All Things Rams - Stafford Thread

[Mainevent]

Again, with Michael Thomas out; "It's almost like expecting a QB to perform with table scraps isn't a viable team strategy" They may be closer then any other team in having terrible WRs then the Lions. Most of us can't name a starting NO WR.

Sure, but we've also seen him suck ass with a tremendously talented receiving core in Tampa. He's shown marginal improvement under Payton - they are doing everything to keep him away from his bad tendencies and carelessness with the ball. Maybe that continues and maybe when Thomas is back that helps, but he's still very much a boom or bust guy. Good lord that lollipop he threw up in the end zone on Sunday was a hilariously bad decision, classic Jameis.

[Marko69]

Big if…… (maybe not THAT big)…… but if Staffy Boy wins a SB ring, wouldn’t that create havoc for the “powers that be” @ Detriot?
^^^ not a spelling mistake; a riot in Detriot.

The Lions had the side-arm chuckin’ accurate as fk dude for 11 years!

i know there are lots of pieces that make the complete deal…… but surely (cue leslie neilson) , with Staff, MegaT & Suh?? Why didnt it (even just nearly) happen in those years?

[foxhopper]

I don't know how Stafford does it now but he sure gets those receivers wide open. Even Brady and Rodgers aren't that good.

[froot loops]

Because you need more talent. I have brought up this scenario numerous times, so I will bore you guys again. In the early 90s, the Detroit Red Wings were great team in the regular season, they had a ton of talent and could score in bunches. They would get to the playoffs and normally have early exit. The Detroit Metro Area was more rabid with the Red Wings than they were for any other team in my lifetime. But they kept on choking, in 1995 they actually got to the Stanley Finals and we're promptly swept.

Why did they keep on choking? Everyone wanted to know. In the retrospect the answer was easy, they were not choking, they simply not good enough and they needed more talent on defense, in goal and they need to bigger up front. Once they did that, they won a two cups and it was easy to see how far away those early teams were no matter talented we thought they were.

When you win a title you generally have the deepest, healthiest, most talented team or are at least in the conversation. The talent level of the Lions under Stafford was nowhere close to contending. There were glimpses in 2011 and 2014 but those teams needed additional parts added to it to be contenders.

In comparison the Lions of the 90s were much closer in terms of talent, but they didn't have enough and we're missing a quarterback.

[Marko69]

So………. more talent……. Get them on ice……., bingo ——->> Superbowl !

Sorry, winding & pishing it to 12K

[foxhopper]

So………. more talent……. Get them on ice……., bingo ——->> Superbowl !

Sorry, winding & pishing it to 12K

Instead of padding your stats, you should be stocking up on picnic bars...lol

[Marko69]

Instead of padding your stats, you should be stocking up on picnic bars...lol

And diesel !

FFS, the world is ending.

[TheLondonLion]

I don't know how Stafford does it now but he sure gets those receivers wide open. Even Brady and Rodgers aren't that good.

I think there's a bit of luck at play. Blown coverages. All of those long TD's have had crazy high levels of separation of the NFL. You've got to have the arm to take advantage of them though. He's also being kept upright.

[chemiclord]

Because you need more talent. I have brought up this scenario numerous times, so I will bore you guys again. In the early 90s, the Detroit Red Wings were great team in the regular season, they had a ton of talent and could score in bunches. They would get to the playoffs and normally have early exit. The Detroit Metro Area was more rabid with the Red Wings than they were for any other team in my lifetime. But they kept on choking, in 1995 they actually got to the Stanley Finals and we're promptly swept.

Why did they keep on choking? Everyone wanted to know. In the retrospect the answer was easy, they were not choking, they simply not good enough and they needed more talent on defense, in goal and they need to bigger up front. Once they did that, they won a two cups and it was easy to see how far away those early teams were no matter talented we thought they were.

When you win a title you generally have the deepest, healthiest, most talented team or are at least in the conversation. The talent level of the Lions under Stafford was nowhere close to contending. There were glimpses in 2011 and 2014 but those teams needed additional parts added to it to be contenders.

