Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[edindetroit]

I stopped engaging him on the topic. Some may say I think Stafford is better than he is, but he definitely isn't as bad as some like him make him out to be. I can enjoy a good Stafford conversation but there is no talking to someone like that. He isn't interested in discussion he just wants to be dramatic.

Put him on ignore.

[kreton]

[/b]

Put him on ignore.

Nah. He might be worth talking to about non QB discussions if he ever has one.

[Futureshock]

I stopped engaging him on the topic. Some may say I think Stafford is better than he is, but he definitely isn't as bad as some like him make him out to be. I can enjoy a good Stafford conversation but there is no talking to someone like that. He isn't interested in discussion he just wants to be dramatic.

Don't let them get you upset with their zero sum crap. If you don't totally hate MS like they do, you're an apologist.

Nah. He might be worth talking to about non QB discussions if he ever has one.

Nope

[dwt1]

I stopped engaging him on the topic. Some may say I think Stafford is better than he is, but he definitely isn't as bad as some like him make him out to be. I can enjoy a good Stafford conversation but there is no talking to someone like that. He isn't interested in discussion he just wants to be dramatic.

Make him out to be? How about “proven to be”. I don’t try to make home out to be anything. I talk about what he’s proven not to be able to do, and what he has done. You make excuses for it.

Your trying to argue great QB play isn’t a difference maker. And you talk about all Detroit needs to do is surround him a great defense (BTW they did that, #2 overall - results didn’t change) a good running back ( did that too, results the same) which you admit has been difficult. Ever wonder why teams that have great QBs find that task easy, teams with mediocre QBs find it difficult?

[chemiclord]

Nah. He might be worth talking to about non QB discussions if he ever has one.

He won't. In dwtwat world, football is a game of 1-on-1 played by the two opposing quarterbacks with 20 spectators who happen to have really sweet tickets.

It's all Stafford all the time when it comes to dwtwat.

[dwt1]

Are you really trying to say that Dalton single handedly wins games and is a better QB than Stafford? People say you are a moron but damn dude don't go this far out of your way to prove them right.

You do have a reading comprehension problem.

People say a lot of things, of course they have to resort to name calling because that?s all they have, because they can?t prove me wrong. You?ll roll out your excuses, Year after year after year. And every year a Mediocre Matty led team will do exactly what a Mediocre Matty led team does, beat bad teams and lose to good teams.

[dwt1]

He won't. In dwtwat world, football is a game of 1-on-1 played by the two opposing quarterbacks with 20 spectators who happen to have really sweet tickets.

It's all Stafford all the time when it comes to dwtwat.

See, all they have is personnel attacks. Well, that and excuses.

[dwt1]

What does these playoffs say?

That there are plenty of ways to field a team that can win in the playoffs. If you get lucky and find that generational QB, great. But if you don't, you don't have to keep playing that lottery if you have one that's good enough.

That's never really been up for debate. The question really amounts to is Matt Stafford good enough? The Hater's Club wants to claim "no," which is absolutely preposterous when you consider who is behind center for a lot of playoff teams.

You focus on who, not how they played.

Now tell me that the two QBs playing in the Super Bowl weren’t the two best who played in the payoffs? I’m the first to admit, I thought Foles would shit his pants, but he didn’t. QB rating over 100 in each game, 141.4 in Championship game.

[dwt1]

He won't. In dwtwat world, football is a game of 1-on-1 played by the two opposing quarterbacks with 20 spectators who happen to have really sweet tickets.

It's all Stafford all the time when it comes to dwtwat.

Three QBs have played in 15 of the last 17 Superbowls - yeah no reason to believe great QB is a difference maker.

BTW, during that same period, the three most consistantly dominant defenses have played in three Super Bowls with no repeats.

Denver, even though they have the same strong defense and decent running game hasn’t even made the playoffs since Manning retired.

Yeah, the QB is just another guy on the field.

People like to say John Elway wasn’t shit until he had Terrel Davis, of course they fail to admit the Elway took Denver to three Super Bowl prior to that. Two with Sammy Winder and the other with Bobby Humphrey in the backfield.

[Fraquar]

Three QBs have played in 15 of the last 17 Superbowls - yeah no reason to believe great QB is a difference maker.

BTW, during that same period, the three most consistantly dominant defenses have played in three Super Bowls with no repeats.

Denver, even though they have the same strong defense and decent running game hasn’t even made the playoffs since Manning retired.

Yeah, the QB is just another guy on the field.

People like to say John Elway wasn’t shit until he had Terrel Davis, of course they fail to admit the Elway took Denver to three Super Bowl prior to that. Two with Sammy Winder and the other with Bobby Humphrey in the backfield.

Yep, there are 3 QB's and 32 teams. Guess what the other 29 teams have to do, make due with what they got or can get. You seem to make it sound like all 32 teams can get that kind of QB at the same time. If they don't then just don't bother trying?

[dwt1]

Yep, there are 3 QB's and 32 teams. Guess what the other 29 teams have to do, make due with what they got or can get. You seem to make it sound like all 32 teams can get that kind of QB at the same time. If they don't then just don't bother trying?

