Lions lowball George Johnson Bucs sign him to 3 year offer sheet

[jdeb]

Might be more this year with a season under their belt. Should be more dynamic and Ebron might take off... at least that's the latest kool-aid they're serving in the media.

 

[inkfreq]

If Ebron puts up 500 yards, it means we have no running game again. He will be important to the offense, but completely within context.

No matter what, he won't be better than the third option. But that could be a critical weapon for the offense.

I still think it was the wrong pick because of the position, but I have no reason yet to be down on the player. Rookie years mean nothing.

 

[boogerlovejoy]

If Ebron puts up 500 yards, it means we have no running game again. He will be important to the offense, but completely within context.

No matter what, he won't be better than the third option. But that could be a critical weapon for the offense.

I still think it was the wrong pick because of the position, but I have no reason yet to be down on the player. Rookie years mean nothing.

I don't think anyone is down on the player. That would be moronic. Ebron could still break out.....he seems to have the physical talent to do so. It's just the pick.

If you pick a TE at #10.......he better become great. Picking anyone at #10 hoping he "opens up the offense" and hoping he would becom a 3rd option is just bad drafting.

Not a shot at Ebron.......shot at Mayhew.

 

[mhughes0021]

I don't think anyone is down on the player. That would be moronic. Ebron could still break out.....he seems to have the physical talent to do so. It's just the pick.

If you pick a TE at #10.......he better become great. Picking anyone at #10 hoping he "opens up the offense" and hoping he would becom a 3rd option is just bad drafting.

Not a shot at Ebron.......shot at Mayhew.

I actually think he has a decent year next year. But like you said.....not worthy of the 10th pick. I know I know....I always bring it back to Stafford.....but guys like Julius Thomas and Jimmy Graham have peyton and brees throwing to them. Does anyone think their production stays the same in SEA and JAX? When Stafford becomes more like peyton and brees maybe we can see more reliable production from multiple targets.

 

[inkfreq]

I actually think he has a decent year next year. But like you said.....not worthy of the 10th pick. I know I know....I always bring it back to Stafford.....but guys like Julius Thomas and Jimmy Graham have peyton and brees throwing to them. Does anyone think their production stays the same in SEA and JAX? When Stafford becomes more like peyton and brees maybe we can see more reliable production from multiple targets.

Stafford is easily good enough to make use of the weapons he has. Hell, Christian Ponder was good enough to make something happen with this crew.

The problem is, there are only so many balls thrown in a game, and only one guy can catch them at a time.

Who's numbers would any of us like to see nose dive to prop Ebron up? Calvin? Tate? I think not.

And that's why I say it was a bad pick, not a bad player. Don't forget, when we made the pick we had Reggie Bush, who is more of a slot receiver than a back anyway.

Doesn't matter how many weapons Stafford has, or how good he is or isn't.. the ball can't be everywhere at once, and the low man on the totem pole is going to be Ebron 9 times out of 10.

 

[mhughes0021]

Stafford is easily good enough to make use of the weapons he has. Hell, Christian Ponder was good enough to make something happen with this crew.

The problem is, there are only so many balls thrown in a game, and only one guy can catch them at a time.

Who's numbers would any of us like to see nose dive to prop Ebron up? Calvin? Tate? I think not.

And that's why I say it was a bad pick, not a bad player. Don't forget, when we made the pick we had Reggie Bush, who is more of a slot receiver than a back anyway.

Doesn't matter how many weapons Stafford has, or how good he is or isn't.. the ball can't be everywhere at once, and the low man on the totem pole is going to be Ebron 9 times out of 10.

when you start to get to 70% completion like the higher caliber QBs then there technically IS more opportunity to catch balls. Just that higher %age alone is like 2-3 catches a game. Then throw in the fact you have longer drives. Ill answer your question though with another question.....how long does Calvins production stay elite? Hes just too big and too fast to stay that good for much longer....big bodies break faster. Id think its a good sign if Stafford begins to get more weapons involved. would mean hes improved his progressions, spreading the ball to the open guy more, and saving our best player from aging to quickly.

