Tate has actually won a Super Bowl…so I have no doubt he knows what it takes to win one
3 Likes
So saying that if Stafford was a part of any of the SUperbowl winning teams in the last 10 year, that team would not have won the Superbowl. This I just cannot agree with, in fact I would say that there has not been one SUperbowl in the last 10 years that I would put the win strickly on the QB of that team. I would even go so far as to say that some of the Losing teams might have won if they had Stafford as the QB instead of whom they did have. The 49ers immediately jump to my mind.
Also throwing out his salary as a reason is just hog wash. First off Stafford never once got more then the going rate for a Franchise QB, now you and I might wish that the going rate was lower but the teams make the rate. Washington in particular jumped things up by franchising Cousins a couple of times. Now add in the fact that we have no way to know how that team’s GM would have handled the cap with Stafford as part of the team, you point becomes mute and a little bit of a reach IMO.
1 Like
It’s all the QB , Brady is on another level (He’s not) and you can’t win games when you settle for 5 FG’s like we did, But for the Patriots the 5 FG’s would have won any single one of the 7 games the Patriots have played .
2 Likes
And yet it matters. Swap Stafford, Aikman and Montana and the latter two have as many rings as Matt has.
1 Like
Exactly. Any of those guys would have gotten smashed, while playing on the offenses that Matt was in.
The hypothetical thing is funny because it cannot be proved
Your disagreement has no more merit than the hypothetical statements
And nobody said it was easy
For most teams I think it’s more about a lucky string of events than brilliance
But there are a few teams that have proven it’s not just luck
And there are a handful of teams that are forever mismanaged
difference is that The Detroit Lions were not built to be annual winners…they were a hobby of WCF. The proof in that comment is vast majority of losing football LONG before Matt Stafford .
Speaking of Stafford he has had more GM’s , more HC’s , More OC’s , more scheme changes, more “game-plans” , more o-line changes than any QB I know. the Team came from a broken root base, that is That WCF had billions and never made sure that the correct people were in leadership roles from the get. He could have had the best that money could buy winning, experienced, knowledgeable , leaders that DID win bowls , the best scouts in the game…but WCF didn’t do the groundwork needed from day one.
The Lions lost and lost royally ‘for the most part’ this did not change once we got Stafford and they shoved anybody in our front office we haven’t won a damn thing since 2009 or decades before. fans are real quick to zoom in on Stafford the past 10 years as HIS fault…NO he’s not a perfect QB and does make mistakes but walked onto a hamstrung team lead by quicksand. evidence shows that our leaders are lacking and so is the team. WE have went through 20 different HC’s Patricia being the latest…he only has 1.5 seasons of experience at being a HC. In 2018, MP was a first-time-ever HC our losing has more to do with referee calls and injuries than Patricia’s flaws @ HC. but STILL Stafford gets hounded more often than not for the QB he is.
1 Like
Yup- sadly!
Yup!
Yup- we get credit for the wins we earned at GB and KC, and literally every conversation in here is dramatically different, right down to the “proof”
It is literally the gift that keeps on giving that GB doesn’t have to play against Mahommes, but instead Matt Moore… I reeeeallly dislike the Packers.
1 Like
Word! Easily my least favorite team too, brother! They still have a much tougher schedule than us ahead, and definitely have a handful of games that they could lose. I’m suspecting this division race between us, GB, and MN will be closer than most think. I also am not reserved to the idea that we dont get a wildcard this year. Totally realistic scenario.
Fave team = Lions
2nd Fave = whoever plays against GB.
Been that way for me for decades. LOL
1 Like
Well, then JeMarcus Russell was really the greatest QB of all time. I guess people can say whatever they like and it can’t be disproven.
So I guess the fact that Brady, Manning, etc. achieved their SB rings doesn’t really matter, because so would have every other QB that ever played according to hypothetical thinking.
The difference is that those guys actually did it. The other’s only did it in Imaginary Land.
Welp, this went predictably.
Pretty sure a thread stating the sky is blue would get dissected into oblivion here.
2 Likes
I don’t know if Stafford would have had rings playing on a different team, but dependent on what team it is “maybe”. I do know Matt would have elevated numbers on several teams though.
The sky is not blue it is colorless, the light passing through it gives it color.
2 Likes
Except here in the yoop it’s gray.
One of my many points with that single statement.
Most of us went to “dark mode,” ironically, after the Packer game!
Hard to look at stats in a vacuum and say that just because the stats are close means that one player would have all the merits and awards that the other one does. Brady throws down the field, Matt under JBC has made a career of passing behind the LOS.
Stafford has thrown a lot against prevent defenses, Brady not as much.
Stafford is great at Game Winning Drives but rarely has played with a lead, Brady probably has played with a lead a lot more. Brady is clutch keeping drives alive and evading sacks.
I don’t think anyone would look at these stats and say, “yep, Stafford and Brady are pretty much the same player”.
I would disagree with this completely. Matt has played on the ideal franchise for racking up numbers. He would certainly have less passing yards, attempts, etc. on any other team in the NFL.
I believe this season is easily the best he has played in his career. He looks much more effective this season, seems to be better at throwing the intermediate ball, and is making much better decisions with the ball. Just because he threw for a bunch of yards in losses in the past doesn’t mean anything. I would much rather have the Lions get out to leads early and have Matt only throw for 220 yards and then run the ball the entire 4th quarter, killing the clock.
2 Likes
I like Stafford almost as much as anyone, but to say he is on a par with Tom Brady is just one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard in my life. Other than hard core Stafford fans, you aren’t going to find anyone not in a mental institution make this argument.
1 Like