Matt Stafford is the suckiest suck to ever suck

[dwt1]

One little fact that blows that theory out the fucking door. If you have a qb named Tom Brady, Payton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, the list goes on and on and on. You can fill your team with anybody, you can replace anybody (except the QB of course) and they still win and win big. So apparently if this theory has any merit, the conclusion is if you have a great QB, everything fits, if you have a mediocre QB, somethings fit, if you don;t have a great QB, nothing fits.

That has been proven over and over and over again - it all starts with the QB - that is why only 3 QBs have represented the AFC in 15 of the last 17 Super Bowls.

In all the great analysis, did you ever notice that a teams ability to find and put the complimentary pieces together is directly related to how good their QB is?

[Marko69]

Nope - not a fan of college sports, why would I want to be a fan of the Spartans - I never went to MSU.

What about the Saskatchewan Roughriders? A fan?

[Marko69]

I like that. Time was when Ramsay or Roy Keane were freakish exceptions, hardly the norm. Then YouTube became popular, and the comments section became like an insight into what hell must look like. Then social media in general made it much worse. And then, inevitably, it escaped out into the open through thugs like Trump or Nigel Farage. And now, it's pretty much expected!

[TheLondonLion]

Stafford's slow starts are becoming an issue. Granted, we scored a TD first quarter against the Niners but the offence was far from fluent. Whether this is due to energetic early pass rushing, a lack of fluency, coming to terms with the D or whatever - it is very seldom the Lions get off to a flier and spend most of the game playing catch-up.

His 5,000 yard season seems a long time ago now. Sometimes it feels like he is actually regressing with age.

[Lem B]

Like most of us, I have found DWT to be an instigating imbecile. However, I have come to the conclusion he's been right all along. Stafford does NOT have it.

[kreton]

Stafford is the first in history.

Matthew Stafford is the first QB with 300 passing yards, three passing touchdowns and no interceptions in a loss against the 49ers.

[Lem B]

Stafford is the first in history.

Matthew Stafford is the first QB with 300 passing yards, three passing touchdowns and no interceptions in a loss against the 49ers.

Is he the first to overthrow 4 receivers for certain TDs?

[Fraquar]

0 Int's but one absolutely boneheaded fumble deep in his own territory that was essentially the final margin of victory.

[kreton]

Is he the first to overthrow 4 receivers for certain TDs?

Not even one of the first 100 I'd guess.

[chemiclord]

Like most of us, I have found DWT to be an instigating imbecile. However, I have come to the conclusion he's been right all along. Stafford does NOT have it.

Oh, very few people disputed the opinion that Stafford wasn't an "elite QB" that was on par with Brees or Rodgers or Brady. Very few people challenged his contention that Stafford didn't make the players around him better.

No, he gets (and has gotten) dragged for his inane and simplistic solution; that the Lions should cut Stafford for "somebody else" and keep blowing up the team every two years until they get that once or twice in a generation QB (because the QB is the only position that really matters in his mind). Just a simple look at recent history shows that to be a categorically false and shortsighted strategy.

The fifty-one other players on that roster still matter. Even Rodgers and Brady need people who have a baseline of competence. They don't need to be flashy superstars (and that's the advantage of an elite QB, make no mistake), but they still need to be able to do things like tackle consistently on defense or catch passes that hit them in the hands. The Lions roster as a whole have almost routinely been filled with below replacement-level JAGs and scrubs.

Just look at this list that I title, "Let's Forget Some Guys. Please."

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/draft.htm

I mean... WOOF. Let's just start with when Stafford was drafted (that's honestly depressing enough). How many of those players amounted to shit? How many players on this current roster would be a starter anywhere else? How many players would even make a roster anywhere else?

No QB, regardless of their talent, is winning consistently with this loaded diaper that the front office routinely puts together, and certainly not enough to string together a playoff run. Would the Lions be better if their QB play moved into that next tier? Sure. Would better QB play mean the Lions win a playoff game over the last decade? Maybe one. Anything more than that... probably not.

The Lions as a team simply have not been good enough to sustain anything more than the occasional flashes of adequacy. Even when the Lions do squeak into the playoffs, the overall talent level difference between them and the contenders is immediately evident.

[Panoptes]

Stafford is the first in history.

Matthew Stafford is the first QB with 300 passing yards, three passing touchdowns and no interceptions in a loss against the 49ers.

StaTford being StaTford

Record setter extraordinaire except for in the W column.

[dwt1]

Oh, very few people disputed the opinion that Stafford wasn't an "elite QB" that was on par with Brees or Rodgers or Brady. Very few people challenged his contention that Stafford didn't make the players around him better.

No, he gets (and has gotten) dragged for his inane and simplistic solution; that the Lions should cut Stafford for "somebody else" and keep blowing up the team every two years until they get that once or twice in a generation QB (because the QB is the only position that really matters in his mind). Just a simple look at recent history shows that to be a categorically false and shortsighted strategy.

The fifty-one other players on that roster still matter. Even Rodgers and Brady need people who have a baseline of competence. They don't need to be flashy superstars (and that's the advantage of an elite QB, make no mistake), but they still need to be able to do things like tackle consistently on defense or catch passes that hit them in the hands. The Lions roster as a whole have almost routinely been filled with below replacement-level JAGs and scrubs.

Just look at this list that I title, "Let's Forget Some Guys. Please."

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/draft.htm

I mean... WOOF. Let's just start with when Stafford was drafted (that's honestly depressing enough). How many of those players amounted to shit? How many players on this current roster would be a starter anywhere else? How many players would even make a roster anywhere else?

No QB, regardless of their talent, is winning consistently with this loaded diaper that the front office routinely puts together, and certainly not enough to string together a playoff run. Would the Lions be better if their QB play moved into that next tier? Sure. Would better QB play mean the Lions win a playoff game over the last decade? Maybe one. Anything more than that... probably not.

The Lions as a team simply have not been good enough to sustain anything more than the occasional flashes of adequacy. Even when the Lions do squeak into the playoffs, the overall talent level difference between them and the contenders is immediately evident.

Show me one post where I ever said, or ever advocated the Lions should cut Stafford - not once have I ever said that.

[jaadam4]

0 Int's but one absolutely boneheaded fumble deep in his own territory that was essentially the final margin of victory.

It was such a stupid play.

[dwt1]

It was such a stupid play.

I know, why did cooter call it?

[kreton]

StaTford being StaTford

Record setter extraordinaire except for in the W column.

W's and L's are a team stat not an individual one. When the Lions learn to build a team we will see a difference. Start with quality in the trenches and work the roster out from there. We will never know if Stafford is good enough to win because the team is never good enough to win.