He was awesome but he didn’t beat great teams by himself.
He literally only beat 9 teams with a winning record while in Detroit.
Surely not his fault, but factually we often trailed absolute crap teams in the 4th quarter.
Lots of Zona, bad Bears teams, Skins, Browns, etc in there. Not many playoff teams.
Again Backus wasn’t awful…. Decker, Warford, Rieff, Tomlinson, Swanson, Rags, Lang, R Sims, Wagner, Cherilus, Glasgow….
If wasn’t from a lack of effort in FA and draft, nor simply the wrong guys…. At least 4 of them went on to very solid careers elsewhere.
If you click it’s Stafford as list not Bradshaw.
Tomlinson was not good at all, while here. Cherilous sucked while here. Same with Swanny…average on his best day, Lang rarely played, Wagner was decent, Glasgow was above average-ish, Warfare was awesome…until he got hurt, Taylor was always good, & Backus was B/B+
Now go back, see how long they played here for (keep in mind, some of these guys went to other teams & improved dRAMATICALLLY…cuz coaching, OC, Ownership, etc…see the pattern?
We got lang & he was the shiniest trophy on teh IR shelf the whole time he was here.
As we know, if there are even one or 2 holes on an OL, it’s brutal.
Our OL has typically been in need of 2,3 or more holes to be plugged
We’ve always held at least a couple if not more holes in our OL.
…& that’s exactly my point about coaching & ownership
Why would you Bring up that they played great elsewhere, when they sucked here. I thought your point was that they protected Matt? Or was Matt the reason they sucked here?
WHat point are you trying to make?
The coaching sucked here
Yup - Horrifically
Caldwell was a good coach. He brought Indy to a SB and won another as OC with Baltimore
Schwartz was a good coach. Just a bit of a spaz
Patricia was a horror show
eating clock without a run game means a ton of dink dunk passes. throw throw throw throw throw. That does track somewhat
I still disagree though, that it was a strategy to eat clock then try to win at the end. As likely it was poor play and interceptions early that led to the necessity of a late drive. Sometimes a reality in the NFL and Stafford Lions but not an actual game plan
Consider this article written some years back
Debunking the Myth of the Clutch NFL Quarterback >
“Rodgers, arguably the best quarterback in the league, has only four fourth quarter comebacks and seven game-winning drives. By comparison, Matthew Stafford only 34 career starts, exceeds Rodgers’s numbers with six fourth quarter comebacks and seven game-winning drives.
I don’t think there is a rational person who would call Stafford better or more clutch than Rodgers, so why does Stafford seem to continuously put up big comebacks and seem clutch? Because he has more opportunities.
In the seven games in which he led a game-winning drive, Stafford threw nine interceptions. What does this say? That Stafford played badly at the beginning of the game. In other words, Stafford doesn’t play exceedingly well late in games, he’s just inconsistent enough that he can play terribly early in games and make up for it by playing at his usual level late in games.“
You have to, otherwise it messes with your reality that “Matt sucks & was the reason for 12 years of losing”
Yessss!!! More stats!
Exhibit A - You have to be behind, to come from behind.
Exhibit B - Matt is playing from behind every week
…see, ya have more chances to come from behind when you are behind in 95% of your games. 
…that when you are behind, you have to force the bal?
…that when you know your team sucks, you play differently to try to overcompensate?
Look at how Dan “cleaned up” his in game calls, as players got healthy & started to execute… was he “more clutch”? No → what you are surroundex by matters.
If the HC, OC, OL, RBs all suck…you play differently. …or is that only “a thing” when we are talking about Goff.
You are comparing the packers organization to the lions organization (if you back the words in that article)…but you think you are comparing Matt & A-a-ron. Apples to tires, man. Not even the same thing.
Further → how often were we down way early…almost always. How often is there a need to come back. The only way we win is if our best player (Matt) wins the game for us. If you know your team sucks & you can’t count on them, you play differently.
I said this when he was playing with the Rams…I saw him still forcing it…I saw him learning to trust & stop forcing it so much, in trusting his defense, in trusting his WRs could make up for it later, in being more patient.
One pregame huddle, he said “everybody trust the man next to you”
…I have never heard him say that before, & he was projecting how he himself felt & reminding himself & others to trust the team…the team is good, we can be patient & execute our own responsibility.
…then Rams OL goes down, WRs get hurt, RB gets hurt, & Matt goes into “have to force it or it ain’t gonna happen” mode again…more mistakes. No run, no blocking, cropped passes…more mistakes.
OF COURSE that leads to inconsistency.
Again, you comparing apples to tires xoes not “prove” anything in my lens of the world.
Comparing GB coaching & FO to Lions is one of the most “out there” ideas to me…again, it may make perfect sense to others, but it is very far from my reality.
To feel coaching, OC, & talent doesn’t play into it & take that article as gospel
I honor you as a man.