 

[jdeb]

Saving our best player from aging too quickly by spreading the ball around? 70% completion? OMG! You must be drunk or doing drugs...

Sure let's throw the ball to best and one of the highest pay WR half the amount of time. That will win games. This board is border line unvisitable.

 

[inkfreq]

when you start to get to 70% completion like the higher caliber QBs then there technically IS more opportunity to catch balls. Just that higher %age alone is like 2-3 catches a game. Then throw in the fact you have longer drives. Ill answer your question though with another question.....how long does Calvins production stay elite? Hes just too big and too fast to stay that good for much longer....big bodies break faster. Id think its a good sign if Stafford begins to get more weapons involved. would mean hes improved his progressions, spreading the ball to the open guy more, and saving our best player from aging to quickly.

70% bud? For real?

Drew Brees has the highest completion percentage in NFL history, and his career percentage is a whopping 66.2%. No one has come close to 70%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_cmp_perc_career.htm

Stafford by the way is 59.6%, only about 6% behind Brees, which is not exactly shabby. He ranks #40 all-time on that list.

I do agree with you though, getting more guys involved is a big sign of him learning his progressions better, but it's also a sign that we're going away from our most lethal weapons.

I'd be a lot happier with Ebron drawing coverage off Calvin and Tate to make those throws easier than Ebron catching a lot of passes because Calvin is constantly blanketed with multiple defenders.

The reality is, even when Calvin doesn't catch the ball, he's getting bumped and banged out there, and the fewer guys on him to do that, the better his career longevity looks.

EDIT: Holy crap, I didn't realize Luck was lower on that list than Stafford. Not an indictment of the kid at all, I just thought Luck was dead on balls accurate.

 

[Mitchrapp]

6% is quite a bit. There are tons of QB between 66.2 and 59.6. He's quite the inaccurate QB.

 

[jdeb]

70% bud? For real?

Drew Brees has the highest completion percentage in NFL history, and his career percentage is a whopping 66.2%. No one has come close to 70%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_cmp_perc_career.htm

Stafford by the way is 59.6%, only about 6% behind Brees, which is not exactly shabby. He ranks #40 all-time on that list.

Holy crap, I didn't realize Luck was lower on that list than Stafford. Not an indictment of the kid at all, I just thought Luck was dead on balls accurate.

Indy led the league with 40 dropped passes in 647 targets (6.2%) and Lions had 24 (4.1%) in 590. Cowboys dropped only 10. Play with those numbers a bit on the calculator and suddenly you could make some arguments about pass efficiency percentage.

 

[dubbsco]

Ink, at some point we have to stop talking about Stafford being good enough to make this offense hum. He just needs to do it.

Some players go their entire careers hearing about how much talent they have, and just never do anything with it. It's put up or shut up time for him.

 

[brewer229]

70% bud? For real?

Drew Brees has the highest completion percentage in NFL history, and his career percentage is a whopping 66.2%. No one has come close to 70%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_cmp_perc_career.htm

Stafford by the way is 59.6%, only about 6% behind Brees, which is not exactly shabby. He ranks #40 all-time on that list.

I do agree with you though, getting more guys involved is a big sign of him learning his progressions better, but it's also a sign that we're going away from our most lethal weapons.

I'd be a lot happier with Ebron drawing coverage off Calvin and Tate to make those throws easier than Ebron catching a lot of passes because Calvin is constantly blanketed with multiple defenders.

People need to get away from historical rankings. It is way easier to play QB in Todays game. In recent history (since Stafford has been a Lion. A number of players finished with 68%+ comp percentage. Brees was above 70 in 2011.

Ebron takes no more coverage than Pettigrew. If that's the goal it was a wasted pick.

