kgeorge78

Stafford .... Would you trade him for ???

451 posts in this topic

Palmer - (If healthy, obviously) Yes

Matt Ryan - Yes

Flacco - Yes (Borderline)

Romo - Yes

Bridgewater - Possibly (No if tomorrow, yes to build around for the future)

Carr - Possibly (Same as Bridgewater)

Kapernick - Yes

My list has 13 obvious "yes" and three toss ups. You really would need to qualify what you mean by trade, my list would change considerably taking age into account.

Hahahahahaha

Edited by Stormin' Norman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only brought up trade based on the premise of the thread.

If they see a QB they like in the middle rounds 3-5 then go for it but Stafford is still their guy until proven otherwise.

I don't think he's a franchise QB either but he's a good QB and certainly the best option the Lions have currently.

I also think he's capable of leading them to a Superbowl eventually with the right personnel around him. Give him a good offensive line like Romo has and he'll be a better player for it.

I agree with all of this. He's good enough to put up big numbers, but not accurate enough to be great. He's good enough that the QB position is not the most obvious problem, but not good enough that you expect him to have his team in the mix for the playoffs every year.

The main problem, I think, is that he's good enough that the front office thinks of him as a franchise QB, but he also struggles enough that they keep reaching for offensive weapons for him, rather than taking the best talent available at their draft position (including at QB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you can't ever step into a throw, you can't be at your best in terms of accuracy. Stafford is never going to have Brady's accuracy, but he has plenty to get by. He's shown us that moving the ball up the field is typically not an issue for him and now he's cut out the INTs even more.

Not only was the OL a disaster, but our run game was 27th. I don't think there was much more he could have done.

Yes, the OL was a complete catastrophe this year, both in terms of sacks (45!!!) and the lack of a running game...add to that the fact that they were battling from behind in most games, all of that has an impact. Not to mention Stafford had one reliable receiver in Tate all year.

That having been said, his rate stats this year placed him firmly in the bottom 10 of QBs...they would have been awesome 10+ years ago, but in the current age of passing-friendly rules, even mediocre QBs complete 60% of their passes and average 7 yards/attempt. There is hope obviously in that his 2011 season would have placed him in the top 5/10 in almost every category...and given that he's only turning 27, there's still an opportunity for some improvement.

.....and Mayhew and crew need to do a better job of surrounding him with better talent.

Edited by sabretooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has regressed this year big time.

I would have guessed that he had regressed, but in fact his rate stats are almost identical to his career averages, and he did cut down on the INTs versus 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stafford will never be Rodgers or Brady. He'll have a nice Phillip Rivers career. If people think they can improve on that, good ****in' luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you can't ever step into a throw, you can't be at your best in terms of accuracy. Stafford is never going to have Brady's accuracy, but he has plenty to get by. He's shown us that moving the ball up the field is typically not an issue for him and now he's cut out the INTs even more.

Not only was the OL a disaster, but our run game was 27th. I don't think there was much more he could have done.

I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you not take age into account?

If the goal was to win this year, not planning for the future. Teams, at times, make trades that compromise their future to win now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the goal was to win this year, not planning for the future. Teams, at times, make trades that compromise their future to win now.

That usually does not work well. Usually what is good for the future is good for now. Thats why the Raiders sucked this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have an interesting definition of obvious.

Palmer, Ryan, Flacco, Newton and Kaepernick are obvious? Even Wilson I would have to question considering he was placed in a perfect position to succeed although I do love the Wilson "intangibles".

Even Romo wasn't really an "obvious" until this season. Pretty similar QB to Stafford actually. It's no wonder that Romo has taken off this season behind an elite offensive line, who knew?

Carr possibly? Meh, i don't really see anything special in him.

I do like Bridgewater though. I think the Vikings got a good one in him unfortunately.

I only used the term "obvious" to match the original poster and his verbiage. I never proclaimed that you or anyone else has to agree with my opinions.

I think Romo has been a superior QB throughout his career and is the type of QB I would prefer. He has averaged 65% comp. percentage (Stafford is at 59%), over a 2.0 TD:INT (Stafford is at 1.5), and is a game manager.

Palmer, Ryan, and Flacco fall into a similar category as Romo. Upon further review I would probably take Palmer off the list as he is a little more hit or miss than I would prefer. But Matt Ryan is similar to Romo in that they are both very accurate QBs who have been significantly more consistent than Stafford.

