Go Back   DetroitSportsForum > Sports > Detroit Lions > NFL General Board
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-12-2017, 08:44 AM   #11
grandy   grandy is offline
Senior Member
 
grandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 9,621
I see Stafford is 58-64* in the regular season

http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-r...e=reg&alltime=






*-Actually 122-0, losses can be attributed to injuries, officiating, weather, etc



Login or Register to Remove Ads
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 12:12 PM   #12
boogerlovejoy   boogerlovejoy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MI
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandy View Post
I see Stafford is 58-64* in the regular season

http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-r...e=reg&alltime=

*-Actually 122-0, losses can be attributed to injuries, officiating, weather, etc
Not sure it's really fair to judge Matthew Stafford on his overall record. He took over the worst franchise in all of sports, at 21 years old, and a team that was 0-16. What was he supposed to do in his first few seasons??? He's 55-54 after his first two years. While that isn't great....consider we haven't have ANY coaching stability, at OC or HC, in his entire career and it's likely he'll have another OC and HC soon. The QB's considered the best in the NFL have had the same head coach most of or ALL of their careers. Brady, Rodgers, Ruthlessraper, Wilson, Brees (same since he got to NO). It's no coincidence that the better QB's have stability in their offense to the point THEY essentially become the OC. Stafford has had 3 OC's in 9 years and is set for another soon.

He's been asked to go from a gunslinger, Brett Favre type, QB under Linehan, to a west coast style very complex offense under Lombardi to a .......whatever it is JBC runs.

IMO.....we need an OC that wants to let Stafford be himself. He needs to let it go downfield more often. More of a Linehan style offense. Would he throw more INT's......probably. But I'm ok with that IF it leads to a more effective offense.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 12:25 PM   #13
grandy   grandy is offline
Senior Member
 
grandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 9,621
I was mostly joking. He came into one of the shittiest situations, then couldn’t stay healthy, but finally managed to do quite well for himself. I don’t think he’s elite, but the Lions could do much worse, as shown in the previous decade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogerlovejoy View Post
IMO.....we need an OC that wants to let Stafford be himself. He needs to let it go downfield more often. More of a Linehan style offense. Would he throw more INT's......probably. But I'm ok with that IF it leads to a more effective offense.
I’ve always wondered how much they held him back in this offense. A drop in ints doesn’t necessarily mean better decision-making, the same can be achieved with less risk-taking, and I wonder what the balance there really is. I think they initially focused on cutting down on his bad throws, but I wonder now whether he plays “too safe” at times.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 01:02 PM   #14
boogerlovejoy   boogerlovejoy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MI
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandy View Post
I was mostly joking. He came into one of the shittiest situations, then couldn’t stay healthy, but finally managed to do quite well for himself. I don’t think he’s elite, but the Lions could do much worse, as shown in the previous decade.



I’ve always wondered how much they held him back in this offense. A drop in ints doesn’t necessarily mean better decision-making, the same can be achieved with less risk-taking, and I wonder what the balance there really is. I think they initially focused on cutting down on his bad throws, but I wonder now whether he plays “too safe” at times.
Plus, I just think he's a better QB now than he was in 2011 or 2012. It's a natural progression. You can even look at Brady's numbers in his first 5 full years. About 61% completion percentage, about 26 TD's and 13 INT/year. He was a good QB on a GREAT team. Then, the light bulb goes on for him and he explodes into the GOAT for the next decade. He was about 30 at that time.

Hopefully, the light goes on for Stafford like it did for Brady!!!

You put Stafford in McVays offense.....I think you'd see Stafford jump into the elite status.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 01:33 PM   #15
brewer229   brewer229 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogerlovejoy View Post
Brady, Rodgers, Ruthlessraper, Wilson, Brees (same since he got to NO). It's no coincidence that the better QB's have stability in their offense to the point THEY essentially become the OC. Stafford has had 3 OC's in 9 years and is set for another soon.

He's been asked to go from a gunslinger, Brett Favre type, QB under Linehan, to a west coast style very complex offense under Lombardi to a .......whatever it is JBC runs.

IMO.....we need an OC that wants to let Stafford be himself. He needs to let it go downfield more often. More of a Linehan style offense. Would he throw more INT's......probably. But I'm ok with that IF it leads to a more effective offense.
This is the debate you can always have.

Do they have coaching stability because they are Elite QBs? Or did all the elite QBs just happen to have great coaches?
Winning keeps coachs, elite QBs win, therefore elite QBs have long term coaches. At least that's how I view it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 01:38 PM   #16
Mitchrapp   Mitchrapp is online now
Moderator
 
Mitchrapp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 38,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogerlovejoy View Post
He's been asked to go from a gunslinger, Brett Favre type, QB under Linehan, to a west coast style very complex offense under Lombardi to a .......whatever it is JBC runs.

IMO.....we need an OC that wants to let Stafford be himself. He needs to let it go downfield more often. More of a Linehan style offense. Would he throw more INT's......probably. But I'm ok with that IF it leads to a more effective offense.
Been saying for a long time. It's almost like they're afraid of the INT. It's okay to have 15-18 INT if you're getting 40 TD's. Like 2011, that guy becomes a potential hall of fame guy. Not an Alex Smith guy.