 

[mhughes0021]

Saving our best player from aging too quickly by spreading the ball around? 70% completion? OMG! You must be drunk or doing drugs...

Sure let's throw the ball to best and one of the highest pay WR half the amount of time. That will win games. This board is border line unvisitable.

Oh i get it......you think calvin is going to catch 100 balls for 1600 yards every year of his life ....

 

[mhughes0021]

70% bud? For real?

Drew Brees has the highest completion percentage in NFL history, and his career percentage is a whopping 66.2%. No one has come close to 70%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_cmp_perc_career.htm

Stafford by the way is 59.6%, only about 6% behind Brees, which is not exactly shabby. He ranks #40 all-time on that list.

I do agree with you though, getting more guys involved is a big sign of him learning his progressions better, but it's also a sign that we're going away from our most lethal weapons.

I'd be a lot happier with Ebron drawing coverage off Calvin and Tate to make those throws easier than Ebron catching a lot of passes because Calvin is constantly blanketed with multiple defenders.

The reality is, even when Calvin doesn't catch the ball, he's getting bumped and banged out there, and the fewer guys on him to do that, the better his career longevity looks.

EDIT: Holy crap, I didn't realize Luck was lower on that list than Stafford. Not an indictment of the kid at all, I just thought Luck was dead on balls accurate.

Arod had 7 games of 70% or better. Stafford...3. Great....good.....not so good.....then stafford when it comes to accuracy and comp %.

 

[inkfreq]

People need to get away from historical rankings. It is way easier to play QB in Todays game. In recent history (since Stafford has been a Lion. A number of players finished with 68%+ comp percentage. Brees was above 70 in 2011.

Ebron takes no more coverage than Pettigrew. If that's the goal it was a wasted pick.

I agree with you to an extent, but there is always the static within the noise that has to be intelligently analyzed when looking at any set of numbers.

For example, Brees has the highest completion percentage over his career of all time right? Actually, not exactly. There are several players whose career completion percentage is significantly higher. One of those, is our very own Sam Martin, who has a 100% completion percentage.

That's right, Sam has attempted two passes, and completed two passes.

Why even mention a guy with a sample size of a whole two? Because it illustrates the point that the sample size makes a huge difference. For several seasons in a row, Stafford attempted more passes, by a significant margin mind you, than any other QB in the league... the larger the sample size, the more glaring the number and the anomalies. If Sam Martin attempted even one more pass and failed, he would drop to a 66% completion rating, which is still far beyond most starting QB's in the game today, but he would also still only have a sample size of three.

Brees, historically, attempts more passes than say Blake Bortles or Russell Wilson. So his numbers cannot be directly compared head to head and get an accurate reading on either guy.

That's the static within the noise, the intelligent analytics that determine the "why" factor.

Staffords number are significantly lowered over the career average by the fact he's only played in six seasons, and one of those he played in only three games due to injury. His rookie year he really struggled, and posted only a 53% completion percentage to go along with an amazingly low 28.4 QBR, one of the lowest in history.

Where's the static there? He was a rookie QB taking over the first 0-16 team in history. His number for that season should not surprise anyone with how terrible they were. But in a short six year career, that one outlier season can significantly lower his career numbers.

Obviously a season in which injury held him to three games doesn't make for great statistical analysis either.

Looking strictly over the four years he played as a full time starter, with a real team around him, we would get an average completion percentage of 60.5%, 4728 yards per season average, and 28 TDs a year (although the 2011 season unfairly skews that number a lot), with an 86.725 RAT.

Those numbers would put him among the 30 best all-time, again in a very weak head to head comparison.

One thing we have to remember is that the career numbers of the legendary players are often lowered again, unfairly, by the final years of their careers. Many of these guys hung around the game too long, and their numbers took a dive by playing those last three, four, or even five years when they really should have been retired.

