that. Great QB are able to make receivers look better, the statistics point to this time and time again. Denver may be the best example of this as considering that the coaches and many of the players have stayed the same outside of Manning and the offense is better across the board. Once some of those players left (Decker) they aren't producing nearly as much as with Manning. Should be clear as day that the ability of the QB is a factor when factoring most WR's production.

We can agree the WPA vs. EPA is confusing, at least we have that. :)

Yah, I've never been much of a believer in QBs making WRs. Elevating though, absolutely. Peyton played with elite talent, most of whom were first round draft picks for his whole career. There isn't a huge sample size, but we've seen guys move on and have success without him. Garcon is still a stud in Washington, The only difference in Reggie Wayne's stats with Painter instead of Manning is the # of targets. I don't get the notion that Stafford hasn't elevated any WRs though. Have you ever seen the weapons he's had, beyond Calvin, praised by anyone in either the metric or scouting communities? I think its pretty universally agreed upon that his non Calvin wide WRs suck. I don't think you can put up the volume numbers he has without elevating any of those guys. 3 WRs departed the team this offsesason, who caught a combined 1,000 yards for us last year. None of them has a single NFL catch this year. You see anyone pick up Tony Scheffler after we cut him, a year after having 500 yards for us? He's gotten some production out of guys like Ross and Fuller this year. Tate's on pace for 400 more yards than he had in Seattle as a full time #1 WR. Calvin also averages more ypg with Stafford than other QBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So then explain it to me. The description of the stat says: "The difference between a team’s Win Probability (WP) at the start of a play and the WP at the end of the play. WPA is the measure of a play’s impact on the outcome of a game. An individual player’s WPA is the sum of the WPA of the plays in which that player was directly involved. Being directly involved is defined as an offensive player who ran, threw, or kicked the ball, was targeted by a pass, or flagged for a penalty. Defensive players are credited for WPA when they tackle or sack the ball carrier, are credited with an assisted tackle or sack, cause a fumble, defend a pass, or are flagged for a penalty."

This makes it sound like a stat that adds up all the individual plays that effect win probability, with a +WPA meaning they are involved in more positive plays than negative plays and a -WPA meaning they are involved in more negative plays than positives. This would seem to suggest that the players with higher WPA are worth more wins than those with lesser WPA (they are involved in more positive plays than negative). Now, my confusion stems from Stafford having a higher WPA than Luck while having a lower EPA. How can Stafford be involved in more positive plays than Luck but be worth significantly less additional points?

So if WPA isn't a direct comparison, and it isn't useful as a "WAR" type stat than what is the purpose? What does Stafford having a +1.47 WPA tell us? He has a better chance of coming back in games that look to be losses? This doesn't really make sense because Manning leads the league in WPA and the Broncos have been winning handedly so the stat doesn't really seem to quantify come from behind ability. Stafford very obviously isn't worth more "wins" than Andrew Luck or Tom Brady, the more traditional stats and the eye test make that blatantly apparent.

So in summary; WPA doesn't effectively calculate additional wins over replacement in the same sense that "WAR" does in baseball, it doesn't effectively calculate or quantify coming from behind since Manning has had to do that very little, it doesn't calculate additional points added verse replacement like EPA does (which seems more like a WAR stat)...so what does WPA quantify and why should I care about it?

And no one is hating to hate, stop that. That is ignorant to even say. People are "hating" because we have won NOTHING yet. Mayhew has been here six years and won NOTHING. Not a single playoff game. His record against winning teams is something awful like 2-28. Get off your high horse. I can't speak for everyone but I have personally said over and over that I will give Mayhew credit when he does something. Win a playoff game, beat some teams over .500 on a regular basis. Some fans have higher expectations than zero playoff wins and an abysmal record against decent teams, you should expect more.

