Stafford the stud!

[broncosmitty]

They let Peyton go bc he wasn't going to play much longer. And that had a great opportunity to take ANOTHER franchise QB. I think it was smart.

I think it was smart too. And I don't think they would have done it for RGIII. Do you think they would have done it for Staff?(be honest)

 

[themuzzer]

I don't know anyone in the world that loves Stafford as much as you buddy. If say Staff had went all four years and redshirted in the there somewhere. And Luck had came out early and somehow they had been in the same draft class, do you honestly believe Staff would have been taken over Luck?

I would have said they would have went #1 and #2 and been happy with either.....These two are the top of the next pack when Manning, Brady, and Bress runs it's course, Rodgers is fine and will be there as well......Wilson was a 3rd round pick that does things all the above don't....He makes things happen that arn't there.....The rest just throw it away and play for another down.

 

[lionstop1]

Yes I do Smitty. Especially if it was still the Lions drafting. Look, I know I'm a huge Stafford fan and all but I promise that has nothing to do with why I think he's better. People kept saying if Bradford wouldve came out, he wouldve went first. I doubt it. Luck is a really good qb but you're not going to find a Stafford type qb for a long time. All Stafford wouldve had to prove against Luck if they would've came out at the same time is the ability to show he can read defenses well and such.

 

[themuzzer]

Out of curiousity (sp) Which one has the stronger arm.....My guess is it's Stafford.....I would like to see these two in a QB competition Prior to an all star game......That might make me tune in.....Russell Wilson, Kapernick , Vick and RG3 can have a scramble drill or something for the other type of QBs.

 

[lionstop1]

All scrabling qbs are pretty similar in what they do. Russell is good but nothing like a wow factor.

 

[lionstop1]

Muzz,

Luck doesn't have a rocket launcher attached to his body.

 

[Microwahevo]

I think it was smart too. And I don't think they would have done it for RGIII. Do you think they would have done it for Staff?(be honest)

If it was Stafford and RG3 at the top? No Luck? Yes, I do. I think that franchise likes the pure pocket passer better than the "scrambling" QB. Stafford has the skills bro. His first two years were cut short b/c of injuries so we didn't get to see this progression.

If it was between Luck and Stafford? I couldn't say for sure. That would be a tough decision, but I don't think any GM could've gone wrong with either answer.

 

[Microwahevo]

Muzz,

Luck doesn't have a rocket launcher attached to his body.

 

[broncosmitty]

If it was Stafford and RG3 at the top? No Luck? Yes, I do. I think that franchise likes the pure pocket passer better than the "scrambling" QB. Stafford has the skills bro. His first two years were cut short b/c of injuries so we didn't get to see this progression.

If it was between Luck and Stafford? I couldn't say for sure. That would be a tough decision, but I don't think any GM could've gone wrong with either answer.

Way to skirt it.....

 

[Microwahevo]

Way to skirt it.....

Hey, you didn't give me the options, I created them myself.

IMO, they would've taken Staff over RG3.

Between Luck and Stafford, I bet they would've taken Stafford. he went to an SEC school and b/c Peyton went to one, they wanted to keep that tradition alive. Good?

 

[Microwahevo]

Honestly though, I don't know what the Colts would've done ahd it been between Luck and Stafford. Luck was more mobile, and b/c he went to Stanford he had that whole "education" thing going on. So I'm sure they like his smarts. Peyton wasn't mobile, but he was damn smart, atleast on the football field.

But Stafford had a rocket arm and played in the toughest conference in the NCAA. Peyton also had a great arm and he played in the SEC too, so there's that. Maybe that's why I chose them taking Stafford. It was 2 to 1.

 

[broncosmitty]

Hey, you didn't give me the options, I created them myself.

IMO, they would've taken Staff over RG3.

Between Luck and Stafford, I bet they would've taken Stafford. he went to an SEC school and b/c Peyton went to one, they wanted to keep that tradition alive. Good?

Well done sir, well done. I agree on Staff over Griffin in the draft. On the Luck smarts part. Im thinking he's probably the "headiest" QB aside from Manning. (See what I did there?). He was raised to an NFL QB. His dad was one so I assume it was his known trade from the time he could walk.

 

[LPinSLC]

The Colts would've drafted Luck over Stafford without a doubt. Any team would've. Luck was the highest touted QB in who knows how long. The Lions would've taken him over Stafford.

I still prefer Stafford even if just for his competitive fire. I love the emotion and will to win he has.