Newton, Kaepernick, and Wilson fall into the second category of mobile QBs that I wouldn't mind having. Newton has had next to nothing in terms of weapons, Kaepernick is tough to gauge because the two teams are so different and he isn't asked to do all that much in the passing game. But Kaepernick's ability to improvise in addition to his youth make him a more intriguing player to me than Stafford who has been very, very mediocre for most of his career.

Carr would be an option due to his youth and the potential for him to be something special. I have a pretty good idea what Stafford is, this is one of the rare scenarios that I will take the possibility of two birds in the bush over one in the hand. I don't have much faith in Stafford, I have been very consistent in that regard, I view him as an average QB making above average money which isn't the recipe for success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't trade Stafford for Kapernick or Ryan Palmer.

Hey guys realistically were stuck with him and like I said there really are only 7-8 guys above him....

I have a feeling he's going to play GREAT if not Amazing on Sunday....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't trade Stafford for Kapernick or Ryan Palmer.

Hey guys realistically were stuck with him and like I said there really are only 7-8 guys above him....

I have a feeling he's going to play GREAT if not Amazing on Sunday....

Bears fans were saying the same thing about Cutler, who, IMO view as a more mobile and accurate version of Stafford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL rookie contracts now make it much easier to assume the risk of gambling on a quarterback with the payoff that you hit on a true elite talent.

It’s no longer the old NFL where if you miss on an early round QB your team gets set back multiple years.

Stafford has below average mobility and accuracy, he just started calling protections (hasn’t mastered any of the offenses he’s been in), and he doesn’t consistently elevate the level of play of those around him.

Justifying his value by comparing him to others you would trade for is a dangerous way to look at things. That thinking only produces talent blockers (people who prevent others who could contribute at a higher level).

Brady sitting behind Bledsoe is a great example of this. Brady may have never seen the field without Bledsoe getting hurt. Would most take Bledsoe in his prime over Stafford?

Kurt Warner is another example of this.

The sooner we move on from him, and begin looking for a true elite, the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you can't ever step into a throw, you can't be at your best in terms of accuracy. Stafford is never going to have Brady's accuracy, but he has plenty to get by. He's shown us that moving the ball up the field is typically not an issue for him and now he's cut out the INTs even more.

Not only was the OL a disaster, but our run game was 27th. I don't think there was much more he could have done.

The part of your argument that I have a problem with is that you say Stafford has shown us that moving the ball up the field is typically not an issue. He struggled in just about every game this year, even against the bad teams for most of the game. Over his entire career he has lost almost every game he's played against a playoff team or team above 500. I think he has demonstrated he can't get it done when it matters so far. Every starting QB in the league 'can move the ball up and down the field' otherwise they wouldn't even be in the league. But how often they come through in big games and games against big opponents is in my opinion, a better criteria.

I don't need to see him throw for a million yards. I need to see him be consistent game in and game out, be accurate, be smart, and not be the reason we lose games.

I don't think he's a bad QB. I think he's serviceable, and way overpaid, and that is also hurting the team. If he was paid properly then the team could afford to go get more talent.

Edited by Firehawk734

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing we put together a top ranked D this year or Stafford would prolly have another 5-11 season to add to his resume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a good thing we put together a top ranked D this year or Stafford would prolly have another 5-11 season to add to his resume.

It's also a good thing most of the teams we played stunk or turned out to stink this year.

On 97.1 they are talking about Stafford right now and were putting up his win/loss record this year and number of interceptions, completion percentage, etc and how they are the best of his career this year. And yet, he's almost never beaten anyone good. I can't get past that. He has to do it against good teams otherwise who cares? 6 complete seasons...

It would be awesome if Stafford suddenly turns into an amazing QB though.

It would be interesting (if anyone has time to do this, I'm too lazy), to compare records against 500+ teams in the regular season, with every starting QB in the league. This would take some time but it would be interesting to see.

Edited by Firehawk734

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's also a good thing most of the teams we played stunk or turned out to stink this year.

On 97.1 they are talking about Stafford right now and were putting up his win/loss record this year and number of interceptions, completion percentage, etc and how they are the best of his career this year. And yet, he's almost never beaten anyone good. I can't get past that. He has to do it against good teams otherwise who cares? 6 complete seasons...

It would be awesome if Stafford suddenly turns into an amazing QB though.

It would be interesting (if anyone has time to do this, I'm too lazy), to compare records against 500+ teams in the regular season, with every starting QB in the league. This would take some time but it would be interesting to see.

