Qb for next year/QB class of 2021 (merge)

[chad72 7,112]

24 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Will SF want Watson. If so this helps us with Stafford.

 

 

 

I think SF would be a frontrunner over the Jets for one of Watson's destinations.

 

Mahomes is a hindrance for the Broncos to go after him or Stafford, IMO. WFT is a dark horse and Dan Snyder is stupid enough to mortgage 3 first rounders and 3 second rounders for Watson, IMO while I feel his market value should settle down at 2 first rounders and 2 second rounders. Jimmy G definitely is slightly better in a swap than Drew Lock as well, IMO.

[stitches 7,977]

11 minutes ago, Myles said:

You mean when Rivers had the best year of his career at age 37?

 

Stafford would be a great fit for the next 3-5 years and it would give the Colts the chance to find a QB of the future.   I'd rather have Stafford than take a chance with Eason or a draft pick for next season.   This team is very good outside the QB spot.  

Again. Stafford is VERY different QB to Rivers and they rely on vastly different strengths to win. 

 

This team is very good outside of every important position in football - QB, LT, EDGE, CB, WR. Also this should not be about next year only. And if it is, then you better make sure ALL of those positions are addressed.

[Myles 4,041]

58 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

Was listening to JMV & Kevin Bowen discussing the Colts QB situation and the press conference Irsay had with the media.  Heard some very interesting things. They talked about Irsay mentioning a veteran vision in the QB room.  Of course this lead to Stafford trade talk.  Bowen brought up a scenario where he said the Lions could take our 1st (21st) & theirs (7th) and combine them to move up to 2nd and draft Justin Fields.  
 

Then the discussion turned to “what if” bidding for Stafford gets too expensive.  Would the Colts look at other veterans or draft a QB.  That’s when JMB made the statement that he’s heard (don’t know how good his sources are inside Colts HQ but gotta believe he knows someone in there) that the ONLY QB in the draft that interests the Colts is Justin Fields.

 

That statement shocked me.  I’m clearly the biggest Fields fan on here (so much so that I’d trade whatever was necessary to move up to get him).  Do you guys think the CB & staff truly feel that way about Fields or are they using gamesmanship hoping to influence the Lions to want to jump on him so we could get Stafford from them for a good deal and not have to give up too much draft capital??  Because before giving up two 1sts for Stafford or a 1st and multiple other high picks (2nds), I’d rather go up and get Fields.

First off, I'm not that high on Fields.   But I could be wrong.   

I don't think it is possible for the Colts to go from pick 21 to pick 2 in order to get Fields.   Stafford would be the safer option.  

 

I was happy to hear them, on Fox sports radio this morning, talking about Luck coming back to the Colts.   I don't think there is much chance of it happening, but it's good to hear it being brought up.   Maybe plant the seed in Lucks mind.  

 

I think that of all the available QB's (FA or via trade), Stafford is the best option for the Colts.  I'm not really considering Rodgers as I don't think he will leave the Packers.  

[Myles 4,041]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

Again. Stafford is VERY different QB to Rivers and they rely on vastly different strengths to win. 

 

 

You are the one who made the comparison.    

 

Stafford has been good on a very poor team.   He would be a great addition to this team.  

[The Fish 1,132]

There's still people who think we should just draft a guy and expect that like the 5th or 6th guy in the class is going to pan out. And then we can build the Chicago Bears or something. Run that ball a little, stop the run a little- not a bad team, but literally a threat to no one. 

 

I'm also looking at people list off positions that aren't populated with A list talent (beyond QB)- your one group that's in actual trouble is the cornerbacks. I look at the LT as a part of the offensive line group- it's a good group. The WR group is going to be restocked this year and there's some guys there. I'm not stressing that spot too terribly much.

 

What this team needs is a QB.

[Myles 4,041]

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

There's still people who think we should just draft a guy and expect that like the 5th or 6th guy in the class is going to pan out. And then we can build the Chicago Bears or something. Run that ball a little, stop the run a little- not a bad team, but literally a threat to no one. 

 

I'm also looking at people list off positions that aren't populated with A list talent (beyond QB)- your one group that's in actual trouble is the cornerbacks. I look at the LT as a part of the offensive line group- it's a good group. The WR group is going to be restocked this year and there's some guys there. I'm not stressing that spot too terribly much.

 

What this team needs is a QB.

I agree.  

[stitches 7,977]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

You are the one who made the comparison.    

 

Stafford has been good on a very poor team.   He would be a great addition to this team.  

I made the comparison in order to underline how different they are and how you actually can't make any conclusions about what Stafford will be like at 36-37 based on what Rivers and Brees and Peyton and Brady were precisely because they were not relying on physical freakiness while Stafford does. And this is the thing that goes with age, not smarts and craftiness.

[Chloe6124 9,802]

Texans have go be such a horrible organization to make someone like Watson that mad. He is a great kid and one of the best QB in the league. Man if only he wasn’t in the division this would be a tremendous get for Ballard.

