Would you rather have Stafford, Darnold or a rookie QB?

[New York Mick]

Sam if TL isn’t available at 2. 

[BUM-KNEE]

15 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

Rookie QB, duh.

After that, and this may shock some, I'd sooner suck with Sam for another year to grab a QB high in 2022, rather than hitch our wagon to a stop-gap like Matthew Stafford. I guess I'm just skeptical that he's an "elite" QB. Convince me otherwise.

Stafford isnt elite, youre right.

He is however, pretty damn solid. Hes gone through enough battles to know what to do in specific circumstances. (something Sam needs to absorb from a good pro) