Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[dwt1]

So the lack of a running game, poor blocking, collapsing defense, questionable and predictable play calling, and career high sacks had nothing to do with it. Don't tunnel. Open your eyes.

Dude, I?m talking about nine years of demonstrated performance. The dude is 4-55 against teams that finish the season with winning records over period of nine years.

[dwt1]

You are comparing apples to kumquats.

Compare Stafford's age 29 season to Rodgers' age 29 season. What you will find is two things:

1) Rodgers got sacked MORE than Stafford did this year - his O-line was a mess.
2) Rodgers still threw for nearly 40 TD's and had less than 10 INT.

I used Dalton and Stafford because they are pretty much the same age - and their aggregate stats for their careers are about as identical as you can get.

When you compare players, you compare them at the same time periods of their careers. Through age 29, Stafford can't hold Rodgers' jock strap - even with Rodgers not even starting till he was age 25.......

What you should be concerned with is Rodgers' last 3 years - because Stafford isn't very far from starting those years in his career (ages 31-33). In other words, the Lions are getting ready to pay for his declining years. Rare is the player whose career gets better after age 30.

.

Except for win loss record, where Dalton is light years ahead of Mediocre Matty.

[TheLondonLion]

You are comparing apples to kumquats.

Compare Stafford's age 29 season to Rodgers' age 29 season. What you will find is two things:

1) Rodgers got sacked MORE than Stafford did this year - his O-line was a mess.
2) Rodgers still threw for nearly 40 TD's and had less than 10 INT.

I used Dalton and Stafford because they are pretty much the same age - and their aggregate stats for their careers are about as identical as you can get.

When you compare players, you compare them at the same time periods of their careers. Through age 29, Stafford can't hold Rodgers' jock strap - even with Rodgers not even starting till he was age 25.......

What you should be concerned with is Rodgers' last 3 years - because Stafford isn't very far from starting those years in his career (ages 31-33). In other words, the Lions are getting ready to pay for his declining years. Rare is the player whose career gets better after age 30.

It's a bit different with a QB, no?

He should be in his prime over the course of this contract.

[dwt1]

No they aren't compared that way. Do you really think that Bradford would have gone 40/0? The larger a data set is the more defined the results. There is a chance maybe that if Dalton threw more he maintain the exact averages, but chances are that his stats would falter.

Comparing Stafford to Rodgers stat wise is not drastically different, especially for the last 3 years or so.

Rodgers is def better but its not huge. Rodgers at this point in his career is a sure fire 1st ballot HOFer who is quite possibly a top 5-10 QB of all time. Stafford is not.

9 year, 4-55. That’s a pretty fucking defining data set.

Do you understand what separates Rodgers and Stafford is not stats?

[kreton]

Dude, I?m talking about nine years of demonstrated performance. The dude is 4-55 against teams that finish the season with winning records over period of nine years.

There are no individual win loss records in the NFL. The LIONS win and lose. Stafford throws a football.

[kreton]

.

Except for win loss record, where Dalton is light years ahead of Mediocre Matty.

Are you really trying to say that Dalton single handedly wins games and is a better QB than Stafford? People say you are a moron but damn dude don't go this far out of your way to prove them right.

[kreton]

9 year, 4-55. That?s a pretty fucking defining data set.

Do you understand what separates Rodgers and Stafford is not stats?

Once again, Stafford does not play defense. He doesn't play special teams. He doesn't block. Do you really not understand the NFL is team game? Do you not see all those other guys on the field?

[guitarjack87]

I'd dispute that.

Peyton Manning, for instance, kept getting bounced from the playoffs (often in his first game) until his defense had a playoff stretch of run stuffing dominance. His Super Bowl with the Broncos was also all about his defense.

Rodgers had a chance to put the Steelers away in the Super Bowl and failed. He had to rely on his defense to stop Big Ben on the final drive, which is harder than a normal drive because the offense gets four downs. If Big Ben comes through, Rodgers doesn't have a ring. People like Gonz think Rodgers is a better QB for having had his defense step up than he would be had his defense given up the game. Don't get me wrong - Rodgers is a transcendent talent - but even he can't do it alone.

And Brady regularly had a great defense backing him up in the Super Bowl. His defense held the greatest show on turf to 10 points (17 points minus a pick six), McNabb was held to 14 points until the game was out of reach, Eli was held to 17 points and then 21 (two points were a safety, and the final TD was surrendered deliberately by the Pats), and the Seahawks managed to put up 24 points but the Patriots defense saved the day there. These are all very winnable situations and Brady didn't win them all. He did, to his credit, put up some points against Delhomme's Panthers and there was the Falcons game. Brady is the greatest of all time, but he would not be a winner without a good defense.

Stafford, of course, never had his team show up for him in the playoffs. The Saints never even punted, the refs robbed us in Dallas, and the receiving corps shit the bed in Seattle.

Excellent points IL, and completely avoided by the individuals they were directed at.

