- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Matt Stafford Agrees to 5 year contract with Lions
Posted on 8/30/17 at 11:10 am to StrongBackWeakMind
Posted on 8/30/17 at 11:10 am to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:So wait, you're saying 5-46 and 1-25 don't matter at all? This is the guy you're giving all this money in hopes that he can win 3-4 straight games against good teams, but nah, that means nothing.
Because you keep bringing up no playoff wins in 8 years and his record against good teams.
quote:Time to move on because he is what he is, we know exactly what he is.
The difference between Brees / Ryan and Stafford at this age is one playoff win. But he hasn't won a playoff game by age 30... so time to move on.
Giving him all this money, you probably should know you're all but guaranteeing yourself more of the same lack of playoff success. Is that REALLY a controversial take? That feels like closer to an obvious statement than something everyone would disagree with.
0
Posted on 8/30/17 at 11:11 am to Goldrush25
quote:As I said, we know what he is. He's not the problem, but he hasn't really shown us anything to make you think he's the solution either.
What was the team doing to assemble a roster before he got this contract? Can't use that as an excuse all of the sudden.
And again, giving him all that money now will make it even harder to put a team behind him, even if DET could do that well.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 11:17 am to shel311
quote:
As I said, we know what he is. He's not the problem, but he hasn't really shown us anything to make you think he's the solution either.
I still don't know what this means. I guess I'm asking, why is he not a solution guy? For you to keep saying he's not the solution, you should have a specific, identifiable reason why he's not.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 11:25 am to Goldrush25
quote:Because he's not very good, not nearly as good as the value of that contract.
I still don't know what this means. I guess I'm asking, why is he not a solution guy? For you to keep saying he's not the solution, you should have a specific, identifiable reason why he's not.
Name all of the QBs who have won a SB with a contract in that realm. Name em.
Would you agree that if Stafford and that contract did real winning, that would be almost unheard of? QBs with the big, huge deals that win are usually the elite of the elite. Can you at least concede it would be an outlier we arguably have never seen before?
Posted on 8/30/17 at 11:30 am to Goldrush25
quote:More succinctly than my last post:
I guess I'm asking, why is he not a solution guy? For you to keep saying he's not the solution, you should have a specific, identifiable reason why he's not.
LINK
Posted on 8/30/17 at 11:42 am to shel311
quote:
Because he's not very good, not nearly as good as the value of that contract.
He's objectively very good. He's been top 10 at his position in most statistical categories all but the first two years of his career.
Over that stretch he's been better than Flacco, who won a SB. Flacco came in before him, so obviously both were in at the same time, both were performing under similarly structured contracts, yet one guy won a SB and the other didn't. You can't say Flacco has what it takes because he won a SB and Stafford doesn't because he didn't win one.
He should be penalized because the team is too incompetent to surround him with the pieces needed to win?
This post was edited on 8/30/17 at 11:44 am
Posted on 8/30/17 at 11:57 am to Goldrush25
quote:Flacco made $8mil, 6.6% of the cap the year they won the SB. What will Stafford be at? A lot more is all I know.
Over that stretch he's been better than Flacco
quote:Since Flacco came in, Stafford looks to be slightly better. Now factor in the contract difference, and you can see where I'm going with this.
Flacco came in before him, so obviously both were in at the same time, both were performing under similarly structured contracts, yet one guy won a SB and the other didn't. You can't say Flacco has what it takes because he won a SB and Stafford doesn't because he didn't win one.
Flacco hasn't won since he signed his megal. Most QBs don't win after the mega deal, I doubt that's a coincidence, right?
quote:Why does it have to be 1 or the other? I feel like you're acting like it can't be both. It can't be that they haven't put a team around him AND he's not good enough to make that kind of money and build a team around him that can have sustained real winning.
He should be penalized because the team is too incompetent to surround him with the pieces needed to win?
It can be both.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 12:14 pm to shel311
What if Stafford played for the Patriots? You think its Staffords fault the Lions dont make the playoffs every yr? When you have a solid roster (which the Lions do - playoff team last yr), you lock up your veteran QB through the rest of his prime and build through the draft and add a key free agent here or there. That is the best you can hope for to try and have a playoff stretch over a few seasons. You give yourself a window to compete in. The Lions are only a few solid players away from being the best roster in that division. But you think they should let Stafford walk and either draft a rookie (yea, how does that work out?) or sign another backup vet to lead the team and that somehow will make them more of a playoff contender? In the NFL, if you have a window then you set yourself up to go for it. Not every team is NE where they are in it every yr. And while we're on that, NE's winning formula is exactly what the Lions are trying to do. Lock up your vet top 10 QB, build through the draft and add a piece here or there. Honestly if the lions played in the AFC east they would be a perennial playoff team.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 12:17 pm to UltimateHog
quote:What do you mean "the first?"