WPA and WAR aim to tell you basically the exact same thing, how much a player helps you win games. You are quite off here IMO. Its possible I'm misinterpreting the stat, so I apologize if so. I don't see any evidence for the claims you make here though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yah, I've never been much of a believer in QBs making WRs. Elevating though, absolutely. Peyton played with elite talent, most of whom were first round draft picks for his whole career. There isn't a huge sample size, but we've seen guys move on and have success without him. Garcon is still a stud in Washington, The only difference in Reggie Wayne's stats with Painter instead of Manning is the # of targets. I don't get the notion that Stafford hasn't elevated any WRs though. Have you ever seen the weapons he's had, beyond Calvin, praised by anyone in either the metric or scouting communities? I think its pretty universally agreed upon that his non Calvin wide WRs suck. I don't think you can put up the volume numbers he has without elevating any of those guys. 3 WRs departed the team this offsesason, who caught a combined 1,000 yards for us last year. None of them has a single NFL catch this year. You see anyone pick up Tony Scheffler after we cut him, a year after having 500 yards for us? He's gotten some production out of guys like Ross and Fuller this year. Tate's on pace for 400 more yards than he had in Seattle as a full time #1 WR. Calvin also averages more ypg with Stafford than other QBs.

I don't think he has had good WR outside of Calvin, I have said this on multiple occasions and that is 100% Mayhew's fault.

Scheffler hasn't put up big numbers since, but he routinely averaged 400-500 yards prior. Maybe it was age and after 8 years of NFL experience finally took it's toll?

Ross and Fuller are on pace for less than 400 yards. Nothing special here.

Seattle and Detroit play completely different offensive schemes. Run first vs. pass first. I don't expect anything less than 400+ more yards.

Yes, Stafford is better than Kitna, Orlovsky, and Garcia...but the numbers really aren't THAT different. Calvin got his regardless of QB, he has been a bit better under Stafford (mostly due to targets/receptions) but Calvin always got his.

I think we are agreeing much more than you imagine on this regard. You think Stafford is a bit higher than #12, I see him more around the #16-17 range. Much ado about nothing.

Edit:

One thing I imagine we can agree on is that Mayhew has failed to construct an offense that can succeed without Calvin Johnson over his last six years. Without Johnson this offense is just awful. It's very disappointing IMO that we have spent so many resources on the offense and still have very little outside of Johnson (and now Tate) to show for it. All those wasted WR picks, the wasted RB picks, the wasted money on FA running backs, very average offensive line, waste of picks/money on tight ends...it's a train wreck.

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WPA and WAR aim to tell you basically the exact same thing, how much a player helps you win games. You are quite off here IMO. Its possible I'm misinterpreting the stat, so I apologize if so. I don't see any evidence for the claims you make here though.

T&P disagrees with you and the stat is inherently flawed then. Any stat that suggests Stafford helps the Lions win more games than Luck or Brady so far this season is broken in my opinion.

Rank these QB:

QB1:

66% Comp, 2,331 yards, 19 TD, 7 INT, 76.7 QBR, 100.5 RAT

QB2:

61.4% Comp, 1,705 yards, 13 TD, 2 INT, 69.3 QBR, 96.3 RAT

QB3:

63% Comp, 1.891 yards, 9 TD, 6 INT, 60.3 QBR, 87.9 RAT

It's not even sort of close. Stafford does not help his team win more than the other two, to suggest such is silly.

Edit:

For the record, I agree with you that WPA seemed to be a WAR type stat. T&P said it wasn't, so I was attempting to better understand the stat and try and figure out what it could possibly quantify if it wasn't a WAR type stat. I think T&P may just be off base a bit.

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think he has had good WR outside of Calvin, I have said this on multiple occasions and that is 100% Mayhew's fault.

Scheffler hasn't put up big numbers since, but he routinely averaged 400-500 yards prior. Maybe it was age and after 8 years of NFL experience finally took it's toll?

Ross and Fuller are on pace for less than 400 yards. Nothing special here.

Seattle and Detroit play completely different offensive schemes. Run first vs. pass first. I don't expect anything less than 400+ more yards.

Yes, Stafford is better than Kitna, Orlovsky, and Garcia...but the numbers really aren't THAT different. Calvin got his regardless of QB, he has been a bit better under Stafford (mostly due to targets/receptions) but Calvin always got his.

