[moklerman]

Here's the thing "with numbers" equating to good performance (ie, "Stafford putting up good numbers"). Stafford has 45 touchdown passes the last 2 years in 24 games. He's had 10 games with 3 touchdowns (9) or more (1) and the Lions are 3-6-1 in those. That means in the other 14 games, he's had 14 TD passes and the Lions were 5-8. Now does that sound good?

I'm hoping for the best and that Stafford proves a much better QB than Goff in McVay's system. But my fear is this is more an ego decision than a football decision. We'll see.

The past two years, Stafford's completion % was almost the same(both 64%+). But his YPA, TD%, INT% and rating were all significantly better than Goff's. On a far worse team. I can only imagine that gap will widen now that their rolls are reversed.

[PARAM]

The past two years, Stafford's completion % was almost the same(both 64%+). But his YPA, TD%, INT% and rating were all significantly better than Goff's. On a far worse team. I can only imagine that gap will widen now that their rolls are reversed.

McVay better hope so!! But of course if Stafford doesn't work out, McVay still has Wolford.

[moklerman]

anyway, you have to wonder why, if goff is such a lost cause (lacks processing speed, can easily be pressured with 4 guys, doesn't like to throw downfield, etc., etc.), holmes would have been even remotely interested in him and his contract, so much so that he went for the deal despite reported better offers? why would he, a guy who obviously knows goff, even consider making goff his first major decision as the lions gm if goff is the offensive liability mcvay has seemingly painted? weird.

Seems pretty clear this is all a "you wash my back, I'll wash yours" situation. Lions are not winning next year so they can reasonably take on an experienced veteran who is only 26 years old even if he isn't a sexy pick. Maybe they even think a better scheme will help Goff. Holmes was reportedly a big advocate of drafting Goff to the Rams, so there is some faith or hubris there too.

can the rams protect stafford?

Is there any reason to think he will get worse protection than what Goff had? Goff's 22 sacks and 3.4% sack rate in '19 and 23 and 4.0% last year are better than any full season Stafford's ever had except for 2013.

Since 2014, the Lions have been averaging 38 sacks and 6.7%. Under McVay, Goff has had 25 and 4.4%.

[moklerman]

McVay better hope so!! But of course if Stafford doesn't work out, McVay still has Wolford.

Well, I trust that McVay has studied Stafford enough for it to be more than just hope that is driving this move, don't you?

[pmill66]

Lots of reasonable comments in this thread, unlike another site where whining is running rapid.
It is shocking the rams had to trade draft picks for a team to take Goff. Other teams must look at him as a sinking ship.

[aeneas1]

Is there any reason to think he will get worse protection than what Goff had?

sure, goff 's sack rate in 19/20 dropped considerably from 17/18 because his depth of pass shortened, he was getting rid of the ball much quicker, throwing shorter... but that's not the plan stafford as far as i can tell, mcvay wants to become a vertical passing team again, which takes time in the pocket... sure, you can try to move stafford around, move the pocket, roll him out, and hopefully that's the plan and he'll be good at it and it will work, because if stafford hangs in the pocket while waiting for deep routes to develop, as he did in detroit, i see no reason why his sack rate would go down just because goff's rate was low in 19/20.

[aeneas1]

Lots of reasonable comments in this thread, unlike another site where whining is running rapid.
It is shocking the rams had to trade draft picks for a team to take Goff. Other teams must look at him as a sinking ship.

teams had to take on more than goff, they also had to take on a very big contract, so it's no surprise the lions wanted to be compensated for that as well.

[RedAlice]

Lots of reasonable comments in this thread, unlike another site where whining is running rapid.
It is shocking the rams had to trade draft picks for a team to take Goff. Other teams must look at him as a sinking ship.

He can prove them right or wrong on that part.

However, his contract as a huge problem is just fact.

And, lol. I logged into the other site and only lasted a couple minutes. Holy moly.

[pmill66]

He can prove them right or wrong on that part.

However, his contract as a huge problem is just fact.

And, lol. I logged into the other site and only lasted a couple minutes. Holy moly.

Well 41 million gtd over 2 years for a top 15? QB is an overpay it appears. Believe there is more to this.

I was banned from that site the day i began chemo. Was having a bad day, very unforgiving mods.

[moklerman]

sure, goff 's sack rate in 19/20 dropped considerably from 17/18 because his depth of pass shortened, he was getting rid of the ball much quicker, throwing shorter... but that's not the plan stafford as far as i can tell, mcvay wants to become a vertical passing team again, which takes time in the pocket... sure, you can try to move stafford around, move the pocket, roll him out, and hopefully that's the plan and he'll be good at it and it will work, because if stafford hangs in the pocket while waiting for deep routes to develop, as he did in detroit, i see no reason why his sack rate would go down just because goff's rate was low in 19/20.

But I specifically showed all 4 years under McVay, Goff had better protection overall than Stafford has had.

It's true that the shorter passing game probably improved the sack numbers but I think it's also true that the actual passing game that McVay wanted to run was hampered by Goff in some way. McVay's attitude toward Wolford and now the trade support that idea.

So, even if the Rams revert to '17/'18, that's 29/year and much better than what he's had in Detroit.

And, something I hadn't even thought about, what's the turf like in Detroit? I've always imagined it to be far less forgiving than other places.