[dwt1]

You keep telling your self that - you’re going to need it.

Next your going to tell us we don’t lose games because of Mediocre Matty - which of course is about the worst thing you can say about a QB.

[kreton]

You keep telling your self that - you?re going to need it.

Next your going to tell us we don?t lose games because of Mediocre Matty - which of course is about the worst thing you can say about a QB.

Next? I've said it dozens of times. Stafford is not the reason we lose games. There are a lot of reasons, but very few times has the loss rested on the shoulders of Stafford. The vast majority of games, especially the last few years, Stafford has played well enough to win. We lose games because of poor coaching, poor defense, a virtually non existent running game. We stay pretty bad to mediocre every year because we can't draft for shit and fail to lure in the right free agents. On this team our consistently good players have been Stafford, Quin, Prater, Tate and Slay. And Tate and Slay are questionably brought up in that sentence to fluff it up some. On an NBA team having 5 guys perform might be good enough but we have 30+ guys on that field every week. 1 of 6 being reliable is not good. And of all the unreliable, inconsistent players on this team you choose to rag on one of the few constantly good players. Give it a break.

[dwt1]

Next? I've said it dozens of times. Stafford is not the reason we lose games. There are a lot of reasons, but very few times has the loss rested on the shoulders of Stafford. The vast majority of games, especially the last few years, Stafford has played well enough to win. We lose games because of poor coaching, poor defense, a virtually non existent running game. We stay pretty bad to mediocre every year because we can't draft for shit and fail to lure in the right free agents. On this team our consistently good players have been Stafford, Quin, Prater, Tate and Slay. And Tate and Slay are questionably brought up in that sentence to fluff it up some. On an NBA team having 5 guys perform might be good enough but we have 30+ guys on that field every week. 1 of 6 being reliable is not good. And of all the unreliable, inconsistent players on this team you choose to rag on one of the few constantly good players. Give it a break.

100% agreewith you on that, but when you’re looking for a franchise QB I’m pretty sure the first criteria isn’t to find a guy who is not going to lose games for you. I’m pretty sure you’re going to look for that guy who wins games for you, particularly playoff games.

Dude, you’re the one who needs to give the tired old excuses a rest. Over a nine period, with a decent running, with a great defense the results have always been same with Mediocre Matty. Beat the bad teams, lose to the good teams. You act like he’s never been on a team with decent talent around, that’s a bunch of shit.

Contrast of two season, 2011 they went 10-6, in 2012 they went 4-12. The difference between those two seasons? In 2011 they played 6 team with winning records, in 2012 the played 12 teams with winning records. Looking at next years schedule, there's a good chance they'll play 9 teams with winning records - if they do, they'll lose 9 games next year.

[kreton]

100% agreewith you on that, but when you?re looking for a franchise QB I?m pretty sure the first criteria isn?t to find a guy who is not going to lose games for you. I?m pretty sure you?re going to look for that guy who wins games for you, particularly playoff games.

Dude, you?re the one who needs to give the tired old excuses a rest. Over a nine period, with a decent running, with a great defense the results have always been same with Mediocre Matty. Beat the bad teams, lose to the good teams. You act like he?s never been on a team with decent talent around, that?s a bunch of shit.

Contrast of two season, 2011 they went 10-6, in 2012 they went 4-12. The difference between those two seasons? In 2011 they played 6 team with winning records, in 2012 the played 12 teams with winning records. Looking at next years schedule, there's a good chance they'll play 9 teams with winning records - if they do, they'll lose 9 games next year.

Wins and losses are a result of a team effort. Not 1 guy.

[dwt1]

yeah right, you have all the buzz words down. The QB is just along for the ride, got it. Nick Foles had no impact on that game last night at all, he was just another guy on the field. Tom Brady, a fucking spectator.

So if by some miracle - Detroit had Rodgers instead of Stafford and nothing else changed, there would be absolutely no difference in results over the last 9 years. How about if they had Tom Brady? They still wouldn't have any playoff wins?

Hang on a second, I'm going to have my uncle, the Prince who lives in Ethiopia send you an email - he has a great deal for you.

[dsred]

Another one bites the dust. Kreton learn from our mistakes. You are playing with pigs in the mud. They like that. Don't give the pigs something they like.

BTW, I love bacon.

[kreton]

yeah right, you have all the buzz words down. The QB is just along for the ride, got it. Nick Foles had no impact on that game last night at all, he was just another guy on the field. Tom Brady, a fucking spectator.

So if by some miracle - Detroit had Rodgers instead of Stafford and nothing else changed, there would be absolutely no difference in results over the last 9 years. How about if they had Tom Brady? They still wouldn't have any playoff wins?

Hang on a second, I'm going to have my uncle, the Prince who lives in Ethiopia send you an email - he has a great deal for you.

No. Rodgers or Brady wouldn't have led these Detroit teams anywhere either. It takes more than 1 guy to win a ring.