I think we are agreeing much more than you imagine on this regard. You think Stafford is a bit higher than #12, I see him more around the #16-17 range. Much ado about nothing.

Edit:

One thing I imagine we can agree on is that Mayhew has failed to construct an offense that can succeed without Calvin Johnson over his last six years. Without Johnson this offense is just awful. It's very disappointing IMO that we have spent so many resources on the offense and still have very little outside of Johnson (and now Tate) to show for it. All those wasted WR picks, the wasted RB picks, the wasted money on FA running backs, very average offensive line, waste of picks/money on tight ends...it's a train wreck.

The FG situation is bizarre, but with a kicker(and even without some of the time) we're putting up in the low 20s every week. That's about league average offensive production from a unit decimated by injury, beyond just Calvin. 3 TEs, a co starting RB and a starting RT out as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T&P disagrees with you and the stat is inherently flawed then. Any stat that suggests Stafford helps the Lions win more games than Luck or Brady so far this season is broken in my opinion.

Rank these QB:

QB1:

66% Comp, 2,331 yards, 19 TD, 7 INT, 76.7 QBR, 100.5 RAT

QB2:

61.4% Comp, 1,705 yards, 13 TD, 2 INT, 69.3 QBR, 96.3 RAT

QB3:

63% Comp, 1.891 yards, 9 TD, 6 INT, 60.3 QBR, 87.9 RAT

It's not even sort of close. Stafford does not help his team win more than the other two, to suggest such is silly.

Edit:

For the record, I agree with you that WPA seemed to be a WAR type stat. T&P said it wasn't, so I was attempting to better understand the stat and try and figure out what it could possibly quantify if it wasn't a WAR type stat. I think T&P may just be off base a bit.

The whole point of a WPA type stat is that those baseline stats don't tell the whole story, so that's a silly question to ask within the context of this discussion. No metric type stat is perfect, but the idea is that it looks deeper into things to see who is really responsible for production or lack there of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole point of a WPA type stat is that those baseline stats don't tell the whole story, so that's a silly question to ask within the context of this discussion. No metric type stat is perfect, but the idea is that it looks deeper into things to see who is really responsible for production or lack there of.

That's all fine and good, but when traditional stats and 99% of advanced stats paint one picture, and a single stat that no one to the best of my knowledge on this board even knows how to calculate says something different I am going to question that conclusion. What narrative could WPA possibly be referring to that would suggest Stafford is worth more wins than these other very clearly superior QB? If it were close, I could understand but every single other stat I've looked into has Stafford around average. Let me ask you this, point blank. How would you rank Stafford, Luck, and Brady on their ability to help their team win thus far this season? Do you believe that Stafford is #1 like WPA suggests, or #3 as the eye test, traditional stats, and nearly every other advanced metric suggests?

The FG situation is bizarre, but with a kicker(and even without some of the time) we're putting up in the low 20s every week. That's about league average offensive production from a unit decimated by injury, beyond just Calvin. 3 TEs, a co starting RB and a starting RT out as well.

Again, this is all fine and good, but I choose not to let injuries be used as an excuse when every team is banged up and having to deal with injuries. The Patriots last year were without their #1 RB, all-pro TE, #1,3, and 4 WR for much of the season and were the third ranked offense in the league. Their front office and QB made it work, they brought in Blount, made Julian Edelman into a borderline star after being a nonfactor much of his career, they were also without their All-pro DT and LB in Wilfork and Mayo. Good organizations don't let injuries get in the way, they plan for them and succeed. I expect the same from the Lions organization. No one is going to go easy on the Lions because we are without Johnson, an aging Bush (:lick:), and three TE who haven't produced anything so far anyway...we need to step our game up if we want to beat the class organizations of the NFL.

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WPA and WAR aim to tell you basically the exact same thing, how much a player helps you win games. You are quite off here IMO. Its possible I'm misinterpreting the stat, so I apologize if so. I don't see any evidence for the claims you make here though.

This is mostly in response to Echo saying I don't understand the stat.