Don?t you do the same thing? All they have to do is get a great defense, we?ll guess what aren?t all the other teams trying to do that too? Can they all have great defenses at once? They need to get a great running back, uhm are are teams trying to do that.

I will add - even if you get those- you still need a QB, he doesn?t need to be a great QB, he just needs to be a QB that can make a few plays that will win you a agame against winning teams. In nine years in the NFL Mediocre Matty as not proven he can do that.

[kreton]

See, all they have is personnel attacks. Well, that and excuses.

Dammit I am responding again. Sigh. You have excuses.

Lets take a look at these games you claim Stafford failed.

ATL - Stafford threw for 264 yards and a TD. He also ran for 30% of our rushing yards. Our RBs didn't manage to put 50 yards. Defense gave up 30 points. What do you think is the cause of this loss? Defense giving up 30, RB's failing to gain yards, or Stafford?

CAR - Stafford threw for 229 and 2 TDs. Our RBs did nothing. Our lead rusher had 30 yards. Defense gave up 27 points. This was that fun game where a no name do nothing TE torched up for almost 200 yards! But Stafford should have covered him better.

NO - Stafford threw for 312 yards and 3 TDs. He has support in the run game for a huge (for these guys) 63 yards. and over half of that came on 1 play. Defense did their part holding the Saints to a mere 52 points.

PIT - Stafford goes for over 400 this game. RBs combine for about 10% of that. 10 fucking %. Defense wasn't horrible this game only giving up 20.

MIN - Thanksgiving loss here. Where Staffod went for 2 TDs and only 250 yards. Run game put up 40. Defense gave up 30 points to a Minnesota offense who had up to that point averaged only 20 ppg.

BAL - Stafford goes 292 and a TD - Tion Green steps it up and we get a whopping 76 rushing yards this game and the defense gets lit up for 44.

CIN - Now this one Stafford had a tough time. Only going for 203 and 1 TD and a pick. RBs go for 80. And def only gave up 26. Not really great by anyone in a must win game.

This is also while Stafford got sacked 47 times. 47. He was also 6th in QB rating. 6th in completion % (which is nice accuracy) and 3rd in yards despite having no running game. Drew Brees is the only QB in the league who threw more than Stafford with fewer INTs.


Now all that said. Do you really believe that the reason we lost was because of Stafford? Not the piss poor running game? The terrible defense in a lot of those games? The horrific o line play? And the coaching calls were, as many many many game threads will show, questionable and even painful. Do you blame Drummond for the Pistons loss last night too?

And talk all you want about him not winning us games. Without him, we are likely 3-13 last year if we are lucky. With him we were 9-7 with a chance to win every game.

[Topweasel]

Dammit I am responding again. Sigh. You have excuses.

Lets take a look at these games you claim Stafford failed.

ATL - Stafford threw for 264 yards and a TD. He also ran for 30% of our rushing yards. Our RBs didn't manage to put 50 yards. Defense gave up 30 points. What do you think is the cause of this loss? Defense giving up 30, RB's failing to gain yards, or Stafford?

CAR - Stafford threw for 229 and 2 TDs. Our RBs did nothing. Our lead rusher had 30 yards. Defense gave up 27 points. This was that fun game where a no name do nothing TE torched up for almost 200 yards! But Stafford should have covered him better.

NO - Stafford threw for 312 yards and 3 TDs. He has support in the run game for a huge (for these guys) 63 yards. and over half of that came on 1 play. Defense did their part holding the Saints to a mere 52 points.

PIT - Stafford goes for over 400 this game. RBs combine for about 10% of that. 10 fucking %. Defense wasn't horrible this game only giving up 20.

MIN - Thanksgiving loss here. Where Staffod went for 2 TDs and only 250 yards. Run game put up 40. Defense gave up 30 points to a Minnesota offense who had up to that point averaged only 20 ppg.

BAL - Stafford goes 292 and a TD - Tion Green steps it up and we get a whopping 76 rushing yards this game and the defense gets lit up for 44.

CIN - Now this one Stafford had a tough time. Only going for 203 and 1 TD and a pick. RBs go for 80. And def only gave up 26. Not really great by anyone in a must win game.

This is also while Stafford got sacked 47 times. 47. He was also 6th in QB rating. 6th in completion % (which is nice accuracy) and 3rd in yards despite having no running game. Drew Brees is the only QB in the league who threw more than Stafford with fewer INTs.


Now all that said. Do you really believe that the reason we lost was because of Stafford? Not the piss poor running game? The terrible defense in a lot of those games? The horrific o line play? And the coaching calls were, as many many many game threads will show, questionable and even painful. Do you blame Drummond for the Pistons loss last night too?

And talk all you want about him not winning us games. Without him, we are likely 3-13 last year if we are lucky. With him we were 9-7 with a chance to win every game.

Pointless he has been pretty consistent that 9-7 is as good as 1-15.

[Panoptes]

He's not wrong on that account

[kreton]

He's not wrong on that account

The point wasn't that 9-7 is good enough. Read the whole post. Lots of words there.