"He" does not have to do anything. His record against winning teams in general is bad, but the team as a whole has been bad. He is not elite like I thought he was. He is not going to make a bad team good (VERY few can...even the GREAT QB's that get stuck with crap teams will have bad years) and he is not going to make a great team bad. He is 'pretty good'...'slightly above average' 'good enough to win' whatever term you want to use, but this idea that HE needs to do something not many can or have ever done (take bad teams to winning records) is not rooted in reality IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That usually does not work well. Usually what is good for the future is good for now. Thats why the Raiders sucked this year.

I don't think that is the only reason the Raiders sucked, but that is neither here nor there. I agree that it typically doesn't work out well, this all stemmed because I didn't know if we were "trading" Stafford for someone to help us win this year or to continue to build a franchise around. I should have assumed that original poster meant to build a franchise around considering he left out Manning and Brees, but he doesn't seem to post much so I asked for clarification. My argument was never focused on what type of trades are better, simply stated that teams every year in every sport make trades that potentially sacrifice long term success in an effort to win now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stafford will never be Rodgers or Brady. He'll have a nice Phillip Rivers career. If people think they can improve on that, good ****in' luck.

At what point are you assuming is he going to start playing at the same caliber as Rivers? On another Lions/NFL forum I frequent there was Stafford vs. Rivers talk...someone on the Lions forum posted in the NFL comparisons subforum (frequented by fans of all NFL teams) and it wasn't pretty. The main issues were these....

Who is the better quarterback?

Who is the better leader?

Who is the better "winner"?

Who has been better this year?

Who has been better over the past few years?

Who has had the better career?

Who would you take if you were starting a franchise tomorrow?

I'm not sure if this is allowed or not, but here is the link.

NFL Forum :: - Rivers vs Stafford

If the link gets removed, 94% took Rivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"He" does not have to do anything. His record against winning teams in general is bad, but the team as a whole has been bad......

How do you think the current Lions team would do with Rodgers, Brady, Peyton Manning, and even Romo this season? I think they would be the number 1 seed in the NFC right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"He" does not have to do anything. His record against winning teams in general is bad, but the team as a whole has been bad. He is not elite like I thought he was. He is not going to make a bad team good (VERY few can...even the GREAT QB's that get stuck with crap teams will have bad years) and he is not going to make a great team bad. He is 'pretty good'...'slightly above average' 'good enough to win' whatever term you want to use, but this idea that HE needs to do something not many can or have ever done (take bad teams to winning records) is not rooted in reality IMO.

So then we can agree that even including this year, the team's record against other good teams over the past several years, has been atrocious. Which means this 11-5 team is vastly overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you think the current Lions team would do with Rodgers, Brady, Peyton Manning, and even Romo this season? I think they would be the number 1 seed in the NFC right now.

I think given the teams they played all year, they probably would have won at least 2 more games and went 14-2. Just my opinion. It's a QB league. The QB position has the most opportunity to make a difference in the game. It's fine if Stafford is just going to be average, serviceable, whatever, but then he needs to take a paycut and the team needs to get more talent to help him. This isn't going to happen, but this is part of why it's frustrating for me. He's not elite, yet he's paid to be elite, and he hurts this team in the salary cap as well because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stafford will never be Rodgers or Brady. He'll have a nice Phillip Rivers career. If people think they can improve on that, good ****in' luck.

its not a bad comparison, however if that comparison will work, Stafford will have to take the same leap forward in 2015 that Rivers took in 2008....specifically a 5 percentage point improvement in completion percentage and about a 10 point improvement in quarterback rating...I think Stafford is capable of this but at minimum this will require a better offensive line and more consistent running game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with any QB Stafford's success rests on the quality of his surrounding cast, defense included...hard to say what that's going to look like in 2015...should be decent at least, but I'm not sure that it's going to be better than 2014, or even as good as 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As with any QB Stafford's success rests on the quality of his surrounding cast, defense included...hard to say what that's going to look like in 2015...should be decent at least, but I'm not sure that it's going to be better than 2014, or even as good as 2014.

Suh comes back, they should be fine.

Suh hits the highway, they will not be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you think the current Lions team would do with Rodgers, Brady, Peyton Manning, and even Romo this season? I think they would be the number 1 seed in the NFC right now.

All of those guys would have to learn a new offense...undoubtedly better QB's (minus Romo who is not good IMO) I am not sure if it amounts to much more than a win or maybe 2...so yeah they would be a #1 seed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now