WPA and WAR are not comparable. WAR aims to define a player compared to a replacement. WPA is the difference in win expectancy between the start of the play and the end of the play. It measures the difference in probability between play A and play B. Baseball has it's own WPA. If you ever watch the gamecast of MLB on ESPN you will see it provides a probability of likely outcome. Baseball adds more emphasis for late inning good plays. For instance a 2 run homer to win the game is worth more than a solo shot to tie the game in the 2nd. WPA is not the best way to evaluate the talent of a player, I agree with Echo there. It's entirely context-specific. In other words, it's great for game analysis, but less great for player analysis. But it does tell a story. It says that Stafford effects the probability of winning more than other QB, much of that is due to the late quarter comebacks.

Crude example: If Luck is playing the Jags at home the WP of the Colts is 50 percent to start the game because the charts consider only the score, down and distance, time remaining, and so on.. So, If the colts defense gets a pick six to start the game the the WP would go up to like 65 percent. Then the next series they get a rushing TD and its 14-0 with the WP around 90% and luck hasn't had to do a thing. No matter what Luck does the rest of the game he won't be able to change the likely outcome of the game in a positive way because there isn't much to effect. If Luck turns it over, it would negatively effect the WP. If the Jags came back independent of Luck effecting their comeback, Luck would have a chance to add to the positive WP thereafter.

Last week the play before the Tate TD the Lions WP was probably around 5 percent, maybe less. After Staffords pass to Tate it was probably around 40 percent or less, but a significant change. The stat says that Stafford has had the most plays that effects the likely outcome of the game in a positive manner. A lot of that is because the Lions have had to comeback. But if they didn't make the comebacks we wouldn't be having this discussion because Stafford wouldn't have effected the outcome. But the comebacks DID happen. And the Lions DID win.

And like clockwork, Luck provides a perfect example. 42-34 Steelers and Luck was just called for intentional grounding in the endzone for a safety, he just negatively effected the probability of the colts winning, probably from like 35 percent to less than 10.

Today the Lions had less than a 2 percent chance to win after the last Falcons first down.

Edited by T&P_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's all fine and good, but when traditional stats and 99% of advanced stats paint one picture, and a single stat that no one to the best of my knowledge on this board even knows how to calculate says something different I am going to question that conclusion. What narrative could WPA possibly be referring to that would suggest Stafford is worth more wins than these other very clearly superior QB? If it were close, I could understand but every single other stat I've looked into has Stafford around average. Let me ask you this, point blank. How would you rank Stafford, Luck, and Brady on their ability to help their team win thus far this season? Do you believe that Stafford is #1 like WPA suggests, or #3 as the eye test, traditional stats, and nearly every other advanced metric suggests?

Again, this is all fine and good, but I choose not to let injuries be used as an excuse when every team is banged up and having to deal with injuries. The Patriots last year were without their #1 RB, all-pro TE, #1,3, and 4 WR for much of the season and were the third ranked offense in the league. Their front office and QB made it work, they brought in Blount, made Julian Edelman into a borderline star after being a nonfactor much of his career, they were also without their All-pro DT and LB in Wilfork and Mayo. Good organizations don't let injuries get in the way, they plan for them and succeed. I expect the same from the Lions organization. No one is going to go easy on the Lions because we are without Johnson, an aging Bush (:lick:), and three TE who haven't produced anything so far anyway...we need to step our game up if we want to beat the class organizations of the NFL.

I know little about the stat, just making a general point. I certainly don't take this one particular stat that I just heard of to be any sort of gospel.

Teams are quite frequently affected by injuries. Its a big part of why so many teams have drastically different win totals year to year. The Patriots are an exception to the rule IMHO. While I aspire to be them, I'm not willing to call anything but being as good as the Patriots a failure. Their run is one of the more impressive runs in sports history IMO. Fwiw though, I don't think we need excuses. We're winning games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Stafford is better than Kitna, Orlovsky, and Garcia...but the numbers really aren't THAT different. Calvin got his regardless of QB, he has been a bit better under Stafford (mostly due to targets/receptions) but Calvin always got his.

