Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[dwt1]

Nice find? He was hired before Quinn and it was widely talked about in here, as he is Martha's crony. And you're just now finding out about it? Maybe you need to tone down your obsession with Stafford, you're missing a lot out there.

[edindetroit]

The Lions are historically bad at evaluating talent

That seems to be changing.

[dwt1]

What the idiots like dwt fail to realize and cannot grasp is that Stafford is more than good enough to win a SB. However football is a team game. The Lions are historically bad at evaluating talent and for the most part our team has been bad. Everyone likes to talk about Brady but Brady often has a good defense, good line, ect. A team. Run by great coaches. Look back at all the years Stafford has been our QB and look at why we have lost. Very few games come back as Stafford was why we lost. The vast majority of our wins are because Stafford is why we won however. Being a 1 dimensional team on offense with a defense that disappears has never been the winning formula for any team in the history of the nfl. I don't care if we had Brady, Rodgers or any other QB in the league for the last 10 years - this team would be the same ol Lions none the less. The biggest difference you'd see if Brady or Rodgers were here is Brady in Detroit would have been another late round nobody who amounted to nothing and we'd be having this same conversation about Rodgers right now. They would never become superstars here on this team. Stafford has done as well as any QB could have done given what he's had to work with.

[dwt1]

Some of us are ignorant idiots.

[jaadam4]

Give Stafford an OLINE and a legit running game and look what happened.....

This

[froot loops]

It all gets down to the fundamental question is if the Qb or any athlete has IT. Some people believe in IT, I really don't. Teams that can expect to win the Super Bowl are generally the most complete teams that season, they run up big records and have a couple home games.

There have been teams that have won Super Bowls that have done it on the strength of one dominant unit or they get hot late in the year, but that is not the norm and it isn't something to wish for. And no team has won a Super Bowl with a HOF QB and a bad supporting cast, it hasn't ever happened.

Stafford came into a crap situation and the Lions have fielded bad teams around him. If the Lions have been mediocre its because he's taken a crap team and it least made them better. But if you want to win a Super Bowl, you need a field a complete team. That means a good defense, good running attack and good QB and it needs to culminate in a good regular season record. Trying to get in as the 6th seed and catch lightning in a bottle is not the scenario you should be hoping for. The Lions need to win like the Rams have done in the past, assembling a thoroughly dominant team like they did during the Warner years and now.

Stafford has been very good since the Jets game and he will continue that as long as they can run the ball effectively. The running game has been improved because they have improved their running backs and improved the line. Like most QBs Stafford has had very little to do with that improvement, you can't audible your way into an effective running attack.

[Masspartan]

Fair enough, Most teams have a President to handle the business aspect, but Detroit doesn't.

As far as Brady, yeah, Bledsoe got hurt and they took a shot on Brady. Good lord dude get a grip.

Randy Moss and Junior Seau were rent a players who are Hall of Famers for Minnesota and the Chargers, Willie has been nominated but hasn't been selected, you can add Teddy Bruschi to that category too - not sure they will ever be selected.

I guess you don't know who Rod Wood is.

They didn't take a shot on Brady ... they were forced to play him and Bledsoe never got the job back.

Don't forget Belichek will be in the Hall of fame.

[froot loops]

The Patriots whole business model is based on a rent-a-player strategy. They get a guy, wring as much as they can out of him and then jettison him. Randy Moss was great when he was in New England. If you are basing the talent on Hall of Fame players that stayed with the Patriots, its going to be a short list because outside of Welker, Gronkowski and Vince Woolfork there are not many guys who stay long. Devin McCourty has been very good for a long time. In the salary cap era you aren't going to find many if any teams that have that. The better metric is some kind of combination of pro bowl and all pro selections. The Patriots are always well represented there.

[dwt1]

I guess you don't know who Rod Wood is.

They didn't take a shot on Brady ... they were forced to play him and Bledsoe never got the job back.

Don't forget Belichek will be in the Hall of fame.

Bledsoe went on to play five more years in the NFL.

Belicheck will be in the HoF and he'll thank Tom Brady for that.

[dwt1]

The Patriots whole business model is based on a rent-a-player strategy. They get a guy, wring as much as they can out of him and then jettison him. Randy Moss was great when he was in New England. If you are basing the talent on Hall of Fame players that stayed with the Patriots, its going to be a short list because outside of Welker, Gronkowski and Vince Woolfork there are not many guys who stay long. Devin McCourty has been very good for a long time. In the salary cap era you aren't going to find many if any teams that have that. The better metric is some kind of combination of pro bowl and all pro selections. The Patriots are always well represented there.

Could be, but even that could be slanted because NE has been a perennial winner.

[froot loops]

Its a better metric than listing hall of fame players. The Hall of Fame is very random and it is even more subjective than pro bowls and all pro teams.

[froot loops]

Almost every coach in elected in any Hall of Fame can thank the players they coached. Not one coach got in a hall of fame coaching bad players.

[Tom]

It all gets down to the fundamental question is if the Qb or any athlete has IT. Some people believe in IT, I really don't. Teams that can expect to win the Super Bowl are generally the most complete teams that season, they run up big records and have a couple home games.

There have been teams that have won Super Bowls that have done it on the strength of one dominant unit or they get hot late in the year, but that is not the norm and it isn't something to wish for. And no team has won a Super Bowl with a HOF QB and a bad supporting cast, it hasn't ever happened.

Stafford came into a crap situation and the Lions have fielded bad teams around him. If the Lions have been mediocre its because he's taken a crap team and it least made them better. But if you want to win a Super Bowl, you need a field a complete team. That means a good defense, good running attack and good QB and it needs to culminate in a good regular season record. Trying to get in as the 6th seed and catch lightning in a bottle is not the scenario you should be hoping for. The Lions need to win like the Rams have done in the past, assembling a thoroughly dominant team like they did during the Warner years and now.

Stafford has been very good since the Jets game and he will continue that as long as they can run the ball effectively. The running game has been improved because they have improved their running backs and improved the line. Like most QBs Stafford has had very little to do with that improvement, you can't audible your way into an effective running attack.

[Topweasel]

When you look at Stafford and compare him to any successful QB or Burnout top pick since even as far back as Manning, one thing is clear, we are so lucky Stafford seems to have a deep well to draw from in terms of patience and willpower to succeed. Every Franchise QB had either a good running game or a good defense or both when they started to show their value. Dozens of other high draft pick qb's wilted quickly playing football the way the Lions have. The fact that Stafford is still adapting, still improving (one single game meltdown aside), after 10 years of pretty much shit outside Calvin and one single season with a competent defense.

There we are the ingredients for the recipe for disaster when we got Stafford with pick #1. All odds makers would have had Stafford a near lock for top 5 bad draft picks of all time.

[dwt1]

When you look at Stafford and compare him to any successful QB or Burnout top pick since even as far back as Manning, one thing is clear, we are so lucky Stafford seems to have a deep well to draw from in terms of patience and willpower to succeed. Every Franchise QB had either a good running game or a good defense or both when they started to show their value. Dozens of other high draft pick qb's wilted quickly playing football the way the Lions have. The fact that Stafford is still adapting, still improving (one single game meltdown aside), after 10 years of pretty much shit outside Calvin and one single season with a competent defense.

There we are the ingredients for the recipe for disaster when we got Stafford with pick #1. All odds makers would have had Stafford a near lock for top 5 bad draft picks of all time.

With the recent notable exceptions of Rodgers, Brady , Eli Manning, Cam Newton - and those just the most recent.

Keep you excuses lined up gentlemen, your going to need them - the things that prevent Mediocre Matty from taking the Lions to the next level have nothing to do with those around him, It's skills HE LACKS.