Stafford has yet to hit those years, and at 27, is still one of the younger QBs in the game. So no matter what we do, we really can't break down his short career and compare it to guys who's overly long career may have been affected adversely.

My ultimate point is this... based on any number not including QBR (a seriously flawed statistic they should flatly stop using) Matt Stafford has ranked during his short career as a well above average QB, and by most numbers, may even be a Hall of Fame candidate before he's done. The criticism he takes from his fans is not necessarily unwarranted, but is often unfairly skewed in favor of number which are directly intended to paint him in a bad light (ie: he's never won a road game against an opponent with a winning record, as though wins and losses are strictly defined by the QB).

In any given year, the Lions offense has been mediocre with Stafford under center, or it's been spectacular (2011), or it's been above average... but aside from his rookie year which was a clear outlier, it's never been below league average, or so significantly below league average as to call for concern.

In 2014, we were ever so slightly below league average offensively, which I feel can be explained by the new system and coaches. However, when you look at the total offense of teams 12-20, the differences separating them are so insignificant they shouldn't even be analyzed.

Basic Breakdown: the numbers, when looked at through an intelligent filter, indicate he's a very good QB with room to grow.

If Stafford were a stock, and I was in a boardroom, I would recommend buying based on the numbers I see not selling.

 

[mhughes0021]

I have no reason to believe y2lombardi offense will be better than y1lombardi offense. Why? Cause the guy doesn't have his own offense and showed no signs of flexibility last year.

 

[mhughes0021]

I
Staffords number are significantly lowered over the career average by the fact he's only played in six seasons, and one of those he played in only three games due to injury. His rookie year he really struggled, and posted only a 53% completion percentage to go along with an amazingly low 28.4 QBR, one of the lowest in history.

Where's the static there? He was a rookie QB taking over the first 0-16 team in history. His number for that season should not surprise anyone with how terrible they were. But in a short six year career, that one outlier season can significantly lower his career numbers.

Obviously a season in which injury held him to three games doesn't make for great statistical analysis either.

Looking strictly over the four years he played as a full time starter, with a real team around him, we would get an average completion percentage of 60.5%, 4728 yards per season average, and 28 TDs a year (although the 2011 season unfairly skews that number a lot), with an 86.725 RAT.

Those numbers would put him among the 30 best all-time, again in a very weak head to head comparison.

One thing we have to remember is that the career numbers of the legendary players are often lowered again, unfairly, by the final years of their careers. Many of these guys hung around the game too long, and their numbers took a dive by playing those last three, four, or even five years when they really should have been retired.

Stafford has yet to hit those years, and at 27, is still one of the younger QBs in the game. So no matter what we do, we really can't break down his short career and compare it to guys who's overly long career may have been affected adversely.

My ultimate point is this... based on any number not including QBR (a seriously flawed statistic they should flatly stop using) Matt Stafford has ranked during his short career as a well above average QB, and by most numbers, may even be a Hall of Fame candidate before he's done. The criticism he takes from his fans is not necessarily unwarranted, but is often unfairly skewed in favor of number which are directly intended to paint him in a bad light (ie: he's never won a road game against an opponent with a winning record, as though wins and losses are strictly defined by the QB).

In any given year, the Lions offense has been mediocre with Stafford under center, or it's been spectacular (2011), or it's been above average... but aside from his rookie year which was a clear outlier, it's never been below league average, or so significantly below league average as to call for concern.

In 2014, we were ever so slightly below league average offensively, which I feel can be explained by the new system and coaches. However, when you look at the total offense of teams 12-20, the differences separating them are so insignificant they shouldn't even be analyzed.

Basic Breakdown: the numbers, when looked at through an intelligent filter, indicate he's a very good QB with room to grow.

If Stafford were a stock, and I was in a boardroom, I would recommend buying based on the numbers I see not selling.

only 6 seasons? Most guys don't get even that long. There's alot of number 1 overall picks that didn't get that long.

