[rams74]

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?

...

....

We always learn something new about a player when he changes teams. Whichever teams. Whichever player.

It doesn't have to be so tough to understand, or so complicated.

[Elvis]

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.

I don't think that's it at all.

It will be whether Goff does worse than Stafford did in Detroit, worse than Goff did with McVay in L.A. How will Goff play outside of the McVay-verse? (How will Stafford play in the McVay-verse?)

Of course all of this assumes Detroit is going to be a shit show and i think that's a pretty good assumption but not a certainty. Anthony Lynnn could end up doing pretty good things as the LIons OC, not out of the realm of possibility, not for me anyway...

[max]

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.

Ok. You’re right, I was heavily influenced by one playoff game. It’s fair to say that I should watch his other playoff performances and other games that had playoff implications.

But it’s also fair to say we don’t know yet about Stafford in big games. I think Bradshaw was fair when he said he would be very disappointed if Stafford didn’t win now that he’s with a good team. But he didn’t know for sure either.

[/zn/]

We always learn something new about a player when he changes teams. Whichever teams. Whichever player.

It doesn't have to be so tough to understand, or so complicated.

No one said anything about it being tough to understand. It isn't. I am just accounting for something you're not.

If Stafford could not play well in Detroit, what are we going to learn if Goff does not play any better there than Stafford did?

The way you describe this, his not playing well there would be a giveaway about him as a player. Yet, for you, that wasn't true for Stafford.

I think that unless something changes (which it could), and Detroit remains a problem as a team, then I don't expect Goff to do any better there than Stafford did. And that won't tell me anything about Goff. Just as with Stafford, it will tell me about Detroit.

[rams74]

The way you describe this, his not playing well there would be a giveaway about him as a player. Yet, for you, that wasn't true for Stafford.

When did I say that?

You don't have to be so contrary. And you don't have to prescribe meanings to things that aren't there.

[/zn/]

When did I say that?

You don't have to be so contrary. And you don't have to prescribe meanings to things that aren't there.

I'm not being "contrary." I just have a logic issue with a claim of yours. It's simple. You said Goff's play in 2021 will tell us about him. Right? So I have to ask again, why would Goff play any better on a bad Detroit team than Stafford did? And if he doesn't play any better than Stafford did with the same bad team, why, in your words, will we be able to "accurately evaluate" him? Why would we "learn a lot" about Goff "that way"? If it remains the same bad team, wouldn't that tell us about Detroit, not Goff?

[Hacksaw]

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?

...

....

I didn't say Goff would do better. I said he'd likely play well. Not better than Stafford given the exact same circumstances..

[/zn/]

I didn't say Goff would do better. I said he'd likely play well. Not better than Stafford given the exact same circumstances..

I didn't say you said he would. I was just clarifying what my point was.

So I am asking. Note I am not saying YOU said anything. I am just asking. Stafford did not play well on a bad Detroit team. Right? If it remains the same bad team, do people expect Goff to play any better than Stafford did there?

And if is still the same bad team and if Goff DOESN'T play any better than Stafford did there, does that tell us anything about Goff? Or does it tell us about Detroit?

...

[PARAM]

I don't think that's it at all.

It will be whether Goff does worse than Stafford did in Detroit, worse than Goff did with McVay in L.A. How will Goff play outside of the McVay-verse? (How will Stafford play in the McVay-verse?)

Of course all of this assumes Detroit is going to be a shit show and i think that's a pretty good assumption but not a certainty. Anthony Lynnn could end up doing pretty good things as the LIons OC, not out of the realm of possibility, not for me anyway...

Well for one, with only an exception or two, Stafford's entire time in Detroit was spent without a decent run game or defense. If Anthony Lynn can establish a run game there, Goff will do okay. If he can't, we can compare Goff's lack of success to Stafford's there because no matter how well he played at times, they only made the postseason 3 times in a dozen years. We hear many times, the great ones make those around them great (although I think it happens a lot less than it's credited to happen) and apparently MS doesn't possess that gene.

Having said that, to address the theory he hasn't won a playoff game, if not for a blatant DPI reversal, without instant replay which wasn't in effect for DPI at that time, Stafford and the Lions win the playoff game against Dallas (despite his 2 strip sack fumbles). In the other 2 games, an ugly step-sister Detroit team was outclassed by a good 10-5-1 Seattle team (2016) 26-6 and a 13-3 Saints team (2011) 45-28. We honestly don't know how Stafford will perform in the postseason on a good team with a very good offense and defense. But I have a strong feeling we're going to find out.

And there are some fans who want to compare Goff in Detroit vs. Stafford in L.A.? I agree with others who say, Goff in Detroit vs Stafford in Detroit and Stafford in L.A. vs Goff in L.A.. It's not like Jared Goff set the bar low. As many postseasons as Detroit from 2009 - 2020 in 4 years (5 if you count the rookie year in the poor imitation Chuck Knox-like offense). I expect Stafford to perform well and I expect Goff to perform better than some might expect.

[69RamFan]

^^^^^

I have to disagree,

In 2014, Stafford did have a an excellent team... both on offense and defense.

As for the run game, they had RB/Bell & Bush they both average 3.9/carry...

and a excellent WR crew with Megatron & Tate....

The problem with their offense, the coaching staff wanted to put the ball up in the air,,,

If you look at their stats,,,, they didn't have any balance game between the run and passing game.

60% pass vs 40% run, a nice balance game would of been 55% vs 45%

Plus they had an outstanding Defense,,,, only giving up an average of 17pt/gm.

So to say Stafford never had a good team is false...