Matthew Stafford and the Lions have agreed to work on a trade (Merge)

[GoColts8818]

I think he’s as good of a known QB as the Colts can realistically get this off-season.  The question become does Ballard think he can get someone better in the draft for cheaper. Ballard has already said he doesn’t expect a QB to be there at 21 so he will probably have to go up and get a QB if he wants one in the draft.  So which will cost more / which does Ballard think will be better?  Time will tell.

[stitches]

Well, well... lets see how this one goes... one of my top 3 options this off-season. Still not my favorite option but... 

[CR91]

Just now, Bluesmith said:

The only QBs in NFL history with 45,000+ passing yards and less than 150 INT:

• Aaron Rodgers

• Matthew Stafford

end of list

 

Thank you for proving my point. All stats no wins. 

[New Zealands #1 Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Win now? Do you see all the holes we have right now? No QB1. No LT. No DE. A ton of our players are free agents. 

[tvturner]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

Thank you for proving my point. All stats no wins. 

So you wouldn't want Rodgers either

 

Good to know

[CR91]

Just now, tvturner said:

So you wouldn't want Rodgers either

 

Good to know

 

That a joke. Rodgers has won. Has been regarded as the best arm ever and has multiple MVPs. Can you say the same about Stafford

[csmopar]

Just now, NewColtsFan said:

 

That's fine.

 

But......

 

What is your solution to the starting QB issue?

Not trading our number one for a QB that’s been beaten to death by  crap team for 12 years. 
 

people are seeing what Ryan Tannehill has done for the Titans and think that’ll translate into any other QB from a bottom feeder. Every day, there is a new thread about how we need to trade for one of many beat up QBs, Darnold, Carr, Stafford or the worst of all, Wentz. These guys are even remotely available because they’re likely all but finished in the league. With the except of maybe Carr.  I’d say half of them will end up being cut and out of the league by April. there’s only 1 QB worth trading for and that’s Watson but that’s never happening and if it did, it’d be a blockbuster historic trade. 
 

as for my solution, I honest don’t know. But what I do know is trading for a beat up and often injured pick machine or even riding Brissett another year would be a very bad move.

 

at this point, I’m fine with riding Eason, or trading up and taking a shot with a rookie. But I’d really like to see some consistency at QB, for 4 years now, it’s been a revolving door.  And If we’d trade for any of those washed up QBs, we’d be continuing in that

[Zoltan]

I'm curious what all the teams that could be in the running for Stafford are.

I'm thinking 

Indianapolis Colts

Washington Football Team

New England Patriots

Chicago Bears (Although I don't think they trade within the division)

[Bluesmith]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Thank you for proving my point. All stats no wins. 

True, winning is a team stat.  As good as Peyton Manning was he only won one Superbowl with the Colts, and the best QB in my opinion Dan Marino, won zero.  But do you deny that Stafford is an improvement to our currently signed QB (Eason only) ?

 

[rock8591]

40 minutes ago, ThorstenDenmark said:

Don´t think indy and Ballard will give up a 1# for Stafford.

He's way to injury prone to cost more than a 2nd rounder.

 

Have to wait it out and see what happens, but he´s a rivers LIght, can´t win in the playoffs

 

?

 

He missed 8 games in the past 10 years, all of them in one season.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/12483/matthew-stafford

 

You must have thought of Samuel Bradford.

[AlanNC]

I would like to have him but a 1st round pick is step for his age and injury history.  2nd this year and 4th next year 

[NewColtsFan]

This won't be popular,  but if the price of getting a good veteran or trading up for a 1st round QB gets too expensive,  I'm fine with Fitzpatrick, or Dalton or even Brissett for a year.

 

A year in the life of a franchise is nothing.    And maybe in 22,  Jacob Eason will be ready for Prime Time.    And if not,  then perhaps that's the year to make a big trade.....