[#12. 1,063]

37 minutes ago, stitches said:

I made the comparison in order to underline how different they are and how you actually can't make any conclusions about what Stafford will be like at 36-37 based on what Rivers and Brees and Peyton and Brady were precisely because they were not relying on physical freakiness while Stafford does. And this is the thing that goes with age, not smarts and craftiness.

 

I don't disagree with a lot of the things you are saying, but when you add it all up, Stafford is still probably our best, most certain option.  No, it's not a slam dunk.  If it were, he wouldn't be available.

 

When it comes to processing, reading defenses, etc., my hope would be that Reich manages him a little better, so it's not all about arm strength and gun slinging.  Hopefully a high end running game will take some pressure off of him.

 

As far as his skills potentially declining, I believe Chris Simms said Stafford has the perfect throwing motion to play until a relatively old age.

 

Again, he's not Manning or Luck, but you can compete with him.  Hopefully you can get 5-7 good years out of him

[2006Coltsbestever 21,843]

1 hour ago, Smoke317 said:

Was listening to JMV & Kevin Bowen discussing the Colts QB situation and the press conference Irsay had with the media.  Heard some very interesting things. They talked about Irsay mentioning a veteran vision in the QB room.  Of course this lead to Stafford trade talk.  Bowen brought up a scenario where he said the Lions could take our 1st (21st) & theirs (7th) and combine them to move up to 2nd and draft Justin Fields.  
 

Then the discussion turned to “what if” bidding for Stafford gets too expensive.  Would the Colts look at other veterans or draft a QB.  That’s when JMB made the statement that he’s heard (don’t know how good his sources are inside Colts HQ but gotta believe he knows someone in there) that the ONLY QB in the draft that interests the Colts is Justin Fields.

 

That statement shocked me.  I’m clearly the biggest Fields fan on here (so much so that I’d trade whatever was necessary to move up to get him).  Do you guys think the CB & staff truly feel that way about Fields or are they using gamesmanship hoping to influence the Lions to want to jump on him so we could get Stafford from them for a good deal and not have to give up too much draft capital??  Because before giving up two 1sts for Stafford or a 1st and multiple other high picks (2nds), I’d rather go up and get Fields.

I think Fields will be an average pro, maybe good at best. Just wondering, why do you think Fields will be great? I don't see it and to me Lance will be a better pro and Lawrence will definitely be. I have been wrong before so who knows  . I would rather have Stafford for 4 years.

[stitches 7,977]

21 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

I don't disagree with a lot of the things you are saying, but when you add it all up, Stafford is still probably our best, most certain option.  No, it's not a slam dunk.  If it were, he wouldn't be available.

 

When it comes to processing, reading defenses, etc., my hope would be that Reich manages him a little better, so it's not all about arm strength and gun slinging.  Hopefully a high end running game will take some pressure off of him.

 

As far as his skills potentially declining, I believe Chris Simms said Stafford has the perfect throwing motion to play until a relatively old age.

 

Again, he's not Manning or Luck, but you can compete with him.  Hopefully you can get 5-7 good years out of him

Agree with everything here... except for the last sentence. This is my whole objection here. I think people thinking you can get 5-7 years from him at high level are VERY optimistic. I don't believe this is the case. I agree he's our best chance at competing right now. I don't agree that you can make that trade expecting him to be at a level allowing you to compete for more than 2-3 years... 

[#12. 1,063]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Agree with everything here... except for the last sentence. This is my whole objection here. I think people thinking you can get 5-7 years from him at high level are VERY optimistic. I don't believe this is the case. I agree he's our best chance at competing right now. I don't agree that you can make that trade expecting him to be at a level allowing you to compete for more than 2-3 years max. 

 

It's a different team, different structure though.  Yes, he might have only had 3 good years of gun slinging and running for his life left in Detroit, but if you can protect him, run the ball and Reich manages him and his arm a little better, hopefully you can get 5-7.

[richard pallo 2,566]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

Agree with everything here... except for the last sentence. This is my whole objection here. I think people thinking you can get 5-7 years from him at high level are VERY optimistic. I don't believe this is the case. I agree he's our best chance at competing right now. I don't agree that you can make that trade expecting him to be at a level allowing you to compete for more than 2-3 years... 

I don't know.  I think it's very possible considering the age and talent of our OL.  That's the key.  He should not be getting hit or sacked as much and our run game is going to be an asset for him.  I think our line is the difference maker for him.  

[chrisfarley 251]

Among tons of other tangibles, it would be nice to land a QB with a decent Wonderlic.  Eason has a decent score.  But STAFFORD had a 38 !!!

