Jump to content

kgeorge78

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

Recommended Posts

You will have to define terrible for me. Because by the stats for either of these 2 guys....combined with the WR and TE options on either team the last 3 seasons.....suggests that terrible must = pretty good.

By the way.....I am baiting you to say that Golden Tate is a stud option.....then I will counter that Stafford now had 2 stud options along wtih 2 1st round draft pick TE options.....and yet Tannehill and Wilson were both better this year.

GOLDEN TATE IS A STUD OPTION!

I will give you Wilson, but why do you say that Ryan Tannehill is better than Stafford? I have been pretty down on Stafford but I would never say that Tannehill is better than Stafford. The Lions at least made the playoffs and the Dolphins didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Golden Tate had by far the best year of his career with Stafford throwing him the ball. Tate is a stud option. Stafford made him that.

No he didn't. Most of Tate's yards are YACs. Tate gets the ball at the line of scrimmage mostly and then does work. A lot of Tate's yards have ZERO to do with Staffy.

Staffy did NOT make Tate a stud. Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No he didn't. Most of Tate's yards are YACs. Tate gets the ball at the line of scrimmage mostly and then does work. A lot of Tate's yards have ZERO to do with Staffy.

Staffy did NOT make Tate a stud. Not even close.

How come Tate didn't have all these catches and yards in Seattle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How come Tate didn't have all these catches and yards in Seattle?

Maybe because he was targeted almost 150 times this year and you'd have to total his first 3 years in Seattle to come up with that many targets. Granted a few more if you add up the first three years in Seattle but close to one years total in Detroit.

Everything I read said he wanted to go to a pass happy offense. Seattle isn't that. Detroit passes more. More targets. More chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe because he was targeted almost 150 times this year and you'd have to total his first 3 years in Seattle to come up with that many targets. Granted a few more if you add up the first three years in Seattle but close to one years total in Detroit.

Everything I read said he wanted to go to a pass happy offense. Seattle isn't that. Detroit passes more. More targets. More chances.

Tate had a higher completion percentage with Stafford throwing him the ball than Wilson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GOLDEN TATE IS A STUD OPTION!

I will give you Wilson, but why do you say that Ryan Tannehill is better than Stafford? I have been pretty down on Stafford but I would never say that Tannehill is better than Stafford. The Lions at least made the playoffs and the Dolphins didn't.

Tannehill was certainly better than Stafford in 2014......my opinion is that Tannehill has shown big improvement the last 3 years to be considered the "hot" pick to continue improving. Just like Stafford was in 2011. Stafford fell off the improvement curve since then. It will be interesting to see if Tannehill continues improving.....I would be willing to take that risk.....even if the contracts were the same. I think >50% of NFL GM's would do the same as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tannehill was certainly better than Stafford in 2014......my opinion is that Tannehill has shown big improvement the last 3 years to be considered the "hot" pick to continue improving. Just like Stafford was in 2011. Stafford fell off the improvement curve since then. It will be interesting to see if Tannehill continues improving.....I would be willing to take that risk.....even if the contracts were the same. I think >50% of NFL GM's would do the same as well.

Interesting. Tannehill progresses to be on the same level as Stafford but since Stafford set the bar so high in 2011, we would go with Tannehill because he is improving. It's really hard to improve on that 2011 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How come Tate didn't have all these catches and yards in Seattle?

Because Seattle runs the ball. A lot. Stafford attempted 602 passes this year. Russell Wilson attempted 407 last year, nearly 200 fewer. With Seattle he had 520 of his 898 yards after the catch last season. This year he led all wide receivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. Tannehill progresses to be on the same level as Stafford but since Stafford set the bar so high in 2011, we would go with Tannehill because he is improving. It's really hard to improve on that 2011 season.

1) 2011 is so hard to improve upon that 4 QB's were better than him in 2011.....Rodgers, Brees, Brady, and Romo. Not to mention Peyton Manning missed the season.

2) Stafford's results since then were probably 20th best in 2012, 17th best in 2013, and probably 15th best in 2014. He really has fallen back considerably and appreciably.