 

[tvturner]

2 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

That a joke. Rodgers has won. Has been regarded as the best arm ever and has multiple MVPs. Can you say the same about Stafford

So QBs who haven't won anything aren't worth it

 

Guess you don't want Watson either

 

 

[New Zealands #1 Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

I'm curious what all the teams that could be in the running for Stafford are.

I'm thinking 

Indianapolis Colts

Washington Football Team

New England Patriots

Chicago Bears (Although I don't think they trade within the division)

I would add the 49ers and the broncos and possibly carolina.

[CR91]

Just now, Bluesmith said:

True, winning is a team stat.  As good as Peyton Manning was he only won one Superbowl with the Colts, and the best QB in my opinion Dan Marino, won zero.  But do you deny that Stafford is an improvement to our currently signed QB (Eason only) ?

 

 

Ok you seem to really be missing my point. Peyton and Marino have won both in the regular season and playoffs. Stafford has 7 losing seasons out of 11. Is he better then Eason, course, but Stafford isn't getting us past the Chiefs, Bills, or Ravens. He's solid, but he's not our franchise QB to make us contenders. It's a quick fix that will not get us where we want to go.

[NewColtsFan]

Mods.....

 

Apologies....     I did not realize the Stafford situation was already posted in the future QB thread.

 

Feel free to move this over and join....

 

Sorry.        

[New Zealands #1 Colts Fan]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

Ok you seem to really be missing my point. Peyton and Marino have won both in the regular season and playoffs. Stafford has 7 losing seasons out of 11. Is he better then Eason, course, but Stafford isn't getting us past the Chiefs, Bills, or Ravens. He's solid, but he's not our franchise QB to make us contenders. It's a quick fix that will not get us where we want to go.

Out of curiosity, did you want Rivers??.

It seems to me the difference between you and the majority on this thread is we think quick fix is great for win now but you don't think a 11 win team is in win now mode.

[CR91]

Just now, tvturner said:

So QBs who haven't won anything aren't worth it

 

Guess you don't want Watson either

 

 

 

Oh my God. Watson has multiple division championships. He's even won in the playoffs in just four years in the league. He also went head to head with Mahomes in the playoffs at kansas city and almost won before his defense gave up a ton of points. What are you comparing

[CR91]

Just now, New Zealands #1 Colts Fan said:

Out of curiosity, did you want Rivers??.

It seems to me the difference between you and the majority on this thread is we think quick fix is great for win now but you don't think a 11 win team is in win now mode.

 

No I didn't want Rivers. This team was in win now mode, but now we have a ton of question marks at the most important positions on the team.

[Bluesmith]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Ok you seem to really be missing my point. Peyton and Marino have won both in the regular season and playoffs. Stafford has 7 losing seasons out of 11. Is he better then Eason, course, but Stafford isn't getting us past the Chiefs, Bills, or Ravens. He's solid, but he's not our franchise QB to make us contenders. It's a quick fix that will not get us where we want to go.

Ok, maybe I missed it, but which winning QB is available in FA or via trade?  I think my point, and some others on here are that Stafford is on a much weaker organization which contributed to his win/loss record.  A fresh start with the Colts could provide him better results, ala Philip Rivers going from going from 5-11 two years ago to 11-5 with the Colts.

[SR711]

Yeah, the problem is if this turns into a bidding war with some other QB needy teams such as Washington or New Orleans, 

 

I like Stafford and think he would be a really good get at the QB position, but not if it is going to cost multiple picks, etc due to this turning into a bidding war. Ballard probably feels this way too considering how he approaches free agency with a certain "price" in his mind for a given player.  

 

While Stafford does have some years left, he is on the downside of his prime.  If he was a few years younger, I would certainly be more open to matching, exceeding all offers.  

[New Zealands #1 Colts Fan]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

No I didn't want Rivers. This team was in win now mode, but now we have a ton of question marks at the most important positions on the team.

