Stafford

[dubbsco]

I just don't agree with a lot of that link. It's total bs to put all that stuff strictly on the coaching staff, especially when they were the first staff in eternity to take the Lions to the playoffs. They helped Stafford have a career year in 2011.

It's nice to talk about how all the mechanics are being worked on, but until he's in a game, we'll truly see how it looks.

 

[LKP]

Stafford had 10 ints in 4 losses in 2011 (at Chi, GB, at Saints, at GB). Injured for 7 of those ints (broken finger/glove)
Stafford had 10 ints in 4 losses in 2013 (at Pit, TB,Bal,NYG)

He was just as good in 2013 as 2011. He didn't get the turnover support (34 to 22) and they had more rushing TDs in 2013 that took away from his pass TDs (still Stafford led drives).

 

[dubbsco]

Matt Stafford was not as good in 2013. If you think so... then I don't know what to tell you. It's not even close.

 

[LKP]

Matt Stafford was not as good in 2013. If you think so... then I don't know what to tell you. It's not even close.

He played exactly the same as 2011. And he had it way harder in 2013 with less turnovers by his defense, more drops and worse receiving personnel (due to Burleson, Calvin, Pettigrew and Broyles injuries).

 

[UMRules06]

2011: 421/663 passing, 63.5% completion percentage, 5038 yards, 7.60 yards per pass attempt, 41 TDs, 16 INTs, 6.2% TD percentage, 2.4% INT percentage. 10-6 won/loss record.

2013: 371/634 passing, 58.5% completion percentage, 4650 yards, 7.33 yards per pass attempt, 29 TDs, 19 INTs, 4.6% TD percentage, 3.0% INT percentage. 7-9 won/loss record.

Across the board his stats are worse. Now we can go into the reasons exactly WHY they are worse, but it's a stretch at best to say Stafford was just as good in 2013 as he was in 2011.

 

[LKP]

2011: 421/663 passing, 63.5% completion percentage, 5038 yards, 7.60 yards per pass attempt, 41 TDs, 16 INTs, 6.2% TD percentage, 2.4% INT percentage. 10-6 won/loss record.

2013: 371/634 passing, 58.5% completion percentage, 4650 yards, 7.33 yards per pass attempt, 29 TDs, 19 INTs, 4.6% TD percentage, 3.0% INT percentage. 7-9 won/loss record.

Across the board his stats are worse. Now we can go into the reasons exactly WHY they are worse, but it's a stretch at best to say Stafford was just as good in 2013 as he was in 2011.

He had it tougher in 2013. And again drops, rushing TD drives were much higher in 2013 and he didn't get the turnover support. He played exactly the same, his team around him got injured and crumbled. 15 lost fumbles in 2013, 7 lost fumbles in 2011. Healthy weapon in 2011. 12 more turnovers to work with. Stafford was just as good, I don't care about the stats. On tape he was acutally better in 2013. PFF graded him higher in 2013 than 2011. the tape doesn't lie.

 

[UMRules06]

He had it tougher in 2013. And again drops, rushing TD drives were much higher in 2013 and he didn't get the turnover support. He played exactly the same, his team around him got injured and crumbled. 15 lost fumbles in 2013, 7 lost fumbles in 2011. Healthy weapon in 2011. 12 more turnovers to work with. Stafford was just as good, I don't care about the stats. On tape he was acutally better in 2013. PFF graded him higher in 2013 than 2011. the tape doesn't lie.

His numbers are what his numbers are. I didn't make them up...but that's fine. I know your routine by now.

 

[tomdalton22]

Stafford had 10 ints in 4 losses in 2011 (at Chi, GB, at Saints, at GB). Injured for 7 of those ints (broken finger/glove)
Stafford had 10 ints in 4 losses in 2013 (at Pit, TB,Bal,NYG)

He was just as good in 2013 as 2011. He didn't get the turnover support (34 to 22) and they had more rushing TDs in 2013 that took away from his pass TDs (still Stafford led drives).

so, in 2011 he had 10 INTs in 4 losses but he had a broken finger. Three of those loses were to playoff teams and the other to an 8-8 team.