Intelligent filters? Intelligent is not based on projections and hopes and dreams. If thats the case id rather be dumb....but in reality. He was a bottom third qb last year. When he had one of the best olines in football he couldnt get it done cause he "needed more weapons." When we got him more weapons he couldn't get it done. Great players overcome excuses. The dumb reality is he will never be better than arod so he will rarely if ever win a division title. By the way....when arod went down for a good amount of time he still couldnt close out the division.

 

[inkfreq]

only 6 seasons? Most guys don't get even that long. There's alot of number 1 overall picks that didn't get that long.

Intelligent filters? Intelligent is not based on projections and hopes and dreams. If thats the case id rather be dumb....but in reality. He was a bottom third qb last year. When he had one of the best olines in football he couldnt get it done cause he "needed more weapons." When we got him more weapons he couldn't get it done. Great players overcome excuses. The dumb reality is he will never be better than arod so he will rarely if ever win a division title. By the way....when arod went down for a good amount of time he still couldnt close out the division.

Hughes, seriously, quit trying to inject bullshit into every conversation.

No one said anything I just wrote was based on projections. I didn't "project" he would be good in a few years.

I said that when you analyze his numbers in context of his rookie year, his injuries, and even his well above norm season in 2011, he still shows to be an above average QB.

That's not based on some pipe dream about where he will end up in over the course of his career.. that's removing his rookie year do to factors beyond his control (taking over an 0-16 team as a rookie with very little talent around him) his second year when he only played in 3 games (sample size to small to accurately measure) and accounting for his 2011 season being so far above his average that it would appear to be an anomaly (41 TDs is nearly double what he's done in other seasons).

So in the end, we're removing the perception of seasons beyond his control and taking into account seasons so far above his norm that they can't be considered a reliable metric, and coming to a final conclusion.

And that conclusion is that he still stands out as one of the better QBs in the league. Argue it anyway you want. Feel free to cherry pick stats some more.. but the metrics don't lie. When an intelligent human filter is applied, he's a good QB that still has time to develop due to his age, not the QB so many others have painted him to be with numbers designed to reflect only one side of the argument.

If his total numbers showed him to be a bad QB, I'd flat out say it, because I'm with you guys in that I want winning teams. I don't care what players those teams are composed of... I want win, and championships, something none of us have ever seen. If Stafford was the Qb you make him out to be, I'd be on the "replace his ass" bandwagon with you.

The fact is, he's not. He's a QB that is fully capable of winning championships and has a lot of talent. He's not a player that I would give up on if I were the GM of this team.

 

[jdeb]

only 6 seasons? Most guys don't get even that long. There's alot of number 1 overall picks that didn't get that long.

Intelligent filters? Intelligent is not based on projections and hopes and dreams. If thats the case id rather be dumb....but in reality. He was a bottom third qb last year. When he had one of the best olines in football he couldnt get it done cause he "needed more weapons." When we got him more weapons he couldn't get it done. Great players overcome excuses. The dumb reality is he will never be better than arod so he will rarely if ever win a division title. By the way....when arod went down for a good amount of time he still couldnt close out the division.

You totally missed his pointe

 

[inkfreq]

And I have to ask.. why all the comparisons to Rodgers?

Rodgers is arguably the best QB in the league, and his career trajectory put him in the discussions for the best ever if he stays on the path he's on right now. He's going to be up there in that discussion before it's over.

And yet, he's won a single Super Bowl. Eli Manning has two. Further proof that winning isn't in the sole hands of the QB.

Rodgers was drafted 4 years before Stafford, to a much better team than Stafford was drafted to, and yet we compare the two on this board all the time? Makes no sense to me.

No.. Stafford isn't Rodgers. Never will be. Rodgers is a very special and rare player. Can we move past that comparison now? In all honesty, Andrew Luck isn't likely to be better than Rodgers during his career. No one in the game today is likely to do that. The man is just that damned good.