 

12. Tua Tagovailoa Wonderlic Score: (13)

Alabama Crimson Tide

11. Jalen Hurts Wonderlic Score: (18)

Oklahoma Sooners

10. James Morgan Wonderlic Score: (23)

FIU Panthers

9. Jacob Eason Wonderlic Score: (23)

Washington Huskies

8. Justin Herbert Wonderlic Score: (25)

Oregon Ducks

7. Brian Lewerke Wonderlic Score: (25)

Michigan State Spartans

6. Anthony Gordon Wonderlic Score: (25)

Washington State Cougars

5. Jordan Love Wonderlic Score: (27)

Utah State Aggies

4. Jake Luton Wonderlic Score: (29)

Oregon State Beavers

3. Joe Burrow Wonderlic Score: (34)

LSU Tigers

2. Jake Fromm Wonderlic Score: (35)

Georgia Bulldogs

1. Nate Stanley Wonderlic Score: (40)

Iowa Hawkeyes

[Chloe6124 9,802]

I am not sure what to make of this. Ballard runs a tight ship. Could the colts be waiting to see what other teams offer and already have done deal with the lions do they look like they aren’t interested.

 

 

[Smoke317 1,300]

20 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think Fields will be an average pro, maybe good at best. Just wondering, why do you think Fields will be great? I don't see it and to me Lance will be a better pro and Lawrence will definitely be. I have been wrong before so who knows  . I would rather have Stafford for 4 years.

I think he has a strong arm and great mobility.  He looks like a better passing Deshaun Watson to me.  I’ve been watching a lot of video of Lawrence, Fields, Wilson, & some of Lance.  The negatives they attach to Fields, I’ve seen out of all 4 when they face tougher competition.
 

And with Lawrence, half of his passes are flares and screen passes.  When he was asked to throw down field into tight windows his accuracy fell way off.  Whereas Fields & Wilson were making NFL type throws all over the field.  

 

I just found it interesting that JMV said from what he’s heard, Fields was the “only” QB the Colts (CB & staff) deemed worthy enough to go up for.  Like I said, don’t know if that’s just gamesmanship on the Colts behalf or if that is legit intel.  Regardless, I found the “only” part very interesting. 

[stitches 7,977]

4 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I am not sure what to make of this. Ballard runs a tight ship. Could the colts be waiting to see what other teams offer and already have done deal with the lions do they look like they aren’t interested.

 

 

I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Last year noone had even sniffed anything about the Buckner trade before it was announced. Ballard's team doesn't seem to leak so... 

[2006Coltsbestever 21,843]

4 minutes ago, Smoke317 said:

I think he has a strong arm and great mobility.  He looks like a better passing Deshaun Watson to me.  I’ve been watching a lot of video of Lawrence, Fields, Wilson, & some of Lance.  The negatives they attach to Fields, I’ve seen out of all 4 when they face tougher competition.
 

And with Lawrence, half of his passes are flares and screen passes.  When he was asked to throw down field into tight windows his accuracy fell way off.  Whereas Fields & Wilson were making NFL type throws all over the field.  

 

I just found it interesting that JMV said from what he’s heard, Fields was the “only” QB the Colts (CB & staff) deemed worthy enough to go up for.  Like I said, don’t know if that’s just gamesmanship on the Colts behalf or if that is legit intel.  Regardless, I found the “only” part very interesting. 

Yeah that is interesting, Fields may be good or even great. I never thought Josh Allen would be what he is I have to admit.

[Superman 9,157]

8 hours ago, stitches said:

You mention Brady and Brees and Matt Ryan but they are much different QBs, and they win in completely different ways to Stafford. Stafford is closer to big Ben and we've seen him deteriorate significantly in the last several years(some of it is injury related too). Think of other big armed QBs that relied heavily on that part of their game. Ben, Flacco... I guess Rodgers is the desireable path here, but again... Rodgers is a first ballot HoF and potentially the most talented QB in the history of the league. Stafford has never even sniffed that level of play to begin with. The worst Aaron Rodgers seasons blows Stafford's best out of the water. Notice that all the QBs you mentioned are QBs that have high level of processing the game(something that's not likely to deteriorate with time). Stafford is not at that level in this aspect, he relies heavily on his physical gifts to win. Also, all of the examples you give are of future first ballot HoFers(they have higher level of skill), while Stafford has never really played at that type of level... In other words - they have higher base level from which they can slide and still be good/playable QBs. This is not the case with Stafford. 

 

I'm not about to try to pray Stafford into heaven. He's obviously not on the level of the greats you're mentioning. (I don't know why you have Matt Ryan ahead of Stafford, tbh. I like Ryan, but he's not on the Brady/Brees/Manning/Rodgers level either, and outside of his highly productive and efficient MVP season, he's never been up there.)

 

I do think you're selling him short. Flacco shouldn't be in this conversation, for instance. Stafford is an accurate passer, he can be really efficient, he's good from the ground up, quick release, can throw from a disturbed platform and a crowded pocket, multiple arm angles without sacrificing velocity, and he has above average mobility for a mostly pocket passer, along with good ability to make plays with his feet (Andrew Luck level ability, maybe a little quicker but not as powerful). His awareness and anticipation are not lacking; he's not Manning or Brees, but he's not Flacco or Marcus Mariota, either. He's not on Mt Rushmore like those other guys, but he's not deficient, either.

