Proof Stafford isn't the problem.

[RobBase]

 

[kengel6]

Maybe Chubbs needs to work on his interviewing skills too?

 

[RobBase]

Maybe Stafford is the problem. Real rough year for me with predictions already ouch.

 

[gvsulaker82]

Is this the part where I dodge out on naming names? Or the part where I talk about how being the worlds tallest midget doesn't make that midget tall?

Nah I dont need names, was just trying to think if anyone else said that.

 

[gvsulaker82]

Maybe Stafford is the problem. Real rough year for me with predictions already ouch.

Dnt lose faith in staff. Peyton is a god, but once again I see him losing to the hawks in the sb. But at least he endorsed our shitt new hc and hey I was so against the rooney rule for a multitude of other reasons, now I can add one more, jim caldwell.

 

[broncosmitty]

Nah I dont need names, was just trying to think if anyone else said that.

I don't want anyone getting blacklisted. (You name NAMES, you on list!). We all have to take our time to find the light that is.................... Reality........(At HopSings!)

 

[Thruthefog]

Why do I have a sudden craving for egg rolls?

 

[RobBase]

I don't want anyone getting blacklisted. (You name NAMES, you on list!). We all have to take our time to find the light that is.................... Reality........(At HopSings!)

 

[RobBase]

Why do I have a sudden craving for egg rolls?

Because you're high and egg rolls are delicious.

 

[broncosmitty]

I always get extra Rangoons instead. Or dumplings. Or hush puppies if its coleslaw were tallingbough. Coleslaw is nasty.

 

[Thruthefog]

I always get extra Rangoons instead. Or dumplings. Or hush puppies if its coleslaw were tallingbough. Coleslaw is nasty.

This must be a quote from Stafford.

 

[broncosmitty]

This must be a quote from Stafford.

Hahahaha.

 

[K.J.Ester]

For the fun of it, I will go where few are willing to go and say Stafford just may be much closer to elite than most realize.

First let me make a point using Manning in the Superbowl. I have always believed that even the best QBs ever still need to be put in a place to succeed. If they are placed in a hopeless situation, even the best will look bad. Seattle's defense was crazy good that game. Almost like they were reading the plays. WRs were dropping passes. As a result, Manning began to press and try to do too much. Not looking at the two picks, I saw short passes thrown at the feet of players. He did not look like a great QB in that game, but it wasnt his fault. He was in an impossible situation.

Now lets look at Stafford. Most fans see the multitude of picks in the second half of the season and say he is not that good. But if you look at him through the last three years and recognize the situation he was in as he went, you can see a different picture.

In the first 8 games of 2011, Stafford threw 19 TDs and only 4 picks. Then he broke a finger on his throwing hand and in the next 4 games he threw only 8 TDs and 10 Picks. Once his finger healed enough, he settled down and threw for 14 more TDs and only 2 picks. In the 12 games he was healthy, Stafford threw for 33 TDs and only 6 picks.

The nay sayers will say he wasnt very good in 2012, but I look at the situation. Linehans offense was built on the big play. They lived and died by the big play. Defenses started dropping two safeties deep to take away the big play and our coaches never adjusted. They never figured out how to counter the defensive scheme and continued to call the same plays that didnt work well. As we saw with Manning, if the coaches dont make adjustments and give him a chance, he wont look as good. So I cannot blame Stafford for not looking great when our coaches never gave him a fair chance.

In 2013 the coaches finally gave him a chance by bringing Reggie Bush to the Lions. Bush forced teams to play a bit more honest and it opened up the passing game again. In the first 7 games, he threw for 15 TDs and only 4 picks. Then we had the same problem as in 2012. The coaches never made adjustments. Not once, but twice I heard comments from opposing players saying how the Lions made it easy on them because the continued to run the same exact plays all along. The defenses were literally reading the plays as they developed because they saw them all on the field or on film and the Lions kept running them. If that doesnt make it near impossible as it is, the WRs were dropping passes a lot. Bush was fumbling. Stafford became frustrated and started trying to do too much again. In the second half last year, Stafford simply was not placed in a position to succeed. Yes he looked bad, but under those circumstances, ANY quarterback would look bad.