In comparison the Lions of the 90s were much closer in terms of talent, but they didn't have enough and we're missing a quarterback.

I also think people tend to remember the Lions of the 90's as being much closer than they actually were.

Yeah, you look at that team from the perspective of now, and think, "Fuck... if they just had a better QB, they could have won a Super Bowl with that team!" But the reality is... probably not. The closest the Lions ever got in that period was a 4 touchdown annihilation in the NFC Championship game. The championship level teams in that era (thanks to Free Agency still being a very new thing) were loaded to the point of absurdity, with benchwarmers that were often better than a good half of the league's starters. Teams like the Giants, Redskins, and 49ers could absorb a freak injury in a way that teams nowadays could never hope to do.

"Oh no! Joe Montana broke his leg! How are we going to survive with Steve Young at QB? We're doomed, I tell you! Doomed!" is something that 49er's fans could have literally said in the early 90's.

It took years for the talent level to somewhat even itself out, and by that point, the Lions were already in decline.

[froot loops]

If Jackson, Kupp and Woods stay healthy, there will be blown coverages all year.

He has never had a speedster like Jackson and really good route runners like Woods and Kupp. On top of that, he has a coach who wants to exploit those guys.

[froot loops]

I also think people tend to remember the Lions of the 90's as being much closer than they actually were.

Yeah, you look at that team from the perspective of now, and think, "Fuck... if they just had a better QB, they could have won a Super Bowl with that team!" But the reality is... probably not. The closest the Lions ever got in that period was a 4 touchdown annihilation in the NFC Championship game. The championship level teams in that era (thanks to Free Agency still being a very new thing) were loaded to the point of absurdity, with benchwarmers that were often better than a good half of the league's starters. Teams like the Giants, Redskins, and 49ers could absorb a freak injury in a way that teams nowadays could never hope to do.

"Oh no! Joe Montana broke his leg! How are we going to survive with Steve Young at QB? We're doomed, I tell you! Doomed!" is something that 49er's fans could have literally said in the early 90's.

It took years for the talent level to somewhat even itself out, and by that point, the Lions were already in decline.

If they had a Stafford quality quarterback they would have been contenders but they still would have been short on talent. The loss of the two lineman hurt and they never adaquately kept or replace the talent secondary.

They still had loads more talent than the Stafford Lions.

[Mainevent]

Yeah, I've spent about 20 years being baffled the Lions route schemes. It was rare to see anything all that creative.

[TheLondonLion]

Basically, we wasted the best QB any of us are likely to see in Honolulu Blue for a while having plays called by the likes of Lombardi and Jim-Bob Cooter, surrounded by bad rosters and bad draft classes and a certain subset of the fan base believed it to be his fault, despite being demonstrably our best offensive player over his career here.

It takes a special kind of stupid to not be able to see past the QB for problems with the franchise and the OP, who spent many hours trolling every single week over how bad Stafford was while calling him HILARIOUS names like "Stiffy" and "Matty Arm Angle" doesn't seem to have much to say for himself now he's playing at MVP level at a capable franchise. He wasn't alone.

Oh well - we tried to say all along.

[chemiclord]

My point isn't the comparative talent levels, but that the Lions have NEVER been particularly close ever since the Fords took control of the team.

[chemiclord]

Basically, we wasted the best QB any of us are likely to see in Honolulu Blue for a while having plays called by the likes of Lombardi and Jim-Bob Cooter, surrounded by bad rosters and bad draft classes and a certain subset of the fan base believed it to be his fault, despite being demonstrably our best offensive player over his career here.

It takes a special kind of stupid to not be able to see past the QB for problems with the franchise and the OP, who spent many hours trolling every single week over how bad Stafford was while calling him HILARIOUS names like "Stiffy" and "Matty Arm Angle" doesn't seem to have much to say for himself now he's playing at MVP level at a capable franchise. He wasn't alone.

Oh well - we tried to say all along.

Because he doesn't care about Stiffy anymore. He's gone. It's over. And when there's crowing when Stafford inevitably has a poor game, it'll just be coincidence.