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

[inkfreq]

I will agree with one thing you said though... I don't expect Lombardi's offense to improve. I haven't seen anything from the man to suggest he can make adjustments and be better.

I see a guy who's was lucky enough to coach with Sean Peyton and have Drew Brees as his QB, and people thought he was better than he is for it.

However, I expect the offense as a whole to be better, because familiarity in an offense helps every team. Could be the least talented team ever, with the worst Offensive Coordinator ever, and they will improve in year 2.

 

[jdeb]

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.

Actually, he was extremely flexible. He figured out in short order (before regular season) that the players could not grasp his offense quick enough. Part of this was due to the players union negotiating all that off-season work and classroom stuff eliminated. This cuts heavily into rookies learning the systems or new coaching schemes being implemented. So, in reality, he adjusted and simplified his playbook and they managed 11 wins with a very vanilla and conservative approach. Stafford stole 3 games with spectacular comebacks. You can only say the defense won those games if the scores were all safeties.

 

[mhughes0021]

If you throw out his best season, worst season and shortened season he is below average in almost every statistical category except yards and is slightly above average in td passes. Comp %, qbr, qb rating he is wayyyy below average. More importantly hes 22-24 during those seasons which just so happen to be his last 3 years which means he was already a developed veteran. 2 of the years playing in a system he was completely comfortable. 11-21 by the way during those years and got his coaches fired so you can throw out your familiarity with the system argument.

 

[inkfreq]

Amazingly, you just showed how totally wrong you are.

Let's say we agree for a minute to also remove the 2011 season, which was statistically his best. Now, I want to point out I think that is flawed, because while it is statistically higher than his average, there is no reason to remove it from discussion, like his rookie season, or his severely shortened season (which by the way is numbers were not bad in 3 games, they were removed from my point for fairness sake).

Removing the 2011 season, his completion percentage falls from 59.6% to 59.53%, not only not changing his numbers really at all, but not moving him up or down the career completion list one bit.

His QBR over his career goes from 83.6 to 82.23, less than a percentage point different. His yards per game average goes from 282 to 289.

I could go on and on for each column,m but essentially the only column that changes much at all is TDs, which go from 21.83 per season average (over six seasons) to 23.6 (over the remaining three seasons).

It's not actually hard to plug his numbers into a spreadsheet (I copied and pasted) and remove years at will and come up with those averages man. You might want to do that before you keep making claims that if you remove this or that, he dovetails drastically.

He doesn't. He's essentially the same player across the board with or without his best season, aside from his rookie year. Even the year he only played in 3 games, he was the same player, I just removed that season due to sample size.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Regardless how and what we determine about Matt..he comes out as average. Yippee.

 

[inkfreq]

Regardless how and what we determine about Matt..he comes out as average. Yippee.

Again, he doesn't. He comes out as above average to very good.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Again, he doesn't. He comes out as above average to very good.

Sorry but no. Average to slightly above average I might give you. But "...to very good." I don't think so. It's okay you're still the best..

 

[mhughes0021]

Very good at what....you write the longest post that mean nothing lol. What, exactly, is he very good at? Now lets see you cherry pick stats cause hes very good at nothing but yardage.

 

[inkfreq]

Very good at what....you write the longest post that mean nothing lol. What, exactly, is he very good at? Now lets see you cherry pick stats cause hes very good at nothing but yardage.

I can write the post for you, but I can't made you read it or comprehend it man.

 

[mhughes0021]

I can write the post for you, but I can't made you read it or comprehend it man.

I understand everything you say...you are just misinformed. An average is not weighted any more or less by having a season of 3 games. Thats why they are called averages.

 

[inkfreq]

I understand everything you say...you are just misinformed. An average is not weighted any more or less by having a season of 3 games. Thats why they are called averages.

Obviously, you don't understand it. First of all, an average is only accurate with a sample size that reflects the norm. 3 games doesn't do that any more than Sam Martin's 100% completion percentage reflects his value against the norm.

But more importantly, if you understood what was being said, you'd realize those 3 games don't even factor. Add that season or take it away, it doesn't really change his numbers at all.

The only season you can justifying discount is his rookie season, and short of that season, his numbers are above the NFL average for the time span.

