Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[wcfwtf]

If the Lions were losing and Stafford was throwing for 35-40 TD's a year and had QB ranking in 90's every year then yes I can see the comparison. But he has had bad statistical years between 2012-2015.

[wcfwtf]

A good QB should be able to help lead a team to 8-10 wins every year. Lions have had too many 6 and 7 win seasons with him at QB. Yzerman teams may have failed in playoffs but never were shit during regular season.

[chemiclord]

I don't remember ever saying"boy Yzerman cost us that game today, didnt pass well, gave up the puck, etc.. Quarterback is completely different, when he has a bad game or throws a pick to cost the game, everyone knows it.

Actually, there was a LOT of grumbling that Yzerman's focus on scoring and reluctance to contribute defensively was hurting the team. He didn't become a real two way player until later in his career.

[jaadam4]

Enter Scotty Bowman

Now find Stafford a coach!!

[chemiclord]

A good QB should be able to help lead a team to 8-10 wins every year. Lions have had too many 6 and 7 win seasons with him at QB. Yzerman teams may have failed in playoffs but never were shit during regular season.

You wanna rethink that?

The Red Wings were under .500 for six of Yzerman's first eight seasons (and one year finishing right at .500). They were making the playoffs by virtue of half the league making it any given year.

To put it in perspective, in 1984-85, the Wings made the playoffs with a .413 win percentage. That would be approximately 6.5 wins for an NFL team. By those metrics, Stafford-led Lions would have feasibly made the playoffs in four of his seven seasons (and in four of the five seasons that he played more than sparingly).

[wcfwtf]

Well, I live football, and live the lions, so I will put my faith and hopes into our Qb and organization as a whole, like I do every year. Arguing over things can be fun but it's also tiring since we all want the same thing.

[chemiclord]

I really don't like the Yzerman analogy myself, because it's not terribly apt.

If you really want a good analogue for Stafford, I'd suggest Chris Osgood. Osgood was also a "good" player. He had some games where you wondered how he could be so overlooked... then he'd give up a softie from center ice and you remembered exactly why.

He had talent, but he was never regarded among the elites of his peers. He wasn't going to carry a team nigh single-handedly to success like Roy, Hasek, and Brodeur could. Osgood needed a lot more help from the team around him.

But ya know what? At the end of the day, Osgood has three Stanley Cup rings, two of them coming with him as the starting netminder, because the Wings were willing and able to put that talent around him.

Stafford could have the same sort of career arc... provided the Lions ever constructed a complete team. That the Lions have been shitacularly incompetent at doing so isn't his fault. And to be honest, as godawful as the Lions have been constructing teams and developing supporting talent, I'm not convinced ANY QB, no matter how great, would be regarded as anything more than his generation's Dan Marino even if the Lions DID luck into such a talent.

[dpatnod]

You wanna rethink that?

The Red Wings were under .500 for six of Yzerman's first eight seasons (and one year finishing right at .500). They were making the playoffs by virtue of half the league making it any given year.

To put it in perspective, in 1984-85, the Wings made the playoffs with a .413 win percentage. That would be approximately 6.5 wins for an NFL team. By those metrics, Stafford-led Lions would have feasibly made the playoffs in four of his seven seasons (and in four of the five seasons that he played more than sparingly).

Pfffft, facts. Whatever.

[dwt1]

just because you say it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over doesn't make it true

But you never get tired of playing the same excuses over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

[dwt1]

By 1994, people were saying that about Yzerman as well. I would agree that the early returns on Stafford are not good but that doesn't mean he's not capable.

And I am all for replacing Stafford if you have a better option.

So your hope is to repeat something that is extremely rare.

But you're not willing to try a different option, so you won't know if it's a better option. So you'll keep losing with the guy you know.

[dwt1]

A good QB should be able to help lead a team to 8-10 wins every year. Lions have had too many 6 and 7 win seasons with him at QB. Yzerman teams may have failed in playoffs but never were shit during regular season.

If you did the research you'll find that in the two years he led the team to the playoffs, the number of teams they played with winning record was extremely small, the years they didn't they played a few more winning teams.

[Futureshock]

IDK why Rogers or Brady hasn't demanded a trade to Detroit.

Because some people, well one person, believes that our team is so awesome and that 1 guy is all we need to win the Superbowl.

[dpatnod]

Shoulda signed Manziel I tell ya.

[Tom]

So your hope is to repeat something that is extremely rare.

But you're not willing to try a different option, so you won't know if it's a better option. So you'll keep losing with the guy you know.

I'm willing to try a different option. I just haven't heard anyone come up with viable different options. If Rudock outperforms him in camp, I'm all for going with Rudock. I'm even willing to try bringing in that backup from the Titans last year (I think he was just released). I wouldn't just cut Stafford because there's no one on the roster that you know is worth going with right now.

And if nothing else changes, then yes, the Lions will keep losing with Stafford. But I doubt many QBs could win with the Lions' current roster.

[dpatnod]

If you did the research you'll find that in the two years he led the team to the playoffs, the number of teams they played with winning record was extremely small, the years they didn't they played a few more winning teams.

You can almost always find outlier / anomolous 'numbers' to support a wrong interpretation of the overall truth.

Those numbers apply to 52+ other players on the roster equally.