3) And Tannehill had an appreciably better season in 2014 than Stafford. He completed 66% of his passes in addition to the QBR, the 5 more TD's, similar yards and YPA......there aren't a whole lot of outliers up at that level of % completion. Maybe Josh McCown in 2013, RGIII, and Matt Schaub in the past 5-6 seasons....and only RGIII was young. He still has an excuse for falling off the curve. Stafford just hasn't been an accurate QB ever.....typically right around 60%.....which is below average in this day and age.

So yes....having the opinion that Tannehill would be an upgrade over Stafford is rather easy to come to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tannehill was certainly better than Stafford in 2014......my opinion is that Tannehill has shown big improvement the last 3 years to be considered the "hot" pick to continue improving. Just like Stafford was in 2011. Stafford fell off the improvement curve since then. It will be interesting to see if Tannehill continues improving.....I would be willing to take that risk.....even if the contracts were the same. I think >50% of NFL GM's would do the same as well.

I don't think 50% of NFL GM's would agree that Tannehill was better than Stafford in 2014, much less would take Tannehill over Stafford.

Edited by Stormin' Norman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get how Tannehill who has reached Stafford's floor is somehow better than Stafford. It's not even like Tannehill is a young QB. He's the same age as Stafford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't get how Tannehill who has reached Stafford's floor is somehow better than Stafford. It's not even like Tannehill is a young QB. He's the same age as Stafford.

Stafford's floor was in 2012 when he was worse than Cutler. Stafford in 2013 and 2014 was a very average quarterback. If you fail to note that Stafford's peak was 2011 and 3 full healthy seasons has gone by since his peak.....then by all means continue to be confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stafford's floor was in 2012 when he was worse than Cutler. Stafford in 2013 and 2014 was a very average quarterback. If you fail to note that Stafford's peak was 2011 and 3 full healthy seasons has gone by since his peak.....then by all means continue to be confused.

One thing that people shouldn't be confused about: you don't understand the game of football.

It's unfortunate really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stafford's floor was in 2012 when he was worse than Cutler. Stafford in 2013 and 2014 was a very average quarterback. If you fail to note that Stafford's peak was 2011 and 3 full healthy seasons has gone by since his peak.....then by all means continue to be confused.

So Stafford's career peaked in 2011 at age 23. At age 26, Stafford has no way to go but down. Tannehill at age 26 is on the way up because he had two seasons that were worse than any Stafford season before he had his good season at age 26.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think 50% of NFL GM's would agree that Tannehill was better than Stafford in 2014' date=' much less would take Tannehill over Stafford.[/quote']

no way. I bet 90% of them take stafford over tann... tanns ceiling is a better alex smith. Staffford ceiling is really high

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly believe Stafford has more 2011s in him, or at least close. Not that the stats are the end all, be all.

IMO, there are two groups of QBs in the top half of the league. There are about 4-6 guys, Brees, P.Manning(nearing its end?), Rodgers,Brady and I'd probably add Luck who are MVP candidates in a vaccuum most years. Everyone needs help, but those guys are a step above and are going to win 10 games just by being on the field most years.

After that, there is large group of guys who are close enough that the difference between them isn't enough to decide the outcome of a game or greatly change your season win total. These are the guys I like to say are MVP candidates with a top of the line supporting cast. I don't rank them for the most part, due to what I said above, though I think at the very top Romo and Ben separate themselves by just enough to be the clear cut top 2. The rest are Rivers,Ryan,Stafford,Wilson,Kaepernick,Tannehill,Eli,Cam and Flacco.

After that you have the guys who you can win with, but who are never really going to play at a truly elite level no matter what their supporting cast - Dalton,Smith,Palmer,Cutler

Followed by the backups starting - Foles,Hoyer, Fitzpatrick etc

with the rest being either guys still developing(I'd usually say you need to be a rookie or first year starter to be in this group) or the guys who just plain aren't starters. This might be where I slide an RG3 too though.

a guy like Bridgewater is probably ready to slide into either group 2 or group 3.