Last 6 years, including 2017, only 1 season he has 30+ TD. We don't have the defense to win with an Alex Smith type QB.
__________________
Trying to sneak a pitch past Hank Aaron is like trying to sneak a sunrise past a Rooster -- Joe Adcock

What are we at the park for except to win? I'd trip my mother. I'd help her up, brush her off, tell her I'm sorry. But mother don't make it to third -- Leo Durocher

The NFL can kiss my ass!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 01:47 PM   #17
brewer229   brewer229 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitchrapp View Post
Been saying for a long time. It's almost like they're afraid of the INT. It's okay to have 15-18 INT if you're getting 40 TD's. Like 2011, that guy becomes a potential hall of fame guy. Not an Alex Smith guy.

Last 6 years, including 2017, only 1 season he has 30+ TD. We don't have the defense to win with an Alex Smith type QB.
He played the same way in 2012 and finished with 20 TDs and 18 INTs. 29 and 19 INTs in 2013.

If you could guarantee 2011 Stafford, I'm sure everyone would take that. But there isn't much history to support that wasn't the odd ball year.

2015, 2016 and 2017 Stafford has been better then 2012 and 2013 Stafford. I think we are close to the right path with him. We just need to improve our defense this upcoming year (mostly D-line).

Stafford has gotten to a place where you can win with him, and occasionally can win you a game. He's no longer losing many for us. We just need a better defense. This year, when defense plays well we win, when it doesn't we lose. Stafford is Alex Smith..hes not Rodgers..that's okay. At least he isn't Cutler anymore.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 02:23 PM   #18
boogerlovejoy   boogerlovejoy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MI
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer229 View Post
This is the debate you can always have.

Do they have coaching stability because they are Elite QBs? Or did all the elite QBs just happen to have great coaches?
Winning keeps coachs, elite QBs win, therefore elite QBs have long term coaches. At least that's how I view it.
I can see that. But here's a good example of how I see it.

As I mentioned, Brady's average season from '01 - '06 was roughly 61%, 3800 yards, 26 TD and 13 INT and a rating right around 88. They win 3 Super Bowl titles with essentially a good QB. He explodes in '07.

In 2008 Brady goes down. Cassell comes in and goes for 63%, 3700 yards with 21 TD and 11 INT and an 89 rating. Very "Brady like" numbers in the NE system to that point. They go 11-5 but miss the playoffs in a stacked AFC that year. Was Brady really that great to that point, or was he in a system where even average QB's like Cassell can win games and put up decent numbers??

I think it goes hand in hand. The truly great coaches/GM's build great teams around their QB's....and with winning comes consistency in everything from draft strategy and free agent signings to offensive philosophy.

Either way, Stafford has never seen any stability and part of that is certainly on him.....but lets not pretend that we've had any decent teams supporting him, either. He isn't Brady or Rodgers and he probably never will be, but I believe you can win a Super Bowl with Matthew Stafford as your QB.

Last edited by boogerlovejoy; 12-12-2017 at 02:24 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 02:34 PM   #19
boogerlovejoy   boogerlovejoy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MI
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewer229 View Post
He played the same way in 2012 and finished with 20 TDs and 18 INTs. 29 and 19 INTs in 2013.

If you could guarantee 2011 Stafford, I'm sure everyone would take that. But there isn't much history to support that wasn't the odd ball year.
But guys get better, even after 5,6 years. Brady used to throw 13 or 14 picks a year.....now its 5-6. He's played in the same system for his entire career. You just get more comfortable when your so familiar with your offense you've run each play you call hundreds of times.

I don't think you'd see 2012 or 2013 Stafford again. (I say that knowing he threw 2 STUPID passes Sunday) Maybe I'm wrong. I think #9 belongs in a more vertical offense.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2017, 03:05 PM   #20
brewer229   brewer229 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogerlovejoy View Post
I can see that. But here's a good example of how I see it.

As I mentioned, Brady's average season from '01 - '06 was roughly 61%, 3800 yards, 26 TD and 13 INT and a rating right around 88. They win 3 Super Bowl titles with essentially a good QB. He explodes in '07.

In 2008 Brady goes down. Cassell comes in and goes for 63%, 3700 yards with 21 TD and 11 INT and an 89 rating. Very "Brady like" numbers in the NE system to that point. They go 11-5 but miss the playoffs in a stacked AFC that year. Was Brady really that great to that point, or was he in a system where even average QB's like Cassell can win games and put up decent numbers??

I think it goes hand in hand. The truly great coaches/GM's build great teams around their QB's....and with winning comes consistency in everything from draft strategy and free agent signings to offensive philosophy.

Either way, Stafford has never seen any stability and part of that is certainly on him.....but lets not pretend that we've had any decent teams supporting him, either. He isn't Brady or Rodgers and he probably never will be, but I believe you can win a Super Bowl with Matthew Stafford as your QB.
Well it was a slightly different game in 2001-2006. There wasn't a single year that Tom Brady didn't finish in the top 10 in QB rating.
It's just flat out easier to play QB now.

In 2001 there was 1 QB with a 100+ rating (Warner at 101.4)
There were only 5 QBs above 90.

This year there is 6 QBs over 100 and 17 over 90 rating.

So a statistically average QB now, would have been a statistically top 5 QB 16 years ago.

I'll take the best QB in the league over the best coach in the league.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Top      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.