Hmm. This is unsubstantiated BS that no one knows the answer too. Calvin's rookie year was no where near his current years, and his sophmore year was similar to a single WR year. Are we really claiming that from a sample size of 2 years w/0 stafford (one of which was 15 games and below average) that he is the CAUSE in the cause/effect relationship? Even though his years where Stafford is injured are not the same level? I mean, it has to be possible that both Stafford and CJ benefit greatly from eachother's skillset, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm. This is unsubstantiated BS that no one knows the answer too. Calvin's rookie year was no where near his current years, and his sophmore year was similar to a single WR year. Are we really claiming that from a sample size of 2 years w/0 stafford (one of which was 15 games and below average) that he is the CAUSE in the cause/effect relationship? Even though his years where Stafford is injured are not the same level? I mean, it has to be possible that both Stafford and CJ benefit greatly from eachother's skillset, right?

What part is unsubstantiated BS? And you can go beyond just the two years, you can also include 2010 when Stafford played three games.

I think three years is more than enough time to see that Johnson plays at a high level regardless of who his QB is.

Yes, Johnson during his rookie season wasn't fantastic but he was the #2 producing rookie WR behind Bowe who he outproduced every year since.

During Johnson's second year he led the league in TD and put up 1,300 yards during an 0-16 season with Dan Orlovsky.

In 2010 when Stafford was hurt, Johnson again scored 12 TD, put up 1,000+ yards, and was selected as a second team all-pro with Shaun Hill at the helm.

Those are two nearly full seasons where Johnson put up decent numbers in lieu of Stafford, Johnson has also made it to 4 All-Pro teams and is widely seen as the #1 WR in the game.

Stafford, on the other hand, is seen as somewhere around average and when Johnson hasn't been in the game has looked lost (he has looked better with Tate around, for the record).

So when deciding who is more the cause in the cause/effect relationship we have three seasons of Johnson without Stafford. A productive rookie season, and two very solid seasons when he was easily a top 5 WR, in addition to his recognition by being selected to 4 All-Pro teams. Meanwhile, Stafford has clearly struggled when Johnson isn't around, has never been elected to an all-pro or even pro-bowl team and is classified, largely, as a QB in the 12-18 range as opposed to the #1-3.

Now, I do agree that Johnson has a better chance of being productive with Stafford at the helm but I don't think anything I said was unsubstantiated and I never said that weren't mutually beneficial. I simply said that Johnson put up good numbers even with very much below average QBs, which I think is a true statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a little story from the game.

My brother comes over to watch every game so we are sitting there watching the game. All the way through. We are both yelling at the screen about the no call 2 point conversion penalty and are flipping out when we actually had a chance to win it with that field goal. I turn the stereo on for the extra umph on game days...the 2 tower speakers I have are sitting against the TV with no bases because I took the bases off to secure the towers directly to the TV...the 2 sided tape I had was not working so they are just sitting up against the TV. We have a roomba that vacuums the floor and it was running when the game was going on...it went over to the area where the speaker was sitting and nudged it a few times and then left and came back RIGHT AFTER that last run before the FG attempt...it nudged the speaker again and this time the speaker slid against the wall behind the TV and knocked the power cord out of the wall. I jump up and plug it all back in, but by time the cable box loaded back up the game was over.

We both completely missed the missed FG and the made one and only saw what happened a few hours later as were watching another game. The timing was unreal. We knew they won right after I turned the TV back on, but had no idea about the miss and re kick.

WTF is wrong with our kickers? We should have let Hanson come back I swear to god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What part is unsubstantiated BS? And you can go beyond just the two years, you can also include 2010 when Stafford played three games.

I think three years is more than enough time to see that Johnson plays at a high level regardless of who his QB is.

Yes, Johnson during his rookie season wasn't fantastic but he was the #2 producing rookie WR behind Bowe who he outproduced every year since.

During Johnson's second year he led the league in TD and put up 1,300 yards during an 0-16 season with Dan Orlovsky.