I honor you as a soul.
…& I also can’t take that article or this argument seriously.
Are you ever able to discuss without lapsing into this kind of screed? You know I never said this
Stafford was sometimes one of the issues with the offense in Detroit but not always. I think I’ve been pretty fair and consistent with that point.
That article basically supports what @LionsMasterPimp was stating. The ‘comeback’ stat is overrated because better play through the game makes it superfluous.
You’ve been harsh on Stafford and some of it justified but I don’t think you’ve ever stated he was the reason for 12 years of losing.
Thank you. Even recently when talking about 2014, I was pretty clear that it wasn’t all Staffords fault. Lombardi switched to a man-blocking play-action scheme when the entire oline was drafted to be Linehan shotgun zone.
Stafford was part of that stagnant offense but certainly not the sole reason for it
You have not…but if you can use massive hyperbole in comparing the Packers organization to the Lions… get to use hyperbole too.
ALL stats are worthless when taken out of context → correct!
hint → all stats are taken out of context, because it is impossible to provide all context. Not going to spend the energy on this.
If you counterpoint that → you will just get to be “right”
I’m being super-light.
I was using hyperbole
I 100% see you as supporting Goff in ways that are hypocritical to your “evaluations” of Matt.
I really don’t mind if we disagree. It’s just what I see from my angle, through my lens.
apples to tires comparisons as “proof” → “see, the number’s prove it”
…well…when numbers are out of context, they don’t mean shit.
Every single player that played with Michael Jordan should have an asterisk next to their name, because their job was SO much easier.
Every single player that played for Patricia should have the inverse asterisk.
Every single player that plays for Campbell/Holmes’s squad will soon be the same.
Context matters.
…as they change coaches & systems every 3 years…correct. New guys, no timing, no continuity, etc, etc, etc. HORRIBLE FO. …until thy got fired, rinse, repeat.
While we are onto the topic of context…compare that "leadership: “building around you” to holmes & Campbell “building around you”
apples & tires, man.
I didn’t use hyperbole at all. I noticed an article (that I didn’t write) and offered it up to support a premise offered by another poster in a discussion - Also in this instance, I don’t think hyperbole means what you think it means
I’ll give you that I’m generally more defensive of Goff than I was regarding Stafford. It might be a natural instinct to stick up for the beleaguered. I thought the media narrative surrounding him was unfair. I also soured on Stafford year 5-6 for us when he played horrific the year the division was all but handed to us - then he told the media using a mechanics coach ‘wasn’t his style’.
I said mid-season this year here that if Goff had played down the stretch like Stafford did in 2013, I’d join the calls to replace him with pick 6. Hell even hoping for a trade up
What I’ve seen though is a QB who is working with coaches to build an offense and who both last year and has played some fantastic ball. It’s the best offense I’ve seen the Lions run in ages. And that’s not necessarily an indictment against Stafford. Rather a compliment to Goff and staff
I’ll also say this. And not to trigger you. We had an elite defense in the works and some real offensive weapons in 2013 and 2014. Akin to what the Rams built the last few years.
The Lions had a young inconsistent QB who struggled with turnovers and was a large part of that season tanking.
The Lions and Rams chose different paths. The Lions fired the coaches and brought in an entire regime to ‘fix’ Stafford (and part of why Caldwell wanted to as you put it play more conservative. To limit turnovers)
The Rams ditched their young former number one pick and traded for a veteran
What if……we entered the 2014 season staying with Schwartz and Linehan and that defense but traded away Stafford for say Phillip Rivers?
Anyway just a thought exercise
but supported
without context
So am I, which is why this whole thing is so weird.
…like how ppl soured on Goff his first year here with injuries to all the WRs?
Same exact principle (in my eyes, of course)
Fantastic coaches (context)
…just like the RB room, the WR room, & the OL room (context)
In my lifetime. I predicted this 2 years ago - Goff will be the winningest team we have seen in our lifetime, with the best offense we have seen in our lifetime (lions offense)… Also–> we have world class coaches. HOF coaches. Great talent acquisition department, etc.
What xoes any of that have to do with Matt Stafford ?
Apples to Tires comparisons.
no the context was there. I’d challenge you to explain why you think it lacked context
The context of the packers organization vs the lions conversation would take months to provide - literally.
AaRon x, y, z vs Matt x, y, z… lacks oceans of context ranging from w/l ratio, teammates, continuity (running same offense your entire career), competent mgt, playing for only 2 coaches, including the current regime & Holmgren. LOL.
What if Rodgers played for Patricia’s squad? HILARIOUS to compare…espeically when you consider the Holmgren years.
Patricia is a disaster of a human being. I probably think more of Caldwell than you do though. He was HC that went to a SB. Assistant HC for a team that won the SB and OC for another SB winning team. Plus a good dude the players liked and respected