 

He is somewhat Big Ben-ish with his willingness to hold the ball and wait for a play to develop, and he's taken some punishment for it. And though he hasn't missed a lot of games, he has had some injuries over the years. I'd be more concerned about the back injury if he hadn't just completed a full season without incident, but medical can give an opinion about the long term prognosis of his back. It's something to consider at his age, but I'm not ready to latch onto it as a red flag without further info.

 

He's never played for a good offensive coach. Ever. Jim Schwartz/Scott Linehan his first five seasons (Coryell, hold the ball, not stressing efficiency), then Caldwell/Lombardi + Cooter (Coryell amalgam, identity undetermined; there's a great Youtube parody of Lombardi/Risitas), and most recently Patricia/Bevell. Bevell is a flawed OC, but easily the best OC Stafford ever played for, and he was lighting it up the first half of 2019, until he got hurt. He was on pace for 5,000 yards, 38 TDs, 10 picks, through eight games.

 

The Lions offensive personnel has never been particularly impressive. Outside of Megatron, kind of regular receivers (a couple good seasons from Golden Tate and Kenny Golladay). Never had a great OL, never had a great RB (just one 1,000 yard rusher, Reggie Bush in 2013), inconsistent TEs (Pettigrew/Ebron/Hockenson). And their defense has never been formidable. They've put a lot of pressure on the QB, from both a personnel standpoint and a scheme standpoint. Compare that with Rivers, for example, who had much better offensive personnel and coaching. 

 

Statistically, he's very similar to Rivers and Ryan. Volume stats per game are very close (yards/ TDs/INTs), Rivers has an edge in some efficiency numbers, but neither of them has shown an ability to produce at a higher level than Stafford, statistically. Rivers is probably more cerebral (no surprise, he's elite there), but Stafford is far more physically gifted. He also has led more 4th quarter comebacks than either of them, in fewer starts.

 

To me, the most appropriate comparison from a style/ability perspective is Brett Favre. Can Stafford go from 32 years old to 40 without missing a start like Favre? Probably not, but no one knows. The NFL is more friendly to QBs, good coaching staffs stress efficiency like never before, the Colts encourage QBs to get the ball out quickly, and they don't allow a lot of pressure up the middle. 

 

Historically, it's been common for QBs to break down physically in their mid to late 30s. I think a major factor that's changed recently is related to efficiency and style of play. Everybody gets rid of the ball more quickly, everyone throws for 60%+ due to scheme, etc.. If you can avoid major injury to your extremities (Alex Smith, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck), and you don't have a degenerative health condition (Peyton Manning), and you don't fail in an offense that stresses efficiency (Cam Newton, Joe Flacco), it's not hard to project a guy with Stafford's ability being effective for another five years. 

 

To be honest, I think five years is trending toward the conservative end, based on how good QBs are performing into their late 30s lately. It's obviously still a projection. But without a major injury or a shocking retirement -- neither of which can be predicted -- I'd say it's more likely that Stafford goes five years at a reasonably high level than it is that he experiences a drastic decline.

[Myles 4,041]

15 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I don't know.  I think it's very possible considering the age and talent of our OL.  That's the key.  He should not be getting hit or sacked as much and our run game is going to be an asset for him.  I think our line is the difference maker for him.  

Rivers went from 34 sacks to 19.   Sack % from 5.4% to 3.4%.  

Stafford could go from 38 sacks to 20.   Sack % from 6.7% to 3.8%.

Those numbers could be even better though.  

[Chloe6124 9,802]

12 minutes ago, stitches said:

I wouldn't put too much weight on it. Last year noone had even sniffed anything about the Buckner trade before it was announced. Ballard's team doesn't seem to leak so... 

My thoughts are lions and colts could have already been talking for awhile. So Ballard is just sitting back now and seeing what other teams offer and if he can match it. Kind of stealth where the other teams don’t even know the colts have offered. At least that is my hope. Peter King just said 5 teams are willing to deal a first round pick.

[Thebrashandthebold 45]

If you really believe the Colts are a franchise QB away from the Super Bowl (I am not one of the people who think that), then don't mess around with Stafford. Spend the picks and trade for Watson and fix that position for a decade or more. It might cost 4 1st round picks but if that is what we need to get to a SB, just do it.

 

[2006Coltsbestever 21,843]

Just now, Thebrashandthebold said:

If you really believe the Colts are a franchise QB away from the Super Bowl (I am not one of the people who think that), then don't mess around with Stafford. Spend the picks and trade for Watson and fix that position for a decade or more. It might cost 4 1st round picks but if that is what we need to get to a SB, just do it.

 

I think if we trade for Stafford and can draft a good LT, we are right there with the elite teams. Our O.LIne is great as it is with Nelson, Kelly, and Smith. JT will be better, Pittman will be better as they were rookies this past year. Our Defense isn't great but good, they get the job done 75% of the time. We lost to Buffalo by 3 points and should've won had it not been for 2 or 3 boneheaded plays. KC is beatable, Jacoby proved that back in 2019.

[stitches 7,977]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not about to try to pray Stafford into heaven. He's obviously not on the level of the greats you're mentioning. (I don't know why you have Matt Ryan ahead of Stafford, tbh. I like Ryan, but he's not on the Brady/Brees/Manning/Rodgers level either, and outside of his highly productive and efficient MVP season, he's never been up there.)

