Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[edindetroit]

Terry Bradshaw: Texans haven?t done anything right at quarterback

Posted by Josh Alper on February 1, 2017, 10:49 AM EST
FOXBORO, MA - JANUARY 14: Brock Osweiler #17 of the Houston Texans looks on in the second half against the New England Patriots during the AFC Divisional Playoff Game at Gillette Stadium on January 14, 2017 in Foxboro, Massachusetts. (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)
Getty Images
Terry Bradshaw is in Houston this week as part of the FOX Sports contingent covering Super Bowl LI, but the hospitality provided by the city isn?t stopping him from unloading on their football team.

Bradshaw was asked about Texans quarterback Brock Osweiler during a Tuesday session with other media covering the game and he provided an unvarnished opinion of the team?s biggest free agent addition of 2016. Bradshaw said Osweiler is ?bad? and that the Texans haven?t been much better when it comes to evaluating and developing quarterbacks.

?I don?t have a clue, they haven?t done anything right yet,? Bradshaw said, via the Houston Chronicle. ?I don?t see ? Osweiler?s too slow for me. He?s way too slow. That?s just me. I don?t like him [and] I said so.?

Bradshaw?s colleague Jimmy Johnson offered up a similar opinion of Osweiler and said that the Texans should ?look under every rock to find a quarterback? to upgrade their offense. The two men aren?t the first to share negative opinions of Osweiler based on his struggles in 2016 and we?ll find out this offseason if the Texans follow Johnson?s advice.

Can we work a trade with them for Orlovsky?

[Panoptes]

It's sad how bashing a 21 game starter (23 incl. playoffs) somehow is supposed raise up Staffords much longer losing profile.

There is zero correlation.

And since when is Bradshaw a reference source for player capability? He's usually the laughing stock amongst his peers opinion wise.

SMH at how sad it is to see in this forum

[Topweasel]

It's sad how bashing a 21 game starter (23 incl. playoffs) somehow is supposed raise up Staffords much longer losing profile.

There is zero correlation.

And since when is Bradshaw a reference source for player capability? He's usually the laughing stock amongst his peers opinion wise.

SMH at how sad it is to see in this forum

Yeah, maybe because it was one of your brethren that claims that Oswieler would accomplish more than Stafford.

Look no one posting these feels the need to raise the perception of Stafford. We all know how much better Stafford is than Brock. While not posting these Brock articles, my point would have been that Brock won a playoff game being resoundedly considered terrible. If that's possible even if Stafford isn't the MVP of a playoff win, he should easily win more with a better supporting cast like they have in Houston. It's not even a cost thing as Brock is actually making more than Stafford right now.

The last two articles really cement the vast difference between the two QBs though. It wasn't two different sources. It was two articles quoting one HoF QB that was gushing about Stafford and couldn't come up with one good thing to say about Oswieler.

Also while only starting in 21 games. Oswieler will be in his 5th year next year and 21 starts into his career Stafford was mid way into a season where he threw for 5k yards, 40+ TDs, and led a team to the playoff for the first time in 10+ years. Brock on the other hand was on a team that needed very little from him and he still floundered and got benched, only got to win that playoff game because the new starter got injured and their opponent lost the number one reason for getting to the playoffs 2 weeks before and the backup the last game.

There is a reason why it's Brock and not Mariota or Bortles or so on.

[dwt1]

Yeah, maybe because it was one of your brethren that claims that Oswieler would accomplish more than Stafford.

Would? Dude, he ALREADY HAS accomplished more than Stafford.

Look no one posting these feels the need to raise the perception of Stafford. We all know how much better Stafford is than Brock. While not posting these Brock articles, my point would have been that Brock won a playoff game being resoundedly considered terrible. If that's possible even if Stafford isn't the MVP of a playoff win, he should easily win more with a better supporting cast like they have in Houston. It's not even a cost thing as Brock is actually making more than Stafford right now.

Considered terrible - yet made plays to win a playoff game. What plays did the "much better" Stafford make to try to win the Lions playoff game, fuck, what plays did he make to even get them inside the fucking 35 yard line.

[Forsh]

I haven't read most of this and normally do see dwt's point .... but Stafford is much, much better than Osweiler. Not even close

[Futureshock]

How can you not factor in this?

