Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[dpatnod]

Out of date. Fake News.

[dwt1]

Fact: 85% winning percentage when he has a 100 yd rusher. Oh, my bad, that FACT doesn't follow your narrative.

And every one of those wins came against a team with a losing record. What's his overall winning percentage against teams with losing records? it's about 85%, in other words the 100 yd rusher didn't make an impact to the winning percentage.

Also - do you know how rare a 100 yard rusher is in todays NFL? The top three rushers this year, Karrem Hunt had 6 games where he rushed for 100 yards or more. Todd Gurley, also had six. Le'Veon Bell had just 4.

[Fraquar]

And every one of those wins came against a team with a losing record. What's his overall winning percentage against teams with losing records? it's about 85%, in other words the 100 yd rusher didn't make an impact to the winning percentage.

Also - do you know how rare a 100 yard rusher is in todays NFL? The top three rushers this year, Karrem Hunt had 6 games where he rushed for 100 yards or more. Todd Gurley, also had six. Le'Veon Bell had just 4.

It's not that you need that runner to get 100 every game, but you do force the opposition to account for him every game. That opens up the rest of the playbook. Lions don't force any team to seriously respect the run - and that closes a nice chunk of the playbook. In the Lions case they just shred those pages and remove the dead weight.

Added: It's also about being able to run multiple plays out of the same formation/perspnnel grouping, which is pretty much impossible with the Lions approach to running. Thats what made Gurley so valuable, because in 13 of those 16 games he had 100+ total yards. Teams had to account for him in both facets of the game, and that puts a strain on a defense.

[Topweasel]

It's not that you need that runner to get 100 every game, but you do force the opposition to account for him every game. That opens up the rest of the playbook. Lions don't force any team to seriously respect the run - and that closes a nice chunk of the playbook. In the Lions case they just shred those pages and remove the dead weight.

Added: It's also about being able to run multiple plays out of the same formation/perspnnel grouping, which is pretty much impossible with the Lions approach to running. Thats what made Gurley so valuable, because in 13 of those 16 games he had 100+ total yards. Teams had to account for him in both facets of the game, and that puts a strain on a defense.

Keep in mind there is a balance. In the teams in question specially with Gurley and Bell, they are specifically targeted as people who need to be contained. The Lions don't even need that. We don't need Barry or Sims. We don't need Elliot or Bell. We need a running game that can work. That can run out the clock. Can pick up a first down on 3rd and 3. Occasionally a team like that will have a 100 yard rusher. The fact that we can do well against a team and still not have a runner break 50 yards is a travesty. Not because 100 yard rusher was needed but inevitably you need to be able to have some semblance of a running game to succeed at 4th quarter management.

The number of 100 yard games isn't benchmark. It's the lack of them though that is surprising for a team that has won 7-10-9 games the last few season. You should at least accidentally stumble upon one or two in 26 wins. It does tell us also how much pressure the passing game has been under.

[AMP]

How much of that is down to play calling? How much of that is down to the defence?

He's great at comebacks when the handbrake comes off and he can start slinging instead of dink and dunk. Maybe giving him a bit more freedom to open up earlier in the games, augmented by a running game and better protection in the pocket would stop us falling behind to begin with.

Haha. Every year with the same ole excuses. He's a talented QB but the Lions can't win on his shoulders. He isn't good enough.

Build a defense and get a running game and he'd be fine.

[dwt1]

It's not that you need that runner to get 100 every game, but you do force the opposition to account for him every game. That opens up the rest of the playbook. Lions don't force any team to seriously respect the run - and that closes a nice chunk of the playbook. In the Lions case they just shred those pages and remove the dead weight.

Added: It's also about being able to run multiple plays out of the same formation/perspnnel grouping, which is pretty much impossible with the Lions approach to running. Thats what made Gurley so valuable, because in 13 of those 16 games he had 100+ total yards. Teams had to account for him in both facets of the game, and that puts a strain on a defense.

And yet NE keeps on winning without anybody having to account for thier running game.

And to your second point, yes that makes Gurley more valuable but it doesn’t nescesarily make the team any better. What’s the difference between one player getting a combined 100+ yards or two players combining for 100+ yards?

But I get what your laying down - so lets look at Detroit's 2013 season. Reggie Bush was their lead rusher, over 1000 yards rushing and over 500 receiving. As a team they had just a few yards shy of 1800 rushing. In other words they had a rushing game that had to be accounted for - oh and top of that - they had a pretty decent defense. So how did Detroit do? 7-9.

[froot loops]

Haha. Every year with the same ole excuses. He's a talented QB but the Lions can't win on his shoulders. He isn't good enough.

Build a defense and get a running game and he'd be fine.

Agree with the last sentence

[dpatnod]

Yeah, Mulbach blew 2013, like a dick.

[chemiclord]

Hey, on that score, the Hater's Club is completely correct.

Stafford cannot nigh singlehandedly carry a team like Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady can.

But that's not the question, and it never has been.

[froot loops]

I don't even think Brady single handily carries teams. You need a pretty complete team or hope you catch lightning in a bottle in a 4 game stretch.

[dpatnod]

Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

Always been about put a team together. FL quote of AMP was exactly the point.

[dwt1]

The evidence shows, even with a running game and great defense Mediocre Matty still loses to good teams.

Oh, and why can NE turn over it's entire roster almost every two years and still end up with a pretty complete team, but Detroit Can never put anything together.......first step to having a complete team is having a QB that is NOT Mediocre.

[dpatnod]

How bout mint chocolate chip, big guy? I can jingle my keys.... you like that?

[dwt1]

What the fuck are you talking about? Address the points or shut the fuck up - take your hate somewhere else.

[dwt1]

For all the washing of teeth that the NCAA doesn't produce good QBs any longer - the next round of great NFL QBs are probably here. Time will tell if they are truly as good as they played this year and if they will take what they learned and get even better. The troubling part for Detroit is that they are in the NFC. Making it that much harder for a team with a mediocre QB to compete.

The dominance we've witnessed by the AFC, specifically by NE could shortly switch over tot he NFC - with a dominance by Philly and/or LAR - it's going to be interesting to watch.

As an illustration of the importance of a great QB - since the emergence of Tom Brady in 2001 there has been 16 Super Bowls played. 10 of those Super Bowls have been won by just by five AFC teams. One of those Baltimore QB’d by Joe Flacco. The other nine AFC we’re all by four othe teams but just three QBs; Manning/Brady/Roethlisberger. Looking at the non AFC wins; 5 of those six games where also QBd by those three. 14 of the last 16 AFC Super Bowl teams were QBd by just three QBs.