 

I do think you're selling him short. Flacco shouldn't be in this conversation, for instance. Stafford is an accurate passer, he can be really efficient, he's good from the ground up, quick release, can throw from a disturbed platform and a crowded pocket, multiple arm angles without sacrificing velocity, and he has above average mobility for a mostly pocket passer, along with good ability to make plays with his feet (Andrew Luck level ability, maybe a little quicker but not as powerful). His awareness and anticipation are not lacking; he's not Manning or Brees, but he's not Flacco or Marcus Mariota, either. He's not on Mt Rushmore like those other guys, but he's not deficient, either.

 

He is somewhat Big Ben-ish with his willingness to hold the ball and wait for a play to develop, and he's taken some punishment for it. And though he hasn't missed a lot of games, he has had some injuries over the years. I'd be more concerned about the back injury if he hadn't just completed a full season without incident, but medical can give an opinion about the long term prognosis of his back. It's something to consider at his age, but I'm not ready to latch onto it as a red flag without further info.

 

He's never played for a good offensive coach. Ever. Jim Schwartz/Scott Linehan his first five seasons (Coryell, hold the ball, not stressing efficiency), then Caldwell/Lombardi + Cooter (Coryell amalgam, identity undetermined; there's a great Youtube parody of Lombardi/Risitas), and most recently Patricia/Bevell. Bevell is a flawed OC, but easily the best OC Stafford ever played for, and he was lighting it up the first half of 2019, until he got hurt. He was on pace for 5,000 yards, 38 TDs, 10 picks, through eight games.

 

The Lions offensive personnel has never been particularly impressive. Outside of Megatron, kind of regular receivers (a couple good seasons from Golden Tate and Kenny Golladay). Never had a great OL, never had a great RB (just one 1,000 yard rusher, Reggie Bush in 2013), inconsistent TEs (Pettigrew/Ebron/Hockenson). And their defense has never been formidable. They've put a lot of pressure on the QB, from both a personnel standpoint and a scheme standpoint. Compare that with Rivers, for example, who had much better offensive personnel and coaching. 

 

Statistically, he's very similar to Rivers and Ryan. Volume stats per game are very close (yards/ TDs/INTs), Rivers has an edge in some efficiency numbers, but neither of them has shown an ability to produce at a higher level than Stafford, statistically. Rivers is probably more cerebral (no surprise, he's elite there), but Stafford is far more physically gifted. He also has led more 4th quarter comebacks than either of them, in fewer starts.

 

To me, the most appropriate comparison from a style/ability perspective is Brett Favre. Can Stafford go from 32 years old to 40 without missing a start like Favre? Probably not, but no one knows. The NFL is more friendly to QBs, good coaching staffs stress efficiency like never before, the Colts encourage QBs to get the ball out quickly, and they don't allow a lot of pressure up the middle. 

 

Historically, it's been common for QBs to break down physically in their mid to late 30s. I think a major factor that's changed recently is related to efficiency and style of play. Everybody gets rid of the ball more quickly, everyone throws for 60%+ due to scheme, etc.. If you can avoid major injury to your extremities (Alex Smith, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck), and you don't have a degenerative health condition (Peyton Manning), and you don't fail in an offense that stresses efficiency (Cam Newton, Joe Flacco), it's not hard to project a guy with Stafford's ability being effective for another five years. 

 

To be honest, I think five years is trending toward the conservative end, based on how good QBs are performing into their late 30s lately. It's obviously still a projection. But without a major injury or a shocking retirement -- neither of which can be predicted -- I'd say it's more likely that Stafford goes five years at a reasonably high level than it is that he experiences a drastic decline.

You make some good points but again... I will point out that the best of his attributes(and I agree with your list) are the ones that go first the moment he starts to fall off physically.

 

I think Matt Ryan is highly underrated. I don't think he's in the Brees/Manning/Brady tier, but I think he's in the one below... and in a clear tier above Stafford quite easily. I also think Rivers from before those last 2 seasons is in a clear tier above Stafford. In addition to his MVP season Ryan has had multiple seasons better than anything Stafford has ever produced. (I'm not talking pure yards... Stafford gets volume... I'm talking quality of play)

 

I agree Stafford is talented, I agree the Lions did him no favors both by the talent they surrounded him with and with their coaching... and even with all that said I still don't think he's at the level you think he was. I guess I just don't think he's as good as you think he is. And thus I think if he falls off physically, he will have much narrower margin of error than most of the vet QBs we are talking about. Just notice the lists we are putting forward. ALL of the successful ones after age of 35 are future HoF. ALL OF THEM! How many non HoF's played successfully past 35? I guess the bet here is that he will become HoF with us in his mid-late 30s. It's not totally out of the question, but I also wouldn't bet even money on it. 