Edit - Worst case, you put Stafford in group 3 if you really don't like him. Bottom line is, those are still guys who are tough to upgrade from(nothing wrong with looking though) without a major trade or a top 5 pick. Also I think its pretty fair to say Stafford is easily at the top of that list. Even if you think he's Cutler like, he's Cutler without the pouting and interceptions while being 5 years younger.

Edited by Nastradamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some more support, these are the teams that instantly take Stafford if he is put on the market in trade or as a FA.

Bills,Jets,Bengals,Browns,Texans,Titans,Bucs,Eagles,Skins,Bears,Cardinals,Rams. That's over a third of the league and I didn't include the Raiders,Jags and Vikings who are still maybes at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly believe Stafford has more 2011s in him, or at least close. Not that the stats are the end all, be all.

IMO, there are two groups of QBs in the top half of the league. There are about 4-6 guys, Brees, P.Manning(nearing its end?), Rodgers,Brady and I'd probably add Luck who are MVP candidates in a vaccuum most years. Everyone needs help, but those guys are a step above and are going to win 10 games just by being on the field most years.

After that, there is large group of guys who are close enough that the difference between them isn't enough to decide the outcome of a game or greatly change your season win total. These are the guys I like to say are MVP candidates with a top of the line supporting cast. I don't rank them for the most part, due to what I said above, though I think at the very top Romo and Ben separate themselves by just enough to be the clear cut top 2. The rest are Rivers,Ryan,Stafford,Wilson,Kaepernick,Tannehill,Eli,Cam and Flacco.

After that you have the guys who you can win with, but who are never really going to play at a truly elite level no matter what their supporting cast - Dalton,Smith,Palmer,Cutler

Followed by the backups starting - Foles,Hoyer, Fitzpatrick etc

with the rest being either guys still developing(I'd usually say you need to be a rookie or first year starter to be in this group) or the guys who just plain aren't starters. This might be where I slide an RG3 too though.

a guy like Bridgewater is probably ready to slide into either group 2 or group 3.

Edit - Worst case, you put Stafford in group 3 if you really don't like him. Bottom line is, those are still guys who are tough to upgrade from(nothing wrong with looking though) without a major trade or a top 5 pick. Also I think its pretty fair to say Stafford is easily at the top of that list. Even if you think he's Cutler like, he's Cutler without the pouting and interceptions while being 5 years younger.

I wish the Lions were a bit better at drafting, if we had a little more talent top to bottom (and less holes to fill) we could do something similar to what Green Bay did in 2005. Favre was still playing at a relatively high level in 2004 and the Packers had just made the playoffs the last four years but they still were able to spend a first round pick on a QB they were able to develop into one of the top 3 best QB in the game. Now, this obviously isn't a guarantee that if we draft a QB round one he will be the next Rodgers, that isn't what I'm saying. But some of the top tier teams are able to use even a higher pick on QBs who fall and it can work out as either trade bait or an eventual replacement.

On the flip side, I also wouldn't mind them finding a mid round, Kaepernick or Wilson type. I guess what I am trying to say is that while Stafford isn't awful (he is average) I also don't think he is a strong enough QB to warrant not going after a QB in the draft to develop as trade bait or a future replacement. Round one or two is too high considering the holes we still have to fill, but 3-7 should be fair game, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if this has already been discussed... I haven't read through this entire thread.

As part of the Stafford discussion I've heard over and over again the stat: 0-18 against winning teams on the road. That's a horrible sounding stat. But when you think about it, I don't think it's nearly as bad as it sounds.

First of all, it's always difficult to win on the road. The old saw is always: Win at home, and split on the road. It's generally considered a good thing to win half your road games a year. Anyone want to guess, on average, who teams typically beat on the road? Probably the bad teams. It's hard to win on the road. It's hard to beat a good team. Therefore it makes sense it would be doubly hard to win against a good team on the road.

Now, this isn't a dismissal of winning on the road against good team. A team that wants to be a good or great team has to do this. You have to figure out how to win on the road your your team will go no where in the long run (unless of course you have home field advantage throughout the playoffs... but a team probably isn't going to get that without winning on the road against winning team).

