[/zn/]

I think the ability to accurately evaluate Stafford's career will benefit from his post-Lions' years, just as much as with Goff's post-Rams' years.

That was very much the case with Bradford, for me anyway. At the time Bradford left the Rams, I was not convinced he wasn't a good QB on a bad team. I thought it was still possible that he could be successful elsewhere, until he proved that that wasn't happening (his knee notwithstanding).

And I think we'll learn a lot about both Stafford and Goff that way, too.

So if I follow this, we don't know about Stafford because he played with the Lions, BUT Goff playing with the Lions will tell us about him?

...

[AvengerRam]

Thats a noble take. I would like to believe I defended Goff beyond what he earned by his on-field performance the past two years.

In all honesty, I am a concerned about Stafford. In the times I've watched him in big games when it was time for him to make a big play when his team really needed it he didn't show me anything special. Now, maybe it circumstances beyond his control, but we will soon find out now that he is no longer in Detroit.

What big games? You previously brought up one playoff game against Dallas several years ago in which he had a couple of late game fumbles. Even if you blame Stafford for that (one could argue it was his OL that was to blame on those plays), that's not much of a sample size.

Statistically, he is third among active QBs in 4th quarter comebacks. That suggests that he has done well in "clutch time" (even if they weren't necessarily "big games.")

I could understand asserting that he's somewhat untested in big games for a player of his tenure, or to suggest that there are question marks regarding his big game ability, but I don't see a source of concern.

Conventional wisdom seems to believe that Matthew Stafford's talent, plugged into Sean McVay's system, will produce great results (superior to what Goff produced). Time will tell.

[AvengerRam]

So if I follow this, we don't know about Stafford because he played with the Lions, BUT Goff playing with the Lions will tell us about him?

...

That's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that we'll finally see what Stafford can do in a sophisticated offense with a strong running game and supporting cast, while Goff will have to prove he can succeed without McVay.

[Haden]

What big games? You previously brought up one playoff game against Dallas several years ago in which he had a couple of late game fumbles. Even if you blame Stafford for that (one could argue it was his OL that was to blame on those plays), that's not much of a sample size.

Statistically, he is third among active QBs in 4th quarter comebacks. That suggests that he has done well in "clutch time" (even if they weren't necessarily "big games.")

I could understand asserting that he's somewhat untested in big games for a player of his tenure, or to suggest that there are question marks regarding his big game ability, but I don't see a source of concern.

Conventional wisdom seems to believe that Matthew Stafford's talent, plugged into Sean McVay's system, will produce great results (superior to what Goff produced). Time will tell.

I don't think talent is the big issue with Stafford. He has proven to be a high-level QB. I think the question will be whether he can stay healthy. But as you correctly note, time will tell.

[/zn/]

That's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that we'll finally see what Stafford can do in a sophisticated offense with a strong running game and supporting cast, while Goff will have to prove he can succeed without McVay.

And does Detroit have a sophisticated offense and a strong running game, to make this an actual equation?

In other words---Detroit did not tell us about Stafford but it will tell us about Goff.

The bottom line being, unless Goff does better than Stafford has in Detroit, it will count against him.

[AvengerRam]

And does Detroit have a sophisticated offense and a strong running game, to make this an actual equation?

Detroit did not have a strong running game during Stafford's tenure, and I would argue their offenses were not at the sophistication of McVay's offense. Thus, the theory is that Stafford will have more support in L.A. than he did in Detroit. Do you disagree with that?

In other words---Detroit did not tell us about Stafford but it will tell us about Goff.

Nobody said that. Are you just going to keep repeating the same non sequitur?

The bottom line being, unless Goff does better than Stafford has in Detroit, it will count against him.

Again, nobody said that.

[/zn/]

Again, nobody said that.

Lol. Sure they did. We'll see how Stafford does with a better team. No mention of Goff playing for the bad team that made Stafford look worse than he is. Suddenly, the context disappears.

It's just not good logic.

My view? I expect Stafford to do well with a good team.

I don't expect Goff to play any better in Detroit than Stafford did--unless new management improves that team.

...

[Hacksaw]

We have to take Stafford's and Goff's individual performances and compare previous years averages to see which way the 2 are trending post trade.

But neither team this coming season will be staffed, schemed, scheduled or have identical health with previous seasons so a direct comparison is not a fair judgment either.

I still believe the eye test will show Stafford doesn't have the same warts as Goff has. Stafford will excel under McVay and we will see a much higher ceiling.
Goff will likey be Goff and do fairly well like always, , warts and all.

[/zn/]

I still believe the eye test will show Stafford doesn't have the same warts as Goff has and will excel under McVay and we will see a much higher ceiling. Goff will likey be Goff and do fairly well like always, , warts and all..

Why didn't Stafford do well in Detroit? It was the team, right? (Things like having to make up for the 32nd ranked defense and playing from behind more than 60% of the time.)

Unless the Lions improve, why would Goff do any better there than Stafford did?

...

....

[AvengerRam]

Oh, I could tell you why
The ocean’s near the shore
I could think some things I’d never thunk before
And then I’d sit, and think some more...