Agree to disagree but that's what this forum is all about. If we don't end up with him it will be hard to know who was wrong and right. By the way if I do ever apply for GM can I put you down as a reference 

[CR91]

Just now, Bluesmith said:

Ok, maybe I missed it, but which winning QB is available in FA or via trade?  I think my point, and some others on here are that Stafford is on a much weaker organization which contributed to his win/loss record.  A fresh start with the Colts could provide him better results, ala Philip Rivers going from going from 5-11 two years ago to 11-5 with the Colts.

 

If the colts want to use their first round pick on a QB, then trade up and get Trey Lance. He's gonna be a star. He's a bigger Watson with just as big an arm and running ability.

[tvturner]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Oh my God. Watson has multiple division championships. He's even won in the playoffs in just four years in the league. He also went head to head with Mahomes in the playoffs at kansas city and almost won before his defense gave up a ton of points. What are you comparing

"his defense gave up a ton of points"

 

Sounds like Matthew Stafford's career summed up

 

You can nitpick stats all you want, Stafford's been a top 12 QB if not more for his entire career

 

He's been graded top 10 by PFF for the last two years

[Boilermaker]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

Oh my God. Watson has multiple division championships. He's even won in the playoffs in just four years in the league. He also went head to head with Mahomes in the playoffs at kansas city and almost won before his defense gave up a ton of points. What are you comparing

To be fair, Stafford has played with the lions--not exactly a franchise known for great historical success. Barry Sanders only won one playoff game and had 4-5 losing seasons during his tenure with the lions, but I would hope you would agree that Sanders is one of the greats. 

 

As for Watson, those divisional championships took place in the AFC south. AFC south was one of the weakest divisions when the Texans won those division titles. I would expect if the roles were reversed, Watson would have similar success with the Lions as Stafford did.

 

Don't get me wrong, 2 first rounders would be a little ridiculous for Stafford--you could even have an argument for a 1-1st rounder--but to say he's simply a "stat qb" is a bad take.

[WarGhost21]

26 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Proven? What has Stafford done in this league? Has he won anything?

I would be perfectly happy with Stafford. Pointing out playoff success means nothing to me in his case. If we will sit here all day and say that Brady has won so much because of his system, we should put that same theory on Stafford and say that having legitimately zero help in DET are the reason he hasn’t won as much. The Lions have given him nothing. They are a team with a Talented QB and no team around him. The Colts are a team with no QB and a Talented roster around it. Pull the trigger, don’t get hung up on “winning-ness”

[CR91]

7 minutes ago, tvturner said:

"his defense gave up a ton of points"

 

Sounds like Matthew Stafford's career summed up

 

You can nitpick stats all you want, Stafford's been a top 12 QB if not more for his entire career

 

He's been graded top 10 by PFF for the last two years

 

Wow your argument point is PFF. I'm obviously wasting my point. 

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, SR711 said:

Yeah, the problem is if this turns into a bidding war with some other QB needy teams such as Washington or New Orleans, 

 

I like Stafford and think he would be a really good get at the QB position, but not if it is going to cost multiple picks, etc due to this turning into a bidding war. Ballard probably feels this way too considering how he approaches free agency with a certain "price" in his mind for a given player.  

 

While Stafford does have some years left, he is on the downside of his prime.  If he was a few years younger, I would certainly be more open to matching, exceeding all offers.  

I really doubt he will get into a bidding war.  If Balled is interested he will probably call and say this is my offer.  Maybe tweak it a little but not be in do anything to make a deal mood.

[CR91]

1 minute ago, WarGhost21 said:

I would be perfectly happy with Stafford. Pointing out playoff success means nothing to me in his case. If we will sit here all day and say that Brady has won so much because of his system, we should put that same theory on Stafford and say that having legitimately zero help in DET are the reason he hasn’t won as much. The Lions have given him nothing. They are a team with a Talented QB and no team around him. The Colts are a team with no QB and a Talented roster around it. Pull the trigger, don’t get hung up on “winning-ness”

 

Tell me this, would you give up our 21st pick for Stafford or trade up for Trey Lance?

[BProland85]

For at least a 1st round pick? No thanks.