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/football/nfl/bills/2017/02/01/twenty-years-after-retirement-jim-kelly-still-missed/97338754/

Twenty years ago today, the headline on the front page of the Democrat and Chronicle dated Feb. 1, 1997 read ?Emotional Kelly Retires from Bills.? Back on the sports pages, the headlines included ?Kelly?s Teammates Feel a Void? and ?Retire? Kelly said Show me the Money!? and ?Bills Confident Young Collins Will get the Job Done? and ?Kelly Says he has no Plans of a Comeback.?

And on the main story that I wrote, someone ? and I don?t recall who it might have been ? authored a headline that not only encapsulated the momentous day itself, but unknowingly sent up a warning flare that, 20 years later, continues to burn brightly.

Be careful of what you wish for.

[Fraquar]

Stafford is entering the very age in his career where Kelly and the Bills started their run. Sadly though, they don't have Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, Bruce Smith and Cornelius Bennett in their primes to build off of.

But hey, he's got Ebron. I guess that's a punchers chance.

[dpatnod]

He's supposed to turn water into wine.....

or at least Ebron into Gronk.

[dwt1]

He's supposed to turn water into wine.....

or at least Ebron into Gronk.

No, he's supposed to make plays to win games, or at least get beyond the 35 yard line.

[Topweasel]

No, he's supposed to make plays to win games, or at least get beyond the 35 yard line.

Yeah because he is the only factor in the game. Idiotic on the most basic level to suggest that Brock is better than Stafford at any level. Which is what I was explaining to Gonz. People don't make the most insane comments like you have they wouldn't be mentioning Brock because he isn't worth mentioning unless you are looking at QB jobs up for grabs next year.

[Panoptes]

I would never accept any NFL explanation from you. Ever.

[Topweasel]

I would never accept any NFL explanation from you. Ever.

No one said you have to accept it. Also it wasn't a football explanation. It was a character explanation. You were getting worked up about us bringing up Brock. I was just stating that it A the nonsense of it and B that it was your disciple that broached that subject.

[Fraquar]

He's supposed to turn water into wine.....

or at least Ebron into Gronk.

So he's supposed to have another Calvin? Most don't even get 1......

[dwt1]

Yeah because he is the only factor in the game. Idiotic on the most basic level to suggest that Brock is better than Stafford at any level. Which is what I was explaining to Gonz. People don't make the most insane comments like you have they wouldn't be mentioning Brock because he isn't worth mentioning unless you are looking at QB jobs up for grabs next year.

109 games in the NFL and he's only won three games against teams with winning record, he had Calvin Johnson and sone pretty damn good defense over that period and he still could get fucking jack.

You guys just love making excuses, he didn't get past the 35 years line because there were dropped passes. Well, in the AFC championship game, on their way to scoring 10 points in their first two drives - NE receivers dropped 3 passes.

BTW - Matt Stafford isn't worth mentioning either.

So last years I said they wouldn't beat winning teams this year.....uhm.

Guess what, they won't beat winning teams next year either................because Matt Stafford doesn't make plays to beat winning teams.

[Topweasel]

109 games in the NFL and he's only won three games against teams with winning record, he had Calvin Johnson and sone pretty damn good defense over that period and he still could get fucking jack.

You guys just love making excuses, he didn't get past the 35 years line because there were dropped passes. Well, in the AFC championship game, on their way to scoring 10 points in their first two drives - NE receivers dropped 3 passes.

BTW - Matt Stafford isn't worth mentioning either.

So last years I said they wouldn't beat winning teams this year.....uhm.

Guess what, they won't beat winning teams next year either................because Matt Stafford doesn't make plays to beat winning teams.

He had 1 year with a good defense and 2 with OK defenses and got to the playoffs each of those years. The rest of the time the defense has been in the bottom 5 of the league.

But frankly you don't think Stafford is going to accomplish anything. Fine. Knowing how Lions manage the roster, the current coach, and just plain history I tend to agree. That doesn't mean Brock is a better option or Brock happening to win a PO game off the back of a really good defense means anything specially considering their opponent was an offensive driven team that just lost its starting QB and backup in the last 2 weeks.