Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[froot loops]

Hey, if they can find game breakers on offense in the later rounds I am all for that. But this team does not scare anyone offensively.

[Futureshock]

The KC QB with a 12 game NFL resume is only making (iirc) $3.64M NOT nearly $30 MILLION DOLLARS this season.

Yet. And when his time comes, it will be a helluva lot more. Not saying he's not worth it, but you don't need to add that.

We all know that his contract and the way QBs are paid nowadays is all off. Those salaries in a realistic bizarro world should be reversed.

[Futureshock]

Froot I think the weaponz would look a lot better with a genious OC calling the plays. Question is is if MS could run it.

The D plan is not a bad one. They just do not have the athletic ability to execute it. Davis hasn't set the world on fire, but he at least has the ability needed if he had the proper coaching. That's where drafting a D player that high gets you. Then it's up to coaching and development. But developing players has never been a strong suit of this franchise.Hell, the only reason Slay got better was because he spent 2 summers with Rod Woodson. He wasn't foolish enough to depend on the Lions training him up.

[Futureshock]

Drafting D players late and expecting them to develop into players that can compete with the high level players across from them is folly.

[froot loops]

Drafting D players late and expecting them to develop into players that can compete with the high level players across from them is folly.

You have any stats on that? I have no idea if this is correct or not but I can name a lot of late round defensive picks that have become difference makers. Show your work.

[Futureshock]

On what specifically? I've posted articles in the "Draft" thread on it if you truly want to know. But, the later the round, the greater the odds the player will bust.

[Fraquar]

Here is the stats you need to know. I'll compare arguably the greatest QB of all time to the Lions with Stafford.
I'll use points allowed by their team to make my case - and in the Lions case only focus on the 2011 season onwards - since that was when Stafford started playing full seasons:

Winning percentage when their team HAS to score 25 or more points to win the game:
NE: .477 (53-58) DET: .226. (14-48)
Winning percentage when their team HAS to score 22 or more points to win the game:
NE: .547 (75-62) DET: .320 (24-51)
Winning percentage when their team HAS to score 21 points or less to win the game:
NE: .929 (169-12) DET: .755 (37-12) FTR, the Bears under Cutler won at a .800 clip in those games.

NE plays 57% of their games in that sweet zone in the Brady era. It's not that they always play with the lead, it's that most of the time they really don't have to do anything spectacular to win - 1 play can make a difference and usually does.

DET plays 39% of their games in that sweet zone in the Stafford era. They usually HAVE to have Stafford do something special to win, and as we've seen he's not much different than Cutler when it comes to being able to consistently do. They often times need 2-3 plays to win a gam

The best way they can help Stafford and the Lions is:
a) Play better fundamental football - that is on both the Coaches and the Players.
b) Stop giving the other team points with your offense and ST
c) Improve the defense - because looking at it this year the opposing offenses have left ALOT of points on the field.

If they have the approach that the Lions have to build a KC offense (which by the way is simply not sustainable) to win games - it's a recipe for building a losing football team. KC can enjoy the 2018 season as any team should in their position, but even the great Tom Brady was only able to pull his team out of bad fires at a .477 clip. over the course of his career.

Added: As for the comment that Lightningboy made yesterday, my problem with Stafford isn't so much Stafford - it's what they keep continually expect him to do and be - the savior of the club. He's not that and never will be. At best, if they build a good enough team he can have a "savior moment" - though it's looking more an more like that opportunity faded away in the Cowboys playoff game.

[froot loops]

On what specifically? I've posted articles in the "Draft" thread on it if you truly want to know. But, the later the round, the greater the odds the player will bust.

We know that but you are stating something different, "Drafting D players late and expecting them to develop into players that can compete with the high level players across from them is folly." I have show the Lion franchise in the Stafford era has drafted about 50/50 offense and defense. It is imperative some late round players develop into productive players. If that doesn't happen they are donezo. It is less about what side of the ball and whether they are productive, period.

From that post it seems like you are saying draft players on defense high and offense later. I'm not sure what you are saying. Right now the offense sucks effing balls, are you saying make it suck worse?