 

[broncosmitty]

Thank you for your honesty LP. Im glad to be your trespasser.

 

[Lions=TeHsUcKs]

I think Stafford is better at throwing.. Luck is more athletic.. 24 over 25 anyday IMO.. They both have the same upside.. Actually Luck might have slightly more.. Which is why I would trade for Luck.. Rodgers is the only other one.. And he's not even that old.. Still got plenty of years.. With all that said, I think Stafford is certainly the best we could do.. We could have had worse.. Looking back at that draft, we got the big draw.. Lol..

 

[tpaulus_2]

I think several you guys confuse my overall opinion of Staffs game with my hatred of his sidearm. It does affect things. It gets batted down when he does it over the middle when, I personally don't feel a conventional pass would be. Did he do that in college? I really don't remember it early on.

This is where we totally disagree (which is totally fine, because opinions are like assholes- everyone has one, and if they don't get exercised daiy things get pretty built up...).

The whole beauty of the sidearm is that he can, and does, make throws that way that would otherwise get batted down. He uses it to throw around rushing linemen, or to tuck the ball in a hole that's maybe 6 feet off the ground, but not 8 feet off the ground, if that makes sense.

Basically he keeps it low enough that way that it doesn't get knocked down. It's very much a situational thing, though.

I wish someone would run the numbers on just the sidearm throws. From what I've seen this season he's gotta be comfortably over 70% completions with it so far...

 

[Kreton]

If it was Stafford and RG3 at the top? No Luck? Yes, I do. I think that franchise likes the pure pocket passer better than the "scrambling" QB. Stafford has the skills bro. His first two years were cut short b/c of injuries so we didn't get to see this progression.

If it was between Luck and Stafford? I couldn't say for sure. That would be a tough decision, but I don't think any GM could've gone wrong with either answer.

Given only what happened in college and they were both available I think almost every GM would have went with Luck. I remember when Stafford came out and Bradford was questionable that year that a lot of people had Bradford going ahead of Stafford. Even that was a 50-50 type thing. I am damn sure glad Bradford went to play another year.

 

[tpaulus_2]

I would personally trade Stafford for Luck due to age.. That's about it.. I agree with most here that Rodgers and Luck would be the only two Qbs at this point I'd be willing to trade for.. But atm, Stafford is the better QB..

Not sure if this has been covered already, since I'm still catching up on this, but Stafford is only a year older than Luck. Just sayin'.

 

[Dr. Evil-er]

Luck was the highest touted QB in who knows how long. The Lions would've taken him over Stafford.

In his draft class he was yes. But that is an annual thing for the top QB on the board IMO. I dont think it was special for Luck. The staggering amount the Redskins gave up to get the #2 QB in that draft resulted in both of them getting a lot more press attention.

I personally would not trade Stafford for Luck. I simply think he is a better fit for our offense.

24 over 25 anyday IMO

I can only assume this got added into that post because you got shown up for not having done the research before making that earlier post about being younger. If not then . One year difference?? Come on. I watched 48 year old Bernard Hopkins beat up on a guy that had to be at least 20 years his junior in a fight last weekend and you think one year gives Luck a plus over Stafford. I'd say that its one year in age but two years less experience. I give that edge to Stafford.

If they were all in the same draft class I think they would have gone Luck, Stafford, Bradford. Now that they are in the NFL I would want them on my team as Stafford, Luck, Bradford. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[lionstop1]

Sorry to break the news to you guys but right now, Stafford is among the elite QB's, no matter how you slice it. Go look at the numbers. Peyton Manning is clearly running the show, but Stafford is right in there with the likes of Rodgers, Rivers and Brees. Here's some of Stafford's stats right now (these are only among the guys that start every week, not a couple of games):


7th in QB ratings
2nd yards per game
2nd in total yards
12th in completion percentage (area where fans criticize the most)
2nd in least sacked QB
4th in TD passes
3rd in 20+ passes
3 forth quarter comebacks (I think thats right)
11th in picks

Through eight games, Stafford is proving to be an elite QB in the NFL. On top of that, he still has a broken wr core but still manages to put up huge numbers. I could just imagine his stat line with a line-up like Manning's.

Again, call me a huge Stafford fan but the numbers are there. I understand why some would like Luck over him, but I don't see anywhere that proves Luck is the better QB right now. I think it's Manning, Rodgers, Brees and I'd argue over who takes the next spot between Rivers and Staff. Brady is in there but he's struggling without his wrs.