Secondly, if you read that previous paragraph you noticed I said "team" not "individual." Football, in my opinion, is one of the most team dependent sports there is. That's why stats are often so hard to accurately judge. A great defense makes a average offense look better. A fantastic DL can make a weak secondary appear good. A poor OL can make a RB look lousy. A weak special teams can hurt both offense and defense by always giving the opposing team advantageous field position.

And yet by pointing out the 0-18 record that Stafford has, we seem to single him out and say: "Look... it's his fault!" Sure... Stafford likely WAS at fault for some of those losses. But this is a team game and you can't hang everything on one player... even one as important as the QB.

Look... I don't think Stafford has played at an elite level. I think there's no question we need more from a guy we're paying a bundle of cash too. But I also think that Stafford gets too much crap put on him at times. It's not all his fault. He's a good QB. We can win with a good QB. (Granted, we're paying him like a great QB.) Stafford is not what's holding the team back. I just tired of people cherry picking this stat and dropping it as the final nail in Stafford's coffin. It's a team game that requires a team effort to win or lose.

I finish with this final point: I think the far majority of us want Suh back an nearly any cost. Very few would say that he's not an extremely important part of the Lions defense and without him there's a HUGE hole to fill. Do you wanna know Suh's record against winning teams on the road? 1-16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, red.

I would also like to add that I suspect the team in the suh-stafford-mega era has won some road games against some 8-8 teams and 7-9 teams.

If a couple of those 8-8 or 7-8 teams had won one or two more coin flip games against their other opponents, does that make much of a difference? Of course not.

Like you said, it's a team issue, not a stafford issue.

But good for suh, I guess, for being healthy when they won a game when stafford was hurt. Had stafford started, it's likely they would have lost, despite suh's heroics that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the Lions blogs broke down each of Stafford's losses against winning teams on the road, but I couldn't find it in my quick internet sleuthing. My take away from it was the Stafford seemed to play fairly well in the losses, but was on teams with virtually no running game and league worst defenses. I wish I could remember where I saw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to Colin talk about how teams rise and fall now on the QB in the NFL. He basically said yesterday:

The NFL is QB league now. Look at the final 4 teams this year. All 4 are probably in the top 5-6 QB's in the league. Teams like New England and Pittsburgh have had one consistent thing that has made them successful for most the past 10 years, QB. What happened when New Orleans picked up Drew Brees in 2006? They went from winning 3-4 games to winning double digits IIRC. What happened to the Seahawks the year after they drafted Russell Wilson? They went from 7 wins to 11 wins and a SB a few years later. Even though Joe Flacco has a pretty average season stats wise, his playoff numbers are off the chain. Peyton Manning elevates his receivers no matter where he goes. When they leave Manning, they often disappear.

It definitely takes a "team" to be truly successful in the NFL, but you can succeed without a great running back, or a great CB, or even without a great defense, but you can't be truly successful without a great QB in the NFL today, was his bottom line. Elite QB's rule the NFL, and if you aren't winning, it is likely because you don't have one.

Having said all that, I wonder what Colin would say about Stafford. I still like the guy. I tend to think that if the Lions get him a consistent O-line, I think he would be top 5 in the NFL, but I like kool aid, and I may be still drinking it with Stafford. :dead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was listening to Colin talk about how teams rise and fall now on the QB in the NFL. He basically said yesterday:

The NFL is QB league now. Look at the final 4 teams this year. All 4 are probably in the top 5-6 QB's in the league. Teams like New England and Pittsburgh have had one consistent thing that has made them successful for most the past 10 years, QB. What happened when New Orleans picked up Drew Brees in 2006? They went from winning 3-4 games to winning double digits IIRC. What happened to the Seahawks the year after they drafted Russell Wilson? They went from 7 wins to 11 wins and a SB a few years later. Even though Joe Flacco has a pretty average season stats wise, his playoff numbers are off the chain. Peyton Manning elevates his receivers no matter where he goes. When they leave Manning, they often disappear.

Colin is the KING of extrapolating from little to great. He makes way to many leaps of the correlation-therefore-causation kind.

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
      96,812
    • Total Posts
      2,951,014
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

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