Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[edindetroit]

If the Lions don't think Stafford can be the answer, they should cut him right after the season to star the long process of tanking for 3 or 4 decades.

FIFY

[froot loops]

Why? They make money off him.

This is a weird post, we are talking about them getting better. If you think Stafford isn't the answer, you must cut ties as soon as possible. They will make money regardless.

[froot loops]

Chem, the problem I have with the fear defense (i.e. what would life be like without Stafford) is KC was in the EXACT same scenario - with a better team. Three 11-5 seasons out of 4 with Alex Smith at the helm and they traded UP into the 1st round significantly to draft a QB. They didn't trade up to draft a backup, they traded up to draft a better QB.

Lions choose not to do that, fine, but stop with the whole fear mongering of what would life be after Stafford.
Would the Lions really be much worse with Alex Smith at the helm? If not (they wouldn't), then yes, they should go looking for Stafford's replacement.

I'm pretty certain this is the best they are ever going to get with a QB. Look at the history of the franchise and with the QBs they field. This franchise thought the answer to the Joey Harrington bust was the duo of John Kitna and Luke McCown. This franchise thought Matt Millen was the answer for 7 years and his right hand man Martin Mayhew was the answer for 7 years. With the Lions it can and does get worse, fear is appropriate with anything they do.

[chemiclord]

Chem, the problem I have with the fear defense (i.e. what would life be like without Stafford) is KC was in the EXACT same scenario - with a better team. Three 11-5 seasons out of 4 with Alex Smith at the helm and they traded UP into the 1st round significantly to draft a QB. They didn't trade up to draft a backup, they traded up to draft a better QB.

Lions choose not to do that, fine, but stop with the whole fear mongering of what would life be after Stafford.
Would the Lions really be much worse with Alex Smith at the helm? If not (they wouldn't), then yes, they should go looking for Stafford's replacement.

I don't mind moving on from Stafford in the slightest. But who are you dumping him for?

The Chiefs didn't just dump Smith and had no plan going forward, casting blindly to the wind. They drafted his replacement (Mahomes), made sure he was up to speed, THEN dumped Smith.

Again, just GIVE US A FUCKING NAME. Give us a fucking plan. Because when the Lions do move on from a player, it generally emulates the fan's desire for blind, knee-jerk reactions (see also Eric Ebron). Shockingly, it's rarely (if ever) ended well.

[Futureshock]

Burn!!!!

And appropriate.

The best thing this team can do is go about their business as if they had a lesser QB. FA/Trade/Draft another RB and G. Everything else D, D, D...

It's no coincidence that their best shot, and team, was when they had a really good D.

HOWEVER, MP and BQ act as though the D scheme will work with almost any C level player.

They SHOULD draft a QB that could take over in a couple of years when the cap hit to rid themselves of him won't kill the rest of the team. But, they would more then likely draft the wrong guy. Or they would do a piss poor job of developing him (they would probably ruin him)

[Fraquar]

I don't mind moving on from Stafford in the slightest. But who are you dumping him for?

The Chiefs didn't just dump Smith and had no plan going forward, casting blindly to the wind. They drafted his replacement (Mahomes), made sure he was up to speed, THEN dumped Smith.

Again, just GIVE US A FUCKING NAME. Give us a fucking plan. Because when the Lions do move on from a player, it generally emulates the fan's desire for blind, knee-jerk reactions (see also Eric Ebron). Shockingly, it's rarely (if ever) ended well.

When it comes to the draft, if I see a QB that is available when they pick that I think they should take I'll give you that name - you'll have to wait till April though.
All I know is they better be thinking about moving on from him in the next couple of years - because unless you are talking about a really good QB their production start going downhill in the mid 30's. From what we've seen of Stafford in the last 10 years, he's not in that really good class of QB's. He's more like a slightly better version of Cutler.

[Futureshock]

There's no good answer at this point. Because he can look like a world beater one day and a dumpster fire the next, would they cut bait?

The team has huge needs all over the board. Especially defensively. Do they blow off those needs to get a player that won't play for them for at least 2 years?

The problem is a lot easier to define then the answer.

[Fraquar]

Lions won't, but I and others are just suggesting they should be at least looking. 5 years ago, yeah, I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Those 5 years have passed and it's still the same shit every year. The next 5 don't look like they are going to be any different either - he is who he is.

Added: I'm beginning to wonder if Lombardi wasn't right all along. The guy left and went back to NO, he at least knows what a really good QB should be able to do.

[LightninBoy]

I don't mind moving on from Stafford in the slightest. But who are you dumping him for?

The Chiefs didn't just dump Smith and had no plan going forward, casting blindly to the wind. They drafted his replacement (Mahomes), made sure he was up to speed, THEN dumped Smith.

Again, just GIVE US A FUCKING NAME. Give us a fucking plan. Because when the Lions do move on from a player, it generally emulates the fan's desire for blind, knee-jerk reactions (see also Eric Ebron). Shockingly, it's rarely (if ever) ended well.

The "give us a fucking name" is an argument for those who believe "anybody else" is better. That's not where I'm at, and I doubt Fraq's is there either.