 

I think people have weird perception of time and just how long 5 years is and just how many things can happen and change in 5 years. Especially for a 33 year old QB who's already had back problems. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever 21,843]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not about to try to pray Stafford into heaven. He's obviously not on the level of the greats you're mentioning. (I don't know why you have Matt Ryan ahead of Stafford, tbh. I like Ryan, but he's not on the Brady/Brees/Manning/Rodgers level either, and outside of his highly productive and efficient MVP season, he's never been up there.)

 

I do think you're selling him short. Flacco shouldn't be in this conversation, for instance. Stafford is an accurate passer, he can be really efficient, he's good from the ground up, quick release, can throw from a disturbed platform and a crowded pocket, multiple arm angles without sacrificing velocity, and he has above average mobility for a mostly pocket passer, along with good ability to make plays with his feet (Andrew Luck level ability, maybe a little quicker but not as powerful). His awareness and anticipation are not lacking; he's not Manning or Brees, but he's not Flacco or Marcus Mariota, either. He's not on Mt Rushmore like those other guys, but he's not deficient, either.

 

He is somewhat Big Ben-ish with his willingness to hold the ball and wait for a play to develop, and he's taken some punishment for it. And though he hasn't missed a lot of games, he has had some injuries over the years. I'd be more concerned about the back injury if he hadn't just completed a full season without incident, but medical can give an opinion about the long term prognosis of his back. It's something to consider at his age, but I'm not ready to latch onto it as a red flag without further info.

 

He's never played for a good offensive coach. Ever. Jim Schwartz/Scott Linehan his first five seasons (Coryell, hold the ball, not stressing efficiency), then Caldwell/Lombardi + Cooter (Coryell amalgam, identity undetermined; there's a great Youtube parody of Lombardi/Risitas), and most recently Patricia/Bevell. Bevell is a flawed OC, but easily the best OC Stafford ever played for, and he was lighting it up the first half of 2019, until he got hurt. He was on pace for 5,000 yards, 38 TDs, 10 picks, through eight games.

 

The Lions offensive personnel has never been particularly impressive. Outside of Megatron, kind of regular receivers (a couple good seasons from Golden Tate and Kenny Golladay). Never had a great OL, never had a great RB (just one 1,000 yard rusher, Reggie Bush in 2013), inconsistent TEs (Pettigrew/Ebron/Hockenson). And their defense has never been formidable. They've put a lot of pressure on the QB, from both a personnel standpoint and a scheme standpoint. Compare that with Rivers, for example, who had much better offensive personnel and coaching. 

 

Statistically, he's very similar to Rivers and Ryan. Volume stats per game are very close (yards/ TDs/INTs), Rivers has an edge in some efficiency numbers, but neither of them has shown an ability to produce at a higher level than Stafford, statistically. Rivers is probably more cerebral (no surprise, he's elite there), but Stafford is far more physically gifted. He also has led more 4th quarter comebacks than either of them, in fewer starts.

 

To me, the most appropriate comparison from a style/ability perspective is Brett Favre. Can Stafford go from 32 years old to 40 without missing a start like Favre? Probably not, but no one knows. The NFL is more friendly to QBs, good coaching staffs stress efficiency like never before, the Colts encourage QBs to get the ball out quickly, and they don't allow a lot of pressure up the middle. 

 

Historically, it's been common for QBs to break down physically in their mid to late 30s. I think a major factor that's changed recently is related to efficiency and style of play. Everybody gets rid of the ball more quickly, everyone throws for 60%+ due to scheme, etc.. If you can avoid major injury to your extremities (Alex Smith, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck), and you don't have a degenerative health condition (Peyton Manning), and you don't fail in an offense that stresses efficiency (Cam Newton, Joe Flacco), it's not hard to project a guy with Stafford's ability being effective for another five years. 

 

To be honest, I think five years is trending toward the conservative end, based on how good QBs are performing into their late 30s lately. It's obviously still a projection. But without a major injury or a shocking retirement -- neither of which can be predicted -- I'd say it's more likely that Stafford goes five years at a reasonably high level than it is that he experiences a drastic decline.

I think Stafford is on Matt Ryan's level, Ryan did win an MVP and should've won a SB but that team was loaded for years. Stafford has simply played for a crap franchise his whole career, almost a waste.

[cdgacoltsfan 561]

38 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah that is interesting, Fields may be good or even great. I never thought Josh Allen would be what he is I have to admit.

Colts gave had a great history with OSU players

Art Schlister

Pittcock

Hooker

Gonzalez

Mewhort

Doss

Hankins

 

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever 21,843]

2 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Colts gave had a great history with OSU players

Art Schlister

Pittcock

Hooker

Gonzalez

Mewhort

Doss

Hankins

 

 

 

 

So far Campbell, ouch?? I hope he pans out for our sake.

[Myles 4,041]

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

You make some good points but again... I will point out that the best of his attributes(and I agree with your list) are the ones that go first the moment he starts to fall off physically.