Glad the Raiders were the first with Carr so that deal looks better and better and better as we go on.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 12:17 pm to shel311
quote:
Why does it have to be 1 or the other? I feel like you're acting like it can't be both. It can't be that they haven't put a team around him AND he's not good enough to make that kind of money and build a team around him that can have sustained real winning.
I think the bigger problem is that they can't build a team around him that can compete, especially if we've seen a lesser QB come along around the same time that won one. If they could build that team maybe you get Stafford to take less money this year to keep it all together. Maybe he sees they can't so why not take every nickel that he can?
He signs for a lower number and in all likelihood they just continue to surround him with shite.
This post was edited on 8/30/17 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 8/30/17 at 12:19 pm to dnm3305
quote:They would let him walk and not pay him $92mil guaranteed. That much I'm certain of.
What if Stafford played for the Patriots?
quote:I answered this a few times already. He's not the problem. He's also known shown to be the solution either. Now making this amount, he'll have even less wiggle room to work with in a supporting cast.
You think its Staffords fault the Lions dont make the playoffs every yr?
quote:The best they can hope for over the next 5 years is a miracle. I don't think anyone would be anything short of utterly shocked if DET even just made a Super Bowl in the next 5 seaons, let alone win. It'd almost be the same level of WTF if they even made the NFC CG.
That is the best you can hope for to try and have a playoff stretch over a few seasons
quote:Starting your rebuild 5 years ahead of time, it works out saving you 5 years of we think we can win but we really have no chance so here's 5 years of nothing.
But you think they should let Stafford walk and either draft a rookie (yea, how does that work out?)
quote:Nope, didn't say that.
or sign another backup vet to lead the team and that somehow will make them more of a playoff contender
quote:Detroit does not have a window.
In the NFL, if you have a window then you set yourself up to go for it.
quote:It's literally the exact opposite of what NE does. NE finds value at every position and virtually every single contract. This could not be more opposite than the NE formula. Even the guys that said you have to do this deal, most of them in this thread conceded it's not a good value.
NE's winning formula is exactly what the Lions are trying to do.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 12:20 pm to Goldrush25
quote:True
I think the bigger problem is that they can't build a team around him that can compete,
quote:True. But again, the contract differences. If Stafford's contract was what Flacco's contract with when he won, i'd be all for DET keeping Stafford.
especially if we've seen a lesser QB come along around the same time that won one.
quote:Well of course Stafford should try to get every nickel he can.
If they could build that team maybe you get Stafford to take less money this year to keep it all together. Maybe he sees they can't so why not take every nickel that he can?
quote:Yea, probably.
He signs for a lower number and in all likelihood they just continue to surround him with shite.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 5:00 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
If 9-7 is the ceiling, how do you explain the 10-6 and 11-5 seasons? Or do you not know how ceilings work?
They were better teams! And the division was down in bad way, as well-- this iteration of the Lions-- and for the foreseeable future-- is not getting better. They've actively taken a major step backwards.
Keep overpaying Stafford, though. That's the solution. Not fixing the other 52 roster spots.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 6:36 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:and not only that, they got Peyton Manning, who ended up being a game manager the year they won but that's not because he was cheap
They didn't just "let Cutler go to Chicago." They got two first round picks and a third rounder, in addition to Kyle Orton.
Posted on 8/30/17 at 6:40 pm to castorinho
quote:In fairness, he's using the trade as his point, but MY point was that they should have traded Stafford, so it kinda feels like that supports my point, no?
and not only that
Posted on 8/30/17 at 7:01 pm to castorinho
shel's strategy: trade him away, build through the draft for 3 or so years, then sign Aaron Rodgers.
bing bang boom
Super Bowl champions
bing bang boom
Super Bowl champions
Posted on 8/30/17 at 7:37 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:if only it were that easy...
shel's strategy: trade him away, build through the draft for 3 or so years, then sign Aaron Rodgers.
bing bang boom
Super Bowl champions
Then again a former Super Bowl QB is available
Posted on 8/30/17 at 8:57 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:SBWM's strategy. Resign Stafford, guaranteed 2 SB wins in the next 5 seasons.
shel's strategy: trade him away, build through the draft for 3 or so years, then sign Aaron Rodgers.
bing bang boom
Super Bowl champions
Just that easy!!!
Posted on 8/30/17 at 8:58 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:That goes exactly the same for keeping Stafford.
if only it were that easy...
Posted on 8/30/17 at 9:21 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:It is that easy.
if only it were that easy...
Let a 29yo top 10 QB walk. Nail the draft and pick up great FAs, then either draft or sign an elite QB.
boddabing Super Bowl ring
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News