Michigan Radio & TV Buzzboard

I brought up his record, his contract, and his mistakes. That sack for instance was all him. The interceptions the past few Thanksgivings were all him. Not performing in their three playoff games was a large part on him.

Numbers don’t mean everything. Philip Rivers has thrown for more yards this year even before last night’s game. I don’t consider him great. In fact, he has fallen short of expectations. His team is now 4-6 after several were predicting deep playoff runs. I saw right through that. I also knew the Browns would be horrible.

Do you consider Vinny Testaverde one of the greatest QBs in history? He threw for thousands upon thousands of yards.

I'm done with you, fuzzy. Your first post on page one of this 6-page thread was that Stafford sucks. You've tried to prove your point with isolated plays and games in his career, but you only continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper and show how little you know about football. Only a moron, or a football idiot would insist that Matthew Stafford sucks. I refuse to continue to argue with a fool like yourself. You can have the last word.

Honeyman wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:56 am

I'm done with you, fuzzy. Your first post on page one of this 6-page thread was that Stafford sucks. You've tried to prove your point with isolated plays and games in his career, but you only continue to dig yourself deeper and deeper and show how little you know about football. Only a moron, or a football idiot would insist that Matthew Stafford sucks. I refuse to continue to argue with a fool like yourself. You can have the last word.

Yep, refuse to answer my questions and points when I bring them up. You love failed QBs like Stafford, and that’s your choice. I prefer QBs who can actually win playoff games.

Since you are on a broadcasting board, you should one in a while talk about... broadcasting.

Stafford through his entire career does not have even one signature win. That speaks volumes, IMO.

I am not a fan of terms like "signature win" on two counts....
1. there is no universally accepted definition of what is or isn't a "signature win"
2. without an accepted definition its most often used to disparage a team, coach or player as "sucking" based on an undefined term.

A quarterback isn't like a pitcher. A pitcher can strike out 27 batters in a row and all he needs is one guy on his team to hit a home run to win. He has the hypothetical ability to completely control a game.
A quarterback needs a defense to play well when the other team has the ball.
He needs an offensive line to give him time, and receivers to get open and catch the ball. All this while 11 guys on the other team are trying to stop you. Back to the pitcher, he only has one guy trying to stop him and the statistical odds overwhelmingly favor the pitcher. If a batter fails 66% of the time he is Hall of Fame material.

If we compare Stafford to Tom Brady ,claimed by many to be the GOAT (another vague term I dislike) in Brady's 19 full seasons in the league his teams defense has been a top 10 for points (not) allowed 15 times in those 19 years.
Stafford has had 1 top 10 defense in his 9 years in terms of points not allowed.
My point would be that the success or failure of a quarterback is a lot more complicated than a pitcher.

I ask myself how many Super Bowls Tom Brady would have been in and won if he was a Detroit Lion for 19 years? Obviously it's a question without an answer but it's not a stretch for me to think zero Super Bowls played zero won. My reasoning would be "its the freaking Lions, they stink".

Another unanswerable question what if Stafford was the New England QB for his 9 years? My math shows in that time New England was 3-2 in five Super Bowls. Could Belichick have figured out a way to get to a Super Bowl and maybe win with Stafford? No way to know but it's easier for me to believe Stafford could win a Super Bowl with New England than Tom Brady winning one with Detroit.

Again I think the success or failure of a QB involves a lot more factors than it does for a pitcher in baseball. Yet I feel like people talk about QB's like they have the control of a game that a pitcher does.

Stafford has had plenty of receivers in his career, especially Calvin Johnson.

Brady is helped by a coach who “bends” the rules. Personally, I still considered Joe Montana the greatest. Undefeated in the Super Bowl, and to my knowledge, never cheated.

Here's what "signature win" should mean in the context of the Detroit Lions:
- A playoff game victory
- An NFC North division clinching victory
- A win out west against a playoff-worthy team

My memory is failing me. What year was it when Stafford engineered all those late comeback wins? I remember a particularly "impossible" one against the Raiders on the coast.

In other news, it's reported that Stafford won't be playing against the Bears today. His remarkable streak of starts comes to an end.

While backup QB Driskel played respectably today given the circumstances, there should now be no doubt that Stafford is the source of Detroit's potent offense.

MWmetalhead wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:53 pm

Here's what "signature win" should mean in the context of the Detroit Lions:
- A playoff game victory
- An NFC North division clinching victory
- A win out west against a playoff-worthy team

Exactly. In the context of the DETROIT LIONS. Not in the context of Matthew Stafford.

The Lions are a team. And to say that Stafford doesn't have a signature win is an unfair statement. More accurately, the Detroit Lions don't have a signature win with Stafford at QB. Then again, they don't really much of a signature win since the early 1990s. I'll say this again - the problem is NOT Stafford.

He's certainly not the problem this season, but in some of the prior seasons, he certainly had underwhelming performances in some big games. By no means am I suggesting he was the only problem or the biggest problem in those years; he was simply *one* of the problems.

On Lions teams where he had both Calvin Johnson and Golden Tate as WR's, an OK but flawed Eric Ebron at TE, and rather stout defenses to help keep the opponent at bay, he has ZERO playoff wins and ZERO division titles to his credit.

Is he a good QB by NFL standards? Yes.

Is he a great QB? In my view, absolutely not.

Lions defense this season is an utter disgrace. If Bob Quinn made the call to draft T.J. Hockenson over Devin Bush in round one, he should be fired (well, for that + other malfeasance).

Driskel was certainly not the backup QB they should have signed. Then again, the Lions almost picked up INT machine Nathan Peterman. One thing Driskel does have on his side is youth. Legs help a bit too.

Rearing its ugly head again yesterday was the Lions' ineptness in the red zone. Driskel looked halfway decent working with what had to be a limited playbook. Goodness gracious, we were winning the time-of-possession and total yards by a mile in the first half and yet could muster only six lousy points, letting duh Bears hang around, hang around, hang around till Trubisky started imagining himself as Joe Montana! The Lions'll do that to ya. If anything, THAT'S what has defined this season -- an offense that leaves too many points on the field and a defense that can't finish games.

Sounds like a typical Lions season to me.

The Lions have led at some point in the first half (twice by double digits) in every single one of their losses this year.