 

I think Matt Ryan is highly underrated. I don't think he's in the Brees/Manning/Brady tier, but I think he's in the one below... and in a clear tier above Stafford quite easily. I also think Rivers from before those last 2 seasons is in a clear tier above Stafford. In addition to his MVP season Ryan has had multiple seasons better than anything Stafford has ever produced. (I'm not talking pure yards... Stafford gets volume... I'm talking quality of play)

 

 

 

 

2020

TD%

Ryan 4.2

Stafford 4.9

 

INT %

Ryan 1.8

Stafford 1.9

 

Completion %

Ryan 65.0

Stafford 64.2

 

Rating

Ryan 93.3

Stafford 96.3

 

QBR

Ryan 66.9

Stafford 68.5

 

Seems Stafford is right on Ryans level.  

[cdgacoltsfan 561]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

So far Campbell, ouch?? I hope he pans out for our sake.

I forgot about the great Hank Baskett!

[2006Coltsbestever 21,843]

2 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

I forgot about the great Hank Baskett!

Yeah how could you forget him, SB 44 sucked!

[Superman 9,157]

28 minutes ago, stitches said:

I guess I just don't think he's as good as you think he is. And thus I think if he falls off physically, he will have much narrower margin of error than most of the vet QBs we are talking about. Just notice the lists we are putting forward. ALL of the successful ones after age of 35 are future HoF. ALL OF THEM! How many non HoF's played successfully past 35? I guess the bet here is that he will become HoF with us in his mid-late 30s. It's not totally out of the question, but I also wouldn't bet even money on it. 

 

That's probably the part where we differ the most. I think he's better than you do -- maybe physically, definitely in anticipation and awareness.

 

I can see ranking Ryan higher than Stafford. I don't agree that he's a tier higher. And I don't think it's me selling Ryan short; he's really, really good (I think Stafford is more physically gifted in pretty much every way). I think it's just the difference in how we see Stafford's ability. You're asking if he can perform like he did two years ago, before he got hurt. 

 

One more thing on Ryan, I think he's a low ranked HOFer. He blows out of the water all the guys from two generations ago -- Elway, Marino, Kelly, etc. -- but outside of one season, he's been a second tier guy with few accomplishments. Of course, he's spent most of his career in the shadow of Mt Rushmore guys. He'll be a HOFer, sure, but that doesn't put him on the level of the all time greats. And I think Ryan can play another five years if he wants, and doesn't get hurt.

 

To the bolded, this is a double-sided take. Players who aren't that good don't get 12-15 years in the league (although there's a guy in Miami who's doing fine physically, and he's 38). If you aren't HOF level, the team is actively looking to replace you. The Patriots were trying to replace Brady six years ago. That's not necessarily proof that guys can't physically play in their mid to late 30s. Guys like Chad Henne, Brian Hoyer, Andy Dalton, won't be starters at that age because they were never good enough, not because their bodies fell apart. Good long time starters like Matt Hasselbeck could still play at 35+, but Hasselbeck wasn't good enough to hold off a younger player. 

 

I think Romo is another good comparison to Stafford, as far as style and ability, but he suffered an unpredictable and catastrophic injury. There was no indication he was slowing down at 34 and wouldn't be able to perform physically. And he's a product of an era that didn't emphasize player safety and QB coddling. If a guy gets hurt at this age, all bets are off. If not, the decline for a good QB can be more gradual in this era. 

 

10 minutes ago, Myles said:

 

2020

TD%

Ryan 4.2

Stafford 4.9

 

INT %

Ryan 1.8

Stafford 1.9

 

Completion %

Ryan 65.0

Stafford 64.2

 

Rating

Ryan 93.3

Stafford 96.3

 

QBR

Ryan 66.9

Stafford 68.5

 

Seems Stafford is right on Ryans level.  

 

And that's Stafford after missing half a season with a back injury.

[stitches 7,977]

8 minutes ago, Myles said:

 

2020

TD%

Ryan 4.2

Stafford 4.9

 

INT %

Ryan 1.8

Stafford 1.9

 

Completion %

Ryan 65.0

Stafford 64.2

 

Rating

Ryan 93.3

Stafford 96.3

 

QBR

Ryan 66.9

Stafford 68.5

 

Seems Stafford is right on Ryans level.  

Matt Ryan has dropped off a bit too in the last 2 seasons. Again - entering his mid-30s. He's still pretty good(which Stafford is too). The question is - can Stafford drop off and still be at that level? 

[richard pallo 2,566]

FWI Greg Cosell just said on the The Herd that he thinks Stafford is a fantastic QB with fantastic talent and If he was a team looking for a QB he would take him over Wilson and Fields easily. (he only tossed out two names)  Why?  Because he's a proven exceptional NFL QB and with a rookie you really have no idea how it will turn out.    

[krunk 4,168]

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2021/1/28/22253787/matthew-stafford-indianapolis-colts-trade-rumors

[stitches 7,977]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's probably the part where we differ the most. I think he's better than you do -- maybe physically, definitely in anticipation and awareness.

Probably, yes...  I don't think he's bad with his anticipation and awareness... I just don't think he's elite  enough with it that he can survive substantial drop in physical ability. 