 

[dubbsco]

But that's not what he's here for, Ink. No matter how you slice it, he was drafted to be a franchise mover, a game changer. He should be setting the standard, winning playoff games, leading this team to memorable moments. Instead, we are talking about him being above the average.

 

[mhughes0021]

Obviously, you don't understand it. First of all, an average is only accurate with a sample size that reflects the norm. 3 games doesn't do that any more than Sam Martin's 100% completion percentage reflects his value against the norm.

But more importantly, if you understood what was being said, you'd realize those 3 games don't even factor. Add that season or take it away, it doesn't really change his numbers at all.

The only season you can justifying discount is his rookie season, and short of that season, his numbers are above the NFL average for the time span.

Which is by rule making you sound like a homer. ....i agree his first year was abnormally really bad. His really good year should be viewed as abnormally very good. Meanibg his 3 full seasons otger than those 2 should be what he is. He was very very average shading to below average all 3 of those seasons.

 

[dubbsco]

I don't understand why a lot of fans just go to the ends of the earth to defend this guy, and then someone like Jimmy Howard lets in a few goals and he's basically tossed away like an old sweatshirt. Strange dynamic. Maybe the fans are just holding onto the laurels that he's going to be good someday.

 

[mhughes0021]

I don't understand why a lot of fans just go to the ends of the earth to defend this guy, and then someone like Jimmy Howard lets in a few goals and he's basically tossed away like an old sweatshirt. Strange dynamic. Maybe the fans are just holding onto the laurels that he's going to be good someday.

For me. ....even if he had another GREAT season this upcomming year:

1) i wouldnt be surprised. Weve catered way to many resources to him....one of these years he should capitalize on them.

2) i still wouldn't think that's the norm. The norm for me woukd be that hes inconsistent with potential of being good. Basically the same as now.

 

[inkfreq]

Which is by rule making you sound like a homer. ....i agree his first year was abnormally really bad. His really good year should be viewed as abnormally very good. Meanibg his 3 full seasons otger than those 2 should be what he is. He was very very average shading to below average all 3 of those seasons.

And as I've already pointed out, and you said you comprehend, good year out or good year in, his numbers are almost identical. Count 3 seasons, 5 seasons.. doesn't matter to me, the numbers are about the same any way you average them, except for the TDs.

He's had one year of 41, and one of 6 in three games. Believe it or not, those about average out to his norm anyway. The numbers don't change year over year average, except for the rookie season.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I think that's the difference. They do average out to his norm, which is average.

 

[dubbsco]

Sometimes it goes past the numbers (which are still quite pedestrian for Matty Ice). When you watch him on the field, do you see a guy that can be a winner? Someone that can put a team on his back? People constantly point to these great comebacks he had last season, but he was also partially responsible for putting the team in those holes due to poor early play.

You can look at Andrew Luck after three years, and you can just SEE that he's going to be a superstar. I don't see that stuff from Stafford. I see a guy with a great arm who still makes incredibly bonehead decisions, and has the same accuracy issues that have plagued him since college.

 

[mhughes0021]

Sometimes it goes past the numbers (which are still quite pedestrian for Matty Ice). When you watch him on the field, do you see a guy that can be a winner? Someone that can put a team on his back? People constantly point to these great comebacks he had last season, but he was also partially responsible for putting the team in those holes due to poor early play.

You can look at Andrew Luck after three years, and you can just SEE that he's going to be a superstar. I don't see that stuff from Stafford. I see a guy with a great arm who still makes incredibly bonehead decisions, and has the same accuracy issues that have plagued him since college.

His biggest problem is he needs a completely clean pocket or else he shits his pants.

 

[inkfreq]

Sometimes it goes past the numbers (which are still quite pedestrian for Matty Ice). When you watch him on the field, do you see a guy that can be a winner? Someone that can put a team on his back? People constantly point to these great comebacks he had last season, but he was also partially responsible for putting the team in those holes due to poor early play.

You can look at Andrew Luck after three years, and you can just SEE that he's going to be a superstar. I don't see that stuff from Stafford. I see a guy with a great arm who still makes incredibly bonehead decisions, and has the same accuracy issues that have plagued him since college.

I'm not sure how you don't see a guy that can put a team on his shoulders and win...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...hew-stafford-has-become-the-new-comeback-king