[CR91]

3 minutes ago, Boilermaker said:

To be fair, Stafford has played with the lions--not exactly a franchise known for great historical success. Barry Sanders only won one playoff game and had 4-5 losing seasons during his tenure with the lions, but I would hope you would agree that Sanders is one of the greats. 

 

As for Watson, those divisional championships took place in the AFC south. AFC south was one of the weakest divisions when the Texans won those division titles. I would expect if the roles were reversed, Watson would have similar success with the Lions as Stafford did.

 

Don't get me wrong, 2 first rounders would be a little ridiculous for Stafford--you could even have an argument for a 1-1st rounder--but to say he's simply a "stat qb" is a bad take.

 

You really think Watson wouldn't succeed no matter where he went? Well if he goes to the jets like he wants, we can see if you're theory holds water.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

Tell me this, would you give up our 21st pick for Stafford or trade up for Trey Lance?

For Stafford I would give up the 21st pick and next years 2nd round pick. Great trade for both teams. We would still have picks 2-7 this year and still have our 1 and picks 3-7 next year + a franchise QB who is only 33. Easy no brainer to me. 

[tvturner]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

Wow you're argument point is PFF. I'm obviously wasting my point. 

You're arguing that Stafford's bad because his supporting cast and coaching staff has been bottom 5

 

If anything I'm wasting my time

 

You called him injury prone when he's missed 7 games in 9 years

You're calling Lance the next Watson when he's played 18 games of college ball at NDSU

 

 

[Robin]

3 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Tell me this, would you give up our 21st pick for Stafford or trade up for Trey Lance?

We have to pay more than our 21st.

 

And what do you think the price would be to trade up... not cheap

[CR91]

Just now, tvturner said:

You're arguing that Stafford's bad because his supporting cast and coaching staff has been bottom 5

 

If anything I'm wasting my time

 

You called him injury prone when he's missed 7 games in 9 years

You're calling Lance the next Watson when he's played 18 games of college ball at NDSU

 

 

 

I didn't say he was injury prone. I said he's been injured the last previous two seasons before this year.

[WarGhost21]

3 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Tell me this, would you give up our 21st pick for Stafford or trade up for Trey Lance?

I absolutely adore Lance! He’s one of my favorite prospects overall this year! He has a bright future!

 

That being said, Stafford. He’s ready now to win, whereas Lance still needs development and may not pan out as I hope anyways. Take the surefire star for 5+ years over the “maybe” that will take a year to settle in and might not even hit. 

[GoColts8818]

Just now, BProland85 said:

For at least a 1st round pick? No thanks.

Just because that’s what the Lions are asking for doesn’t mean that’s what they will get.  This is how negotiations start stake out a position that is more than you will settle for and go from there.  Even still a first round pick for a QB isn’t that high of a price for known quality like Stafford.  
 

Also if you are counting on getting one in the draft Ballard has already said he doesn’t think a QB will last until 21 so in order to get one Ballard would probably have to trade their first plus more picks to go up and get a QB.

 

Franchise QBs don’t come cheap.  I am not saying the Colts should be all in on Stafford but people seem to think they are going to get a franchise QB for pennies on the dollar.  That’s not going to happen.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Robin said:

We have to pay more than our 21st.

 

And what do you think the price would be to trade up... not cheap

It will take this years 21st and next years 2nd IMO, that should do it. Stafford is that good.

[WarGhost21]

2 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I didn't say he was injury prone. I said he's been injured the last previous two seasons before this year.

 Not 2 seasons. He missed 8 games in 2019 and that’s all he’s missed since 2011

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

I absolutely adore Lance! He’s one of my favorite prospects overall this year! He has a bright future!

 

That being said, Stafford. He’s ready now to win, whereas Lance still needs development and may not pan out as I hope anyways. Take the surefire star for 5+ years over the “maybe” that will take a year to settle in and might not even hit. 

Other than Lawrence, to me Lance is the best college QB out there but Hard to pass on Stafford if we can get him.