[froot loops]

Here is the stats you need to know. I'll compare arguably the greatest QB of all time to the Lions with Stafford.
I'll use points allowed by their team to make my case - and in the Lions case only focus on the 2011 season onwards - since that was when Stafford started playing full seasons:

Winning percentage when their team HAS to score 25 or more points to win the game:
NE: .477 (53-58) DET: .226. (14-48)
Winning percentage when their team HAS to score 22 or more points to win the game:
NE: .547 (75-62) DET: .320 (24-51)
Winning percentage when their team HAS to score 21 points or less to win the game:
NE: .929 (169-12) DET: .755 (37-12) FTR, the Bears under Cutler won at a .800 clip in those games.

NE plays 57% of their games in that sweet zone in the Brady era. It's not that they always play with the lead, it's that most of the time they really don't have to do anything spectacular to win - 1 play can make a difference and usually does.

DET plays 39% of their games in that sweet zone in the Stafford era. They usually HAVE to have Stafford do something special to win, and as we've seen he's not much different than Cutler when it comes to being able to consistently do. They often times need 2-3 plays to win a gam

The best way they can help Stafford and the Lions is:
a) Play better fundamental football - that is on both the Coaches and the Players.
b) Stop giving the other team points with your offense and ST
c) Improve the defense - because looking at it this year the opposing offenses have left ALOT of points on the field.

If they have the approach that the Lions have to build a KC offense (which by the way is simply not sustainable) to win games - it's a recipe for building a losing football team. KC can enjoy the 2018 season as any team should in their position, but even the great Tom Brady was only able to pull his team out of bad fires at a .477 clip. over the course of his career.

Added: As for the comment that Lightningboy made yesterday, my problem with Stafford isn't so much Stafford - it's what they keep continually expect him to do and be - the savior of the club. He's not that and never will be. At best, if they build a good enough team he can have a "savior moment" - though it's looking more an more like that opportunity faded away in the Cowboys playoff game.

A recipe for losing is having a worse offense which you seem to be arguing. There is not one skill position player on the Lions that they have to game plan for.

[Fraquar]

A recipe for losing is having a worse offense which you seem to be arguing. There is not one skill position player on the Lions that they have to game plan for.

Both NE's and the Lions chance to win go up 40% when they hold teams under 21 points.
If the Lions can score a shitton of points thats a bonus, but no guarantee they will be any better than they are now UNLESS they start reducing the opponent tally. Do both? Maybe they have NE 2.0, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that.

The Lions are 2-0 this year when they hold the opposition to 20 or fewer. The problem is they aren't doing that enough, not the amount of points they score.
The Bears are 6-0 this year when they hold the opposition to 20 or fewer. 1-3 when they don't, and that lone win was vs the Lions.

[froot loops]

Sure make the defense better, but you still need to have players on offense. This team is weak offensively and will be losing at least TJ Lang. Again, there is no guarantee that if they draft defensive players that they will be any better or get them through free agency. Two of their big free agent acquisitions were two linebackers who are JAGs.

[Fraquar]

Sure make the defense better, but you still need to have players on offense. This team is weak offensively and will be losing at least TJ Lang. Again, there is no guarantee that if they draft defensive players that they will be any better or get them through free agency. Two of their big free agent acquisitions were two linebackers who are JAGs.

Lions have spent two 1sts, a 3rd, a 5th and premium money on the G position in just 5 years - and have a glaring weakness at? G?
The Lions have to be the NFL's version of the Twilight Zone - shit that makes no sense comes to roost in Allen Park.

[chemiclord]

Lions have spent two 1sts, a 3rd, a 5th and premium money on the G position in just 5 years - and have a glaring weakness at? G?
The Lions have to be the NFL's version of the Twilight Zone - shit that makes no sense comes to roost in Allen Park.

And what makes you think they'll invest those resources more effectively on the defensive side of the ball?

[froot loops]

That's what I don't get, if only they invested on the defensive side, all things would be solved!

[Fraquar]

I don't but then again G isn't normally a position that requires those kinds of resources either.
They went 20 years before spending a 1st Rd on a DE. They are working on 21 since their last 1st Rd CB.
Just hoping they kinda shift their priorities a little.