In 2013 he had 10 INTs in 4 losses (2 were pick 6) but the teams were TB, NYG, Balt & Pitt...none of which were playoff teams and he didn't have a broken finger.

He was was good in 2011 and average or below average the other 4 seasons including average at best in 2013

 

[kdp80]

Very few people give a shit about how many yards he gets..

Completion percentage and YPA mean a ton more than yards imo. If we get 65+ completion percentage it would be pretty hard to deny that Stafford is improved, and will have alot to do with what the new staff have emphasized from the get go..that Stafford was nowhere near mechanically sound. I'd even go as far as saying Stafford heading into year 6 is still raw talent. Yes, Linehan and Schwartz did that little with Stafford!! Numerous comments by Schwartz proves that.

It's funny that we get a o coordinator that has worked with one of the best qbs of all time, and immediately he wants to change Staffords mechanics. To me, that proves there was a huge and unaddressed problem there. If revamping a qbs footwork after 5 fucking seasons doesn't show just how negligent The old staff was then I don't know what does. Anybody remember Schwartz commenting on how Stafford had perfect mechanics? Meanwhile, everybody that actually critiques qbs raves about how sloppy Staffords feet/mechanics are. My guess is that those critics were spot on.

Schwartz and Linehan shouldve brought in a guru day 1, just imagine how much less Stafford complaints there couldve be on this board, and hell, maybe the Lions would've squeaked out a playoff win or two during the Stafford era.

 

[LKP]

His numbers are what his numbers are. I didn't make them up...but that's fine. I know your routine by now.

Your numbers need some context. It's not a routine.

 

[LKP]

so, in 2011 he had 10 INTs in 4 losses but he had a broken finger. Three of those loses were to playoff teams and the other to an 8-8 team.

In 2013 he had 10 INTs in 4 losses (2 were pick 6) but the teams were TB, NYG, Balt & Pitt...none of which were playoff teams and he didn't have a broken finger.

He was was good in 2011 and average or below average the other 4 seasons including average at best in 2013

Pittsburgh, Giants and Baltimore are typically playoff caliber and were hot at the time. Teams known for their defenses too. And not every pick was Staffords fault in those games.

Tampa actually forced alot of turnovers last year. Revis, McCoy, David you can see why.

Stafford played better in 2013 because he had to do more with less. He was good in 2011 and 2013.

 

[tomdalton22]

Pittsburgh, Giants and Baltimore are typically playoff caliber and were hot at the time. Teams known for their defenses too. And not every pick was Staffords fault in those games.

Tampa actually forced alot of turnovers last year. Revis, McCoy, David you can see why.

Stafford played better in 2013 because he had to do more with less. He was good in 2011 and 2013.

The Lions are typically known for being one of the shittiest teams in the NFL, known for late season collapses, poor defense and never making the playoffs.

Detroit was in a huge downward slide when they played those teams.

Does reputation matter for the Lions? Does being hot or cold matter for the Lions? Or does it fit one of your excuses so you apply it to their opponents.

 

[LKP]

The Lions are typically known for being one of the shittiest teams in the NFL, known for late season collapses, poor defense and never making the playoffs.

Detroit was in a huge downward slide when they played those teams.

Does reputation matter for the Lions? Does being hot or cold matter for the Lions? Or does it fit one of your excuses so you apply it to their opponents.

It matters at the time. Not over history. Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Giants are not pushovers.

And like I said many of the picks were not his fault in the game. Calvin one against Steelers was a designed play on 3rd and long after two drops that led to that play call. Ravens first was tipped. First pick against Giants doesn't happen if the refs make the right call on the previous play. And final Ravens pick was due to pressure and Stafford never should have had to attempt a come back in the first place. Last pick against bucs, clearly Calvin. Some pressure on the other Buc picks too.

Stafford was a huge reason we were even in those games, including Tampa with 3 TDs. Stafford was the only one making plays down the 1-6 stretch.

 

[tomdalton22]

It matters at the time. Not over history. Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Giants are not pushovers.

And like I said many of the picks were not his fault in the game. Calvin one against Steelers was a designed play on 3rd and long after two drops that led to that play call. Ravens first was tipped. First pick against Giants doesn't happen if the refs make the right call on the previous play. And final Ravens pick was due to pressure and Stafford never should have had to attempt a come back in the first place. Last pick against bucs, clearly Calvin. Some pressure on the other Buc picks too.