I know how we all saw the side arm passes and bad footwork. Many say that is why he is not elite. I tend to believe that he has never had great mechanics, but when he is healthy and placed in a position where success is actually an option, his talent overrides his mechanical flaws.

Some can look at his good games and say he is elite. Others (many others) will look at his bad games and say he is terrible. If he is truly not good, he would not be good enough to have the great streaks he has had. Between the 12 games he was healthy in 2011 and the first 7 games of 2013, he threw for 68 TDs and only 10 picks. I guarantee you that there are only a handful of QBs in the league who would put those numbers up in the same circumstances. In the other games when the situation was bad for him? Well, as I pointed out. Even Manning can look bad if the situation he is placed in is bad.

If the Lions get him even a decent WR opposite Calvin, and a better scheme and play calling? Stafford is very capable of putting up elite numbers.When he is healthy and defenses dont know what plays are coming, he doesnt turn the ball over very often. Any way you slice it, 68 TDs and 10 picks in 19 games is elite. And its not like I picked and chose games throughout his career to put together. I picked three streaks of games when he was placed in a good situation.

The more I look at the stats, as well as the situations he has been in, the more I believe he is much better than most of us realize.

 

[jayfan]

Stafford missed too many throws to open receivers over the last 2 years. That's what I care about. No one put him in that position but himself. It's on him.

 

[Thruthefog]

Stafford missed too many throws to open receivers over the last 2 years. That's what I care about. No one put him in that position but himself. It's on him.

I don't mean to interrupt, but...did you actually read all that?

 

[broncosmitty]

I don't mean to butt in, but no, I haven't yet. The Proof is in the Cooter.

 

[K.J.Ester]

Im sorry. I forgot some of you have ADHD and cant stay focused for more than two sentences. ) But if you dont actually read it, I dont see how you can argue it.

If memory serves me right, no QB has ever thrown for 100% completion for a season. Even 90 or 80%. If a QB gets over 60% completion, he had a decent year. I really dont think any QB always hits his receivers. Not Manning, Brady, Brees or any of them. Again, look at Manning in the Superbowl. He was throwing balls at WRs feet. Why? Because he was pressed so much with the bad play around him. So why do we always expect our own players to be better than the best? Put Stafford in a position to succeed, and he will put up elite stats. Place him in a place to fail, and he will fail.

Its ridiculous to look for a QB who will look like a star when he is put in a place where success is not possible. That QB has never existed. What you want is a QB who will succeed if you give him the opportunity. When put in a place to succeed, Stafford has.

 

[broncosmitty]

25 Starting Quarterbacks had a completion percentage over 60%. Including Matt Cassel, Chad Henne, Christian Ponder and Matt Schaub. Did they have "decent" years?

 

[Thruthefog]

Im sorry. I forgot some of you have ADHD and cant stay focused for more than two sentences. ) But if you dont actually read it, I dont see how you can argue it.

Its ridiculous to look for a QB who will look like a star when he is put in a place where success is not possible. That QB has never existed. What you want is a QB who will succeed if you give him the opportunity. When put in a place to succeed, Stafford has.

Better, but I still had to shorten your post. I'll read long posts if all of the post is interesting. I read Stephen King because there are no 'dead spots' in his novels. I won't read Charles Dickens, because he writes a lot of words for no good reason. That covers the first paragraph.

I deleted the second paragraph. (see mitty's post)

I agree with your third paragraph. I don't believe Stafford is as bad as he seemed to be under Linehan's offense and play calling.

I'll also go so far as to say I agree with your wanting a true fullback on this team. Doesn't mean he always has to be on the field, but it's good to be able to show the formation and the threat. Green Bay certainly has success with a FB. But it would have to be one that can 'plow the road' blocking, pick up a blitz, and be a receiving threat. If he can't do all three, we're better off without one.

 

[RobBase]

25 Starting Quarterbacks had a completion percentage over 60%. Including Matt Cassel, Chad Henne, Christian Ponder and Matt Schaub. Did they have "decent" years?

If you consider checking down all year decent.