Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[Trickalicious]

Maybe you guys should go play chess.

Oh snap! Joshua is gonna get all DEFCON 1 on professor Falken's ass.

[froot loops]

The QB made those guy's miss those field goals in 2014?

[chemiclord]

The QB made those guy's miss those field goals in 2014?

Well, obviously if Stafford was an elite QB, they wouldn't need a field goal kicker at all.

I mean, look at Green Bay and New England. The only thing those kickers ever have to do is kick off. I mean, they don't even kick extra points, because those elite QBs always go for two and convert!

[dpatnod]

lol. smdh.

[Sharkbait]

Well, obviously if Stafford was an elite QB, they wouldn't need a field goal kicker at all.

I mean, look at Green Bay and New England. The only thing those kickers ever have to do is kick off. I mean, they don't even kick extra points, because those elite QBs always go for two and convert!

http://www.nfl.com/player/masoncrosby/2507232/careerstats

Just for the record, Crosby has attempted 257 FG attempts and 393 extra points in the Aaron Rodgers era. :-|

[dpatnod]

http://www.nfl.com/player/masoncrosb...32/careerstats

Just for the record, Crosby has attempted 257 FG attempts and 393 extra points in the Aaron Rodgers era. :-|

Pfftttttt...... facts!


That is only because Stafford brings the entire division down to having to rely on kickers.


Freaking Stafford!

[Sharkbait]

Pfftttttt...... facts!


That is only because Stafford brings the entire division down to having to rely on kickers.


Freaking Stafford!

Aha, I see what you did there.

[chemiclord]

I would have thought my sarcasm was rather obvious.

Apparently I was wrong.

[Fraquar]

I'll say this again, if DWT thinks Stafford is the problem, it doesn't matter WHO replaces him because as long as Stafford is the problem, he's the problem - not the solution.

He doesn't have to state who the SAVIOR is - which is fucking impossible if you've been following this team for the last 50 years.

[Marko69]

I'll say this again, if DWT thinks Stafford is the problem, it doesn't matter WHO replaces him because as long as Stafford is the problem, he's the problem - not the solution.

He doesn't have to state who the SAVIOR is - which is fucking impossible if you've been following this team for the last 50 years.

Fking BINGO in my eyes. ^^^^

Just can't seem to work out why people are demanding a replacement name.

I think the only issue here is that probably way over 75% of the Lions fanbase rate Stafford and it's seen as argumentative, (or trolling) to disagree with the masses.

Telling you, I wish some of the so called "twats" in other sports forums threw out stats like DWT......., if his stat posts are all shite, then he deserves a fking prize for being filled with the most BS.

[wcfwtf]

For all the back and forth debate, the bottom line is that stafford generates no excitement in the fan base. We went from 0-16 to 8-8. The fans are back to apathy. So even if you say the lions can win with stafford the apathy speaks volumes. I think everyone would like to have a QB that you can say " we got so and so", so we have a chance. But we don't even have that. So in that case DWT is correct. What does it matter, stafford or orlkvsky, almost same guy as far as excitement standpoint.

[chemiclord]

Fking BINGO in my eyes. ^^^^

Just can't seem to work out why people are demanding a replacement name.

I think the only issue here is that probably way over 75% of the Lions fanbase rate Stafford and it's seen as argumentative, (or trolling) to disagree with the masses.

Telling you, I wish some of the so called "twats" in other sports forums threw out stats like DWT......., if his stat posts are all shite, then he deserves a fking prize for being filled with the most BS.

Because there is pretty much NOTHING in terms of evidence to support the "Stafford is garbage" narrative. The only thing that kinda sorta has legs is the entire record against winning teams argument... presuming you want to ignore that the Lions team as a WHOLE has largely been shite for most of his career.

By pretty much every metric or independent measure, Stafford is an above-average, maybe second tier QB, on par with players like Jay Cutler, Eli Manning, and Joe Flacco. There's nothing particularly wrong with those guys outside of them not being "elite." They're guys that need more help than say, Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady, but you can certainly win playoff games (and even championships) with them.

No one is against replacing Stafford with someone better. But that "someone better" is a MUCH smaller list than DWT wants us to believe. So that's why we want a name... so we can demonstrate why that player is objectively worse and would make the team worse as a result.

We're basically calling him on his bullshit, and he hates that. He wants us to believe he has some grand understanding of the game that is beyond question or reproach, when in reality he has nothing but empty platitudes and circular logic.

[chemiclord]

For all the back and forth debate, the bottom line is that stafford generates no excitement in the fan base. We went from 0-16 to 8-8. The fans are back to apathy. So even if you say the lions can win with stafford the apathy speaks volumes. I think everyone would like to have a QB that you can say " we got so and so", so we have a chance. But we don't even have that. So in that case DWT is correct. What does it matter, stafford or orlkvsky, almost same guy as far as excitement standpoint.

Well except that the Lions go from 8-8 to 4-12 at best with Orlovsky at the team.

But yeah, other than that... the same fucking guy. I'm sure the Lions faithful would be REAL excited to see THAT season unfold!

[Iron Lion]

Interesting fact:

Stafford's best year in terms of wins and losses was 2014 where he went 11-5 and 0-1 in the playoffs, although that was a fucking bullshit farce of a game.

Now let's let the LOLs commence as we compare Stafford to Brady. Let's throw out everything Brady has done which has been matched by Stafford - throw out the first 11 wins of every single season - and count only the 12th-16th wins of every regular season and also the playoff victories (since Stafford has none, of course). So for example, when the Patriots went 12-4 and won the Super Bowl (3-0 in playoffs) in the DeflateGate year, that counts as 1+3=4 wins.

Using this formula, Brady has 42 wins. Guess how many total wins Stafford has? Yep, 42.

In order for Stafford to have a winning record by the end of this NFL year, he needs to start every single game, go 13-3 or better and win the Super Bowl.

[dpatnod]

Because.... if you bring up a point saying:
'The problem is X with this team.'

Why is it then so offensive to then have a DISCUSSION, and ask, so what should be done about it? Why does asking that result in immediate personal attacks? Why are we limited to just bitching, and forbidden from taking the next step and talking about solutions?

Sometimes you have to go with the best available option. There is not enough 'elite' QB's for every team to have one. There have been available free agents, draft prospects, and now two other QB's on the Lions roster. From that pool of players, DWT can't suggest a name, because like us, he knows there is not a better option realistically to be had. He just wants to bitch, and can't stand it that we don't agree and blindly accept his pronouncements. It took 50 years to have a QB of this caliber. There is not an 'elite qb' tree we can go pluck a quick replacement from. If there was a better option, the entire forum would be onboard. Somehow living in reality makes us 'Stafford-lovers'.

Trent freaking Dilfer has a superbowl ring. It does not require an 'elite' quarterback to win a championship. It is a team game. Tom Brady, Aaron Rogers and Russel Wilson failed to win one last season. Why didn't they 'make the players around them better' and do it? Success all depends on one player on the team, right? Aaron Rodgers must have lost it after 2010. No Superbowl wins for him.