Stafford was a huge reason we were even in those games, including Tampa with 3 TDs. Stafford was the only one making plays down the 1-6 stretch.

NYG just lost 3 of 4 prior to playing the Lions
Balt barely beat MN, beat the steelers by 2, beat the jets but prior to those "hot games" they lost 4 of 5 and lost the two games after the Lions
Steelers...not really hot. Prior to the Lions game they lost two then beat the Bills. They were 3-6 when they played the Lions. After the Lions game...won one and lost 2.
Finally, that HOT TB team. They were 2-8 when they played the Lions. They did come off of two huge wins vs. the dumpster fires (Miami and Atl). Of course after the Lions they continued that "hot streak" and proceeded to lose 4 of 5 games.

Maybe they looked "hot" because the Lions made them look that way. None of those teams were any good last year and NONE of them were "HOT" when they played the Lions.

 

[dubbsco]

Momentum doesn't exist in sports between games. It's BS. It may exist in a series, or a quarter. But between weeks? No. That's absolute crap.

 

[UMRules06]

Pittsburgh, Giants and Baltimore are typically playoff caliber and were hot at the time. Teams known for their defenses too. And not every pick was Staffords fault in those games.

Tampa actually forced alot of turnovers last year. Revis, McCoy, David you can see why.

Stafford played better in 2013 because he had to do more with less. He was good in 2011 and 2013.

You're contradicting yourself again with this. You are the one who keeps saying "what does history have to do with 2014??" Now you're using the fact that the Giants and Baltimore are historically playoff caliber to help your argument that they were stiff competition. Shouldn't we just be looking at the 2013 versions of those teams in a vacuum?

 

[UMRules06]

Your numbers need some context. It's not a routine.

I posted the numbers as a baseline comparison. I then went on to say we can discuss WHY he did worse in 2013 stat-wise. With you it makes no difference though, you will spin the narrative anyway you can to keep the story the way you want it be. It's what zealots do, there's no possible way they can be wrong. And it certainly is a routine with you. Every post is you dismissing Stafford's faults, listing excuses for the poor record last season, and praising every single player on the Lions roster as if there's no room for any improvement. The team is "holeless" and there's absolutely "no room for doubt" the Lions are super bowl bound. Zealot/troll.

You're beyond exposed. I can understand that this persona is just your way with coping with how awful our football franchise has been. We all cope differently.

 

[LKP]

You're contradicting yourself again with this. You are the one who keeps saying "what does history have to do with 2014??" Now you're using the fact that the Giants and Baltimore are historically playoff caliber to help your argument that they were stiff competition. Shouldn't we just be looking at the 2013 versions of those teams in a vacuum?

I'm talking 2013. Not history. Stop misinterpreting what I say. They were hot and playoff caliber at the time we played them. All three teams finished strong the last 10 games.

 

[LKP]

I posted the numbers as a baseline comparison. I then went on to say we can discuss WHY he did worse in 2013 stat-wise. With you it makes no difference though, you will spin the narrative anyway you can to keep the story the way you want it be. It's what zealots do, there's no possible way they can be wrong. And it certainly is a routine with you. Every post is you dismissing Stafford's faults, listing excuses for the poor record last season, and praising every single player on the Lions roster as if there's no room for any improvement. The team is "holeless" and there's absolutely "no room for doubt" the Lions are super bowl bound. Zealot/troll.

You're beyond exposed. I can understand that this persona is just your way with coping with how awful our football franchise has been. We all cope differently.

Dumbass. Stop mixing up the years. Holeless in 2014. Holes in 2013 at WR/TE mainly due to injury. Remember we signed Tate and drafted Ebron.

I provided you the context for the stats. It proves Stafford was just as good in 2013 as 2011. The tape doesn't lie. You choose to ignore facts. You lost this argument.

 

[UMRules06]

I'm talking 2013. Not history. Stop misinterpreting what I say. They were hot and playoff caliber at the time we played them. All three teams finished strong the last 10 games.

"Pittsburgh, Giants and Baltimore are typically playoff caliber"

Sorry you were referring to franchise history with this statement.