[snackdaddy]

I believe if we went into the season with Jared Goff we would still be a winning team. Probably similar to last year's. Make the playoffs and maybe or maybe not win a first round game. But that woulda been our ceiling. With Stafford we are now a legit Superbowl contender.

It was clear McVay lost trust in Goff. That affected his play calling. A lot of thought he got too conservative with the play calling. It now appears he felt he had to be conservative. He felt Goff could not execute certain plays. He won't have that problem with Stafford. Will that lead us to the promised land? Time will tell.

[/zn/]

I believe if we went into the season with Jared Goff we would still be a winning team. Probably similar to last year's. Make the playoffs and maybe or maybe not win a first round game. But that woulda been our ceiling. With Stafford we are now a legit Superbowl contender.

It was clear McVay lost trust in Goff. That affected his play calling. A lot of thought he got too conservative with the play calling. It now appears he felt he had to be conservative. He felt Goff could not execute certain plays. He won't have that problem with Stafford. Will that lead us to the promised land? Time will tell.

There's really no comparison. Stafford is the more experienced qb and better for that reason alone. I personally have not seen anyone argue they should not have made the trade. And so personally I think there's really no reason to ever "defend" the trade--no one I have seen says it shouldn't have happened.

But even given that people underestimate Goff's ceiling. There's a lot of negative hyperbole about Goff. Stafford was not that much different in his own 5th year actually.

Though to me right now what's also important is that Stafford is so savvy and experienced it will have a positive effect on McVay, who will actually listen to his qb this year.

....

[AvengerRam]

And so personally I think there's really no reason to ever "defend" the trade--no one I have seen says it shouldn't have happened.

I don't think that SD, or anyone else, is commenting on the motivations behind the trade because they think the trade is being questioned.

Rather, as we look forward to this season, its interesting to consider why Sean McVay thought that Matthew Stafford might be the piece to get us over the top.

[PARAM]

But even given that people underestimate Goff's ceiling. There's a lot of negative hyperbole about Goff. Stafford was not that much different in his own 5th year actually.

You know, I've seen you post this before but I've never seen any numbers from his 5th season. Just for shits and giggles. The Lions went 7-9. He had an 84.2 QB rating. 4650 yards. 29 TDs, 19 Ints, 4 Fumbles lost (23 Turnovers)

The last 6 games of Stafford's 5th season he went 123 of 215 (57.2%) for 1452 (6.75 yds/att) with 8 TDs and 8 picks. A marvelous 74.8 QB rating. The Lions were 1-5. Sure he didn't have McVay. Sure he didn't have the #1 D. Maybe it was a tough schedule?

4-12 Tampa L 24-21
8-7-1 Green Bay W 40-10
10-6 Eagles L 34-20
8-8 Baltimore L 18-16
7-9 Giants L 23-20 OT
5-10-1 Vikings L 14-13

Of course, he followed that up with an 11-5 playoff season in 2014 (4257 yds, 22-12). Hey, I'm glad Stafford is a Ram and that crappy QB play in far in the rear view mirror.

[/zn/]

You know, I've seen you post this before but I've never seen any numbers from his 5th season. Just for shits and giggles. The Lions went 7-9. He had an 84.2 QB rating. 4650 yards. 29 TDs, 19 Ints, 4 Fumbles lost (23 Turnovers)

The last 6 games of Stafford's 5th season he went 123 of 215 (57.2%) for 1452 (6.75 yds/att) with 8 TDs and 8 picks. A marvelous 74.8 QB rating. The Lions were 1-5. Sure he didn't have McVay. Sure he didn't have the #1 D. Maybe it was a tough schedule?

4-12 Tampa L 24-21
8-7-1 Green Bay W 40-10
10-6 Eagles L 34-20
8-8 Baltimore L 18-16
7-9 Giants L 23-20 OT
5-10-1 Vikings L 14-13

Of course, he followed that up with an 11-5 playoff season in 2014 (4257 yds, 22-12). Hey, I'm glad Stafford is a Ram and that crappy QB play in far in the rear view mirror.

Yeah he was better in his 6th (2014) season, in part because they had the league's 2nd ranked defense (3rd in points). Though if you look at the playoff game against Dallas that year, they fail to maintain a lead at least partly because of 2 4th quarter issues, including Stafford fumbling and a delay of game. So he was not our current Stafford at that point yet--he was not yet the savvy 13 year vet the Rams have now.

In 2013 (his 5th year) he had 4 bad games, measured by having a qb rating below 70 (adjusting for an era that was nearly a decade ago). In those 4 games he averaged a qb rating of 56.02, and threw 4 TDs v. 9 INTs. They lost all 4 games. That bunch of poor performances came in the final 6 games, starting with game 11. At game 10 they were 6-4. They ended the season 7-9.

The point being, Stafford clearly had not reached his ceiling in year 5. And that's not rare. I've looked at a number of currently good qbs who had a few notably poor games in their 5th year.

And let's not do strawmen. No one said he had "crappy seasons." The point was that in year 5 he had 4 poor games. That's all that was said. Just means he wasn't consistent enough yet.

In fact in 2014 he had 3 games with a qb rating below 70, though they won 1. That's obviously a bit better, though again, their defense that year was 2nd in yards and 3rd in points, which was obviously a factor.

[/zn/]

I don't think that SD, or anyone else, is commenting on the motivations behind the trade because they think the trade is being questioned.

Rather, as we look forward to this season, its interesting to consider why Sean McVay thought that Matthew Stafford might be the piece to get us over the top.

I don't know how much inquiry that really calls for though. He is a physically gifted qb who still has a lot of his physical gifts (I've seen him ranked 3rd in arm strength for example though that's just one of the things). He's also a savvy and smart 13 year vet who stayed competitive and was always improving on a poor team. To me, that's the key--the savvy vet.

I dunno, how many qbs would anyone take ahead of MS if they could pick any qb from any team? It's not many.

What I especially like about MS is the fact that he is so much of a veteran that IMO McVay will listen to him--it will be much more collaborative. I think that's a plus.


...

[AvengerRam]

Fun fact: Sean McVay is only 2 years, 13 days older than Matthew Stafford.