In 2010 when Stafford was hurt, Johnson again scored 12 TD, put up 1,000+ yards, and was selected as a second team all-pro with Shaun Hill at the helm.

Those are two nearly full seasons where Johnson put up decent numbers in lieu of Stafford, Johnson has also made it to 4 All-Pro teams and is widely seen as the #1 WR in the game.

Stafford, on the other hand, is seen as somewhere around average and when Johnson hasn't been in the game has looked lost (he has looked better with Tate around, for the record).

So when deciding who is more the cause in the cause/effect relationship we have three seasons of Johnson without Stafford. A productive rookie season, and two very solid seasons when he was easily a top 5 WR, in addition to his recognition by being selected to 4 All-Pro teams. Meanwhile, Stafford has clearly struggled when Johnson isn't around, has never been elected to an all-pro or even pro-bowl team and is classified, largely, as a QB in the 12-18 range as opposed to the #1-3.

Now, I do agree that Johnson has a better chance of being productive with Stafford at the helm but I don't think anything I said was unsubstantiated and I never said that weren't mutually beneficial. I simply said that Johnson put up good numbers even with very much below average QBs, which I think is a true statement.

I'm not trying to disrespect Calvin. My word choices weren't the best. I freely admit that. We all know CJ is really really good. I think without Stafford (or a similar skilled QB), the national media isn't talking about how CJ is top 1 or 2 to ever play the game. There is definitely a correlation there, we just don't notice it as much because CJ goes from all time great, to really good. Stafford goes from pretty good, to above average (which is more noticeable).

Edit: Just to add in, in 2010, his big game with 3 TDs and 100+ yds: The QB was Matt Stafford.

Edited by hardyaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trying to disrespect Calvin. My word choices weren't the best. I freely admit that. We all know CJ is really really good. I think without Stafford (or a similar skilled QB), the national media isn't talking about how CJ is top 1 or 2 to ever play the game. There is definitely a correlation there, we just don't notice it as much because CJ goes from all time great, to really good. Stafford goes from pretty good, to above average (which is more noticeable).

Edit: Just to add in, in 2010, his big game with 3 TDs and 100+ yds: The QB was Matt Stafford.

This is fair. And to sort of defend myself, my point was never that Stafford isn't a good QB or anything of the like. It was that Johnson is simply an elite level talent who would get his numbers (admittingly to a varying degree) regardless of the QB. IMO what is even more amazing is that Johnson put up the numbers he did with Kitna, Orlovsky, and to a lesser extent of amazement Shaun Hill. That right there should prove that Johnson is always going to get his.

One thing people need to understand, I'm not anti-Stafford. I'm Stafford-neutral. I think he is around average. I don't think we should bench him for Kellen Moore, I don't think we need to go out and draft a QB in round one, I don't think it is impossible to win a Super Bowl with Stafford at the helm. I think he is an average QB making a bit more money than I would prefer and he isn't the style of QB I would want if I were running a franchise. The biggest issue with this offense is Mayhew's inability to draft or sign players (outside of Tate) that can succeed in our system and this problem is made more apparent due to the fact that Stafford isn't the type of elite QB who can make marginally talented players shine like a star. That isn't necessarily a knock on him as there are maybe 1-4 QB in the league who can, IMO, do that. Since he isn't that type of superstar QB Mayhew needs to do a better job, flat out. He can't bust on pick after pick after pick and on multiple FA signings and expect a top offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is fair. And to sort of defend myself, my point was never that Stafford isn't a good QB or anything of the like. It was that Johnson is simply an elite level talent who would get his numbers (admittingly to a varying degree) regardless of the QB. IMO what is even more amazing is that Johnson put up the numbers he did with Kitna, Orlovsky, and to a lesser extent of amazement Shaun Hill. That right there should prove that Johnson is always going to get his.