Here's where I'm at. Other than his contract, Stafford has lost his "franchise QB" status in my opinion. Part of having a franchise QB is that during the draft you can just ignore the QB position for the first 3 rounds or so, since all you are doing is looking for depth and/or possibly someone to develop to trade. Now that Stafford doesn't warrant franchise QB status, if a top QB candidate is available when you are picking in rounds 1-3 you now have to seriously think about pulling that trigger. And much more so with each subsequent draft as you get closer to being able to actually release Stafford without a huge cap hit. This is unfortunate, because if you do draft a QB high then you aren't improving another position which possibly has a bigger talent gap. But in the NFL today, if you don't have a franchise QB, then you should be trying to acquire one.

Stafford is a better than average QB and should have a good career as a valued journeyman QB - like an Alex Smith or Kirk Cousins. I still believe you can contend with Stafford, but assembling the team he would need in order to contend is much more difficult if he's paid and treated like a great franchise QB.

[wcfwtf]

Great post. More and more people are figuring out that stafford is leading the team anywhere.

unfortunately Martha and woody don't feel the same way.

who knows how Patricia and Quinn really feel about him.

This team NEEDS a player, whether it's a qb or linebacker to transform the team. A leader who backs it up with great play, aka hall of fame play, to change culture.

Stafford is not that guy. Need to love on from him.

if he has success somewhere else then more power to him

unfortunately I don't see him going anywhere until at least after the 2021 season

we have at least 3 more years of the status quo.

so you draft wizards put your pencil behind your wars and start dazzling us mere mortals with your draft genius.

let it begin, I'll be waiting by my keyboard.

sad life

[wcfwtf]

Damn auto correct.

please don't say anything about Sanders or Johnson. Great players but not leaders.
very nice guys though.

[froot loops]

The "give us a fucking name" is an argument for those who believe "anybody else" is better. That's not where I'm at, and I doubt Fraq's is there either.

Here's where I'm at. Other than his contract, Stafford has lost his "franchise QB" status in my opinion. Part of having a franchise QB is that during the draft you can just ignore the QB position for the first 3 rounds or so, since all you are doing is looking for depth and/or possibly someone to develop to trade. Now that Stafford doesn't warrant franchise QB status, if a top QB candidate is available when you are picking in rounds 1-3 you now have to seriously think about pulling that trigger. And much more so with each subsequent draft as you get closer to being able to actually release Stafford without a huge cap hit. This is unfortunate, because if you do draft a QB high then you aren't improving another position which possibly has a bigger talent gap. But in the NFL today, if you don't have a franchise QB, then you should be trying to acquire one.

Stafford is a better than average QB and should have a good career as a valued journeyman QB - like an Alex Smith or Kirk Cousins. I still believe you can contend with Stafford, but assembling the team he would need in order to contend is much more difficult if he's paid and treated like a great franchise QB.

I don't get this argument, with this strategy you are hoping a QB falls to a value position that may be a franchise QB. Generally QBs are overvalued in the draft and go much higher than you would expect.

If you don't think he is a franchise QB, trade him or cut him as soon as possible. If you think he is a problem and can't lead you to a Super Bowl you have to get rid of him because it is a total teardown and he will help you win enough games to reside in the 7-9 to 9-7 zone. That is unhelpful, plus it is most likely your next Franchise QB will get drafted in the top 10. You should want a QB much worse than him once you determine he isn't the franchise guy.

[Fraquar]

I went back and read Lombardi's comments after the whole Stafford's Wife said thing and one comment he made stood out more than any other. He compared him to Mark Brunell, knowledge wasn't the problem but he just didn't like doing the whole "read the defense" thing - he wanted to play fast. Thats essentially Stafford in a nutshell. To beat good teams in this league a QB needs to use all the tools at his disposal - whether he likes to do it or not is irrelevant. Brunell was at least able to win a few playoff games however.

The other thing that caught my eye was the heat map of the Lions passing game - I knew it was bad but not that bad. 8 balls went further than 5 yards from the LOS - thats it.
Thats like playing catch with your 5 year old in the backyard.

[The Ken]

I don't think we will ever know what Matthew Stafford is capable of or not capable of.

He has played without a running game and failed. The Great Rodgers is failing without a running game and has more talent at WR and TE now (and they are depleted there too).

Great players like Brady struggled against the Lions because he had no real players, it wasn't Brady.it was the horrible NE team the Lions faced.

I think the Lions are stuck financially with Stafford for a few years, and even though nobody really knows what he is capable of the price they are paying for him is silly.

If the could trade him for a Kasey Keenum (making a point don' t flip out) and use the money to find more talent on each side of the ball they could win a playoff game I would be all for it.

His stupid mistakes this year should have a fine or penalty attached but they don't. I think this guy is just riding out a paycheck knowing the team sucks.

I say find somebody to trade with who has money, get a career backup in as a QB, build a great defense, put some talent on offense and go win a damn game or two.

[froot loops]

Also, Kirk Cousins and Alex Smith are not journeymen quarterbacks not are they being paid like one.