 

Quote

 

I can see ranking Ryan higher than Stafford. I don't agree that he's a tier higher. And I don't think it's me selling Ryan short; he's really, really good (I think Stafford is more physically gifted in pretty much every way). I think it's just the difference in how we see Stafford's ability. You're asking if he can perform like he did two years ago, before he got hurt. 

 

One more thing on Ryan, I think he's a low ranked HOFer. He blows out of the water all the guys from two generations ago -- Elway, Marino, Kelly, etc. -- but outside of one season, he's been a second tier guy with few accomplishments. Of course, he's spent most of his career in the shadow of Mt Rushmore guys. He'll be a HOFer, sure, but that doesn't put him on the level of the all time greats. And I think Ryan can play another five years if he wants, and doesn't get hurt.

I agree Stafford is more physically talented than Ryan. I don't agree he's close to the QB Ryan is. I don't know how to prove that. It's a very subjective thing... although one does have a Superbowl appearance and an MVP and the other one has zero playoff wins. The wins I don't want to use as an argument because I don't believe in QB wins and it's still a team game. I guess... do you value PFF? Like do you think they give some reasonable approximation of level of play? If you look at their grades for their careers... Matt Ryan has 2 seasons in the 90s(the MVP season and the one after), Ryan has other seasons rated at 85, 84.6, 84.8, 84.3, 83.1... Stafford's highest rated season was 2019 (short season for him) with 82.6. Ryan has SEVEN seasons rated higher than Stafford's best season. Ryan also rated higher this last season than Stafford. And I'm not even looking at the low end where Stafford has multiple stinkers of seasons and Ryan has a single season he was rated lower than 75. Take it for whatever it's worth. 

 

I guess we are getting a bit off-topic here with the Ryan comparison. 

 

Quote

 

To the bolded, this is a double-sided take. Players who aren't that good don't get 12-15 years in the league (although there's a guy in Miami who's doing fine physically, and he's 38). If you aren't HOF level, the team is actively looking to replace you. The Patriots were trying to replace Brady six years ago. That's not necessarily proof that guys can't physically play in their mid to late 30s. Guys like Chad Henne, Brian Hoyer, Andy Dalton, won't be starters at that age because they were never good enough, not because their bodies fell apart. Good long time starters like Matt Hasselbeck could still play at 35+, but Hasselbeck wasn't good enough to hold off a younger player. 

 

I think Romo is another good comparison to Stafford, as far as style and ability, but he suffered an unpredictable and catastrophic injury. There was no indication he was slowing down at 34 and wouldn't be able to perform physically. And he's a product of an era that didn't emphasize player safety and QB coddling. If a guy gets hurt at this age, all bets are off. If not, the decline for a good QB can be more gradual in this era. 

 

And that's Stafford after missing half a season with a back injury.

Fair enough. I guess at the end of the day we can summarize it that you are more willing to go the Stafford route precisely because you expect him to be high level player for longer than me(maybe you also think a bit higher of him than I do too) . Either way, I don't want people to come out of my objections with the idea that I don't like Stafford. As I've said before - I still think Stafford is probably our best chance to win in the immediate and I still think he's one of the preferable paths we can take this off-season(just not the most preferable for me). I just think we should be more skeptical about his ability to play at high level deep into his 30s. And that's why I think the window with him is shorter and why I think if you get him you have to go all in now or not get him at all. 

[PRnum1 286]

13 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Goff isn't bad, probably above average but I would much rather get Stafford. 

 

Goff has way underperformed for his 137 M dollar deal.

 

Why pay that much to get a mediocre QB ?

[PRnum1 286]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think Fields will be an average pro, maybe good at best. Just wondering, why do you think Fields will be great? I don't see it and to me Lance will be a better pro and Lawrence will definitely be. I have been wrong before so who knows  . I would rather have Stafford for 4 years.

 

I thought the 6 TD's that Fields threw against Clemson was pretty impressive.

 

He was throwing 55-60 yard bombs downfield.  

[Superman 9,157]

13 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

 

I thought the 6 TD's that Fields threw against Clemson was pretty impressive.

 

He was throwing 55-60 yard bombs downfield.  

 

Fields was incredible in that game, and was hurt for much of it. I was very impressed by him.

[stitches 7,977]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Fields was incredible in that game, and was hurt for much of it. I was very impressed by him.

Yep and people seem to be holding the next game performance against him even though it's very likely he played hurt in that one too. I really like Fields. I think if he indeed starts falling like some draft analysts are mocking nowadays, Ballard should strike and trade up. No guarantees with young QBs, but all the traits and skill is there to be nurtured and developed. 

[PRnum1 286]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yep and people seem to be holding the next game performance against him even though it's very likely he played hurt in that one too. I really like Fields. I think if he indeed starts falling like some draft analysts are mocking nowadays, Ballard should strike and trade up. No guarantees with young QBs, but all the traits and skill is there to be nurtured and developed. 

 

I think if Fields falls to 15 or so and not drafted, Ballard has to trade up and pull the trigger.

 

You would then have your QB for the next 10 years.