One thing people need to understand, I'm not anti-Stafford. I'm Stafford-neutral. I think he is around average. I don't think we should bench him for Kellen Moore, I don't think we need to go out and draft a QB in round one, I don't think it is impossible to win a Super Bowl with Stafford at the helm. I think he is an average QB making a bit more money than I would prefer and he isn't the style of QB I would want if I were running a franchise. The biggest issue with this offense is Mayhew's inability to draft or sign players (outside of Tate) that can succeed in our system and this problem is made more apparent due to the fact that Stafford isn't the type of elite QB who can make marginally talented players shine like a star. That isn't necessarily a knock on him as there are maybe 1-4 QB in the league who can, IMO, do that. Since he isn't that type of superstar QB Mayhew needs to do a better job, flat out. He can't bust on pick after pick after pick and on multiple FA signings and expect a top offense.

That is also fair. On my side, I just get a little peeved when people act like Stafford only does positive things because he had Calvin. And now he only does positive things because Tate is playing baller. I'm not in love with Stafford either (I do think he is better than you do, but that's not the point). I guess I'm saying its time to give the man a little credit. He lost all his weapons (that were supposedly the only reason he won games) and he is still performing at an average/above average level. And his bad contract is on the lions/old CBA, not him.

If Calvin can make any QB as good as Stafford has been, then why didn't Kitna/Orlovsky/Hill stick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So a little story from the game.

My brother comes over to watch every game so we are sitting there watching the game. All the way through. We are both yelling at the screen about the no call 2 point conversion penalty and are flipping out when we actually had a chance to win it with that field goal. I turn the stereo on for the extra umph on game days...the 2 tower speakers I have are sitting against the TV with no bases because I took the bases off to secure the towers directly to the TV...the 2 sided tape I had was not working so they are just sitting up against the TV. We have a roomba that vacuums the floor and it was running when the game was going on...it went over to the area where the speaker was sitting and nudged it a few times and then left and came back RIGHT AFTER that last run before the FG attempt...it nudged the speaker again and this time the speaker slid against the wall behind the TV and knocked the power cord out of the wall. I jump up and plug it all back in, but by time the cable box loaded back up the game was over.

We both completely missed the missed FG and the made one and only saw what happened a few hours later as were watching another game. The timing was unreal. We knew they won right after I turned the TV back on, but had no idea about the miss and re kick.

WTF is wrong with our kickers? We should have let Hanson come back I swear to god.

The missed kick was a bad snap and a bad hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is also fair. On my side, I just get a little peeved when people act like Stafford only does positive things because he had Calvin. And now he only does positive things because Tate is playing baller. I'm not in love with Stafford either (I do think he is better than you do, but that's not the point). I guess I'm saying its time to give the man a little credit. He lost all his weapons (that were supposedly the only reason he won games) and he is still performing at an average/above average level. And his bad contract is on the lions/old CBA, not him.

If Calvin can make any QB as good as Stafford has been, then why didn't Kitna/Orlovsky/Hill stick?

I never said this, but I think you know that. Kitna and Orlovsky are bad no one is arguing anything to the contrary.

I give Stafford credit for being an average QB. He is woefully inaccurate at times with stretches of brilliance. He can make any throw on the field but then also misses on some of the easiest throws (like screen passes or short passes in the flats). I think he is best suited for large WR with above average catch radii but most importantly they need to be able to jump at meet the ball at it's highest point. Mayhew has tried to make due with Calvin being the jump ball threat and surround him with smaller possession type WR (Young at 5'11", Broyles at 5'10", etc.) and they just aren't the type of WR best suited for Stafford's game. Tate works because he is a YAC machine with some of the best hands in the league, I am very happy with that signing.

I think Stafford would be a lot more productive if we went towards the Bears style of offense where you have two very good "twin tower" WR and a slot/RB to compliment the two. That is exactly why I wanted to go with Jace Amaro and Donte Moncrief in my draft that I posted, I thought Moncrief at 6'2" could be another big body, Jace Amaro is a tall TE who had a higher vertical than Ebron with much of the same skillset, and Tate would be the possession/YAC/middle of the field guy. With Bush + Bell + Pettigrew + Fauria as the check down or third/fourth option types.

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,640
    • Total Posts
      2,911,242
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...