Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[dwt1]

There have been a million attempts to turn this obsession into a rational discussion.

Most of them end with me being instructed on what to do with my penis. Weird.

Dude, the first next time you try to turn this discussion into a rational discussion will be the first time you try.

[dwt1]

I am not trying to change his mind. I am just trying to get to the root of why this has been such a focal point, to the point that rational thought has seemed to escape. Honestly I would love if he actually debated his point back instead of just being a broken record.

In the words of Luke, I sense some light in him. (Not the other guy though, he is fucked).

Because if you actually studied (or even played the game of football) you would know the quality of your QB determines the quality of your team. Try to debate just that part of the subject, see what you find.

[chemiclord]

Chuck and luck is not a real scheme.

Running it on 1st and 10 every set of downs to "establish the run" when you neither have the RBs or the OL for it isn't much of a scheme either... but at least one plays to the strengths of the players on the field.

[dpatnod]

Dude, the first next time you try to turn this discussion into a rational discussion will be the first time you try.

Oh wise master with your infinite wisdom.......


Who would you bring in to play QB?

[FVD]

Tomton Bradning. The love child of Manning and Brady.

[Topweasel]

Because if you actually studied (or even played the game of football) you would know the quality of your QB determines the quality of your team. Try to debate just that part of the subject, see what you find.

I am trying to be as civil as possible. But you seem to be under the impression that you are the only one that understands that QB play is, specially these days, is the most impactful single position in the game. This isn't the case. Most of us see it. Now we all do see how our QB plays differently and I understand that you struggle to see how the Lions can do anything successful with our. I disagree, Stafford has displayed more than enough to have some limited success. You are right we need and should get our Peyton Manning, our Tom Brady, our Montana, our Kelly, and so on. But our long term success shouldn't be at the cost of short and medium term success.

This is why I asked before who you think we could have selected or moved for since the 2012 season that would have been an upgrade to Stafford that we could have actually gotten. You can use hindsight. Have we actually missed an upgrade. Have we missed a generational player? Because the idea that we could be missing out on one with Stafford isn't enough to relegate us to the bottom of the League again. A GM isn't going to sacrifice full seasons hoping going into each draft that the next Manning is available. That will cost them their jobs.

[CGVT]

Why? Just fucking Why?

[Sharkbait]

Did I Miss something?

[dpatnod]

Did I Miss something?

Yes, Football 101 taught by dwt.

[Trickalicious]

There have been a million attempts to turn this obsession into a rational discussion.

Most of them end with me being instructed on what to do with my penis. Weird.

The answer lies within. Simple:

Everyone involved, use a sharpie to paint a little face on your peeners (happy, grumpy, your choice). Extra respect naturally comes with adding a monopoly top hat or raising one of his brows to show dignity and/or disdain. Then, stand over your keyboards and let the little forumites head-butt their messages into the thread.

I'll bet the result will be an upgrade. Ladies say that's what does our thinking for us anyway.

[AMP]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr


For one.

Stafford over Luck???? LMAO

Fail

Hey, Fitzpatrick was a FA and we could have brought on.

[Sharkbait]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkbait View Post
Did I Miss something?
Yes, Football 101 taught by dwt.

So. I didn't miss anything then. Good deal.

[Sharkbait]

Can the Lions compete for a Super Bowl with Matthew Stafford?
Andrew Kurtz,Cover32 4 hours ago

I find it interesting when fans or pundits form opinions on active players. Good or bad, once someone has expressed their stance it becomes almost irreversible. It makes for better television to have people say outlandish things and stick to them until the boorish end.

Matthew Stafford’s first two season in the NFL were not what anyone had hoped. He would start only 13 games as he suffered multiple throwing shoulder injuries and one dislocated kneecap. From there the “Glassford” name was born. He was viewed as a brittle player that may break at any time. I still hear casual fans worry about Stafford making through the season as if he hasn’t started 82 straight games (playoffs included). Some concern is understandable as the offensive line played like matadors until the dismissal of offensive coordinator Joe Lombardi, but it’s not like what happened the first two season of his career has remained the norm.

The other idea is that Stafford was a product of Calvin Johnson. If the Lions offense gets off to a slow start this season those whispers will become a lot louder on how dependent Stafford was on Johnson. What if, though, Stafford is going to be freed up with the absence of Johnson? There will always be one or two plays a game that the ball can’t just be launched in double-coverage on the assumption a superhuman wearing number 81 will come down with it. Those plays can be offset by a better offensive line and Stafford distributing the ball throughout the game as the fans don’t bemoan why every play isn’t forced in one direction.



Inheriting his third offensive coordinator since coming into the league, Stafford has looked more patient in running the offense. The interceptions are always going to be a part of his game, just as they were with Brett Favre. You can’t play with reckless abandon and total confidence and not make some of the head-scratching throws players with exceptional arm strength tend to make. The key is limiting those mistakes, understanding when and where it is appropriate to take those chances, and keeping the offense on the field as long as possible.

With two years left on his current contract Detroit will need to start talking extension. Some pundits and fans will argue you can’t win a title with Stafford as your starter. I will politely point out no player got to 25,000 yards passing faster. I will say he is one of four players ever to throw for 5,000 yards in one season and stands at 8th and 9th for most yards in a single season. All of this as he enters his age 28 season.

I don’t know if Stafford will ever win a Super Bowl in Detroit. At this point I would just like a playoff win. What I do know is the team has some of the right players and pieces to compete and Stafford is one of those, which is always nice when talking about the quarterback position.

[edindetroit]

Yes, Football 101 taught by dwt.

And people quoting dwt and replying to dwt....

[chemiclord]

The only issue I have with that article is the "Ewing Theory" it invokes.

A team is never going to be better without its best player, and if Calvin Johnson was that inhuman beast that could still fight over triple coverage, the Lions will be worse without him.

The question should be asked, was Calvin Johnson at this point even the Lions best receiver? If that answer is "well... no... not really..." and that Stafford was forcing passes to CJ because of the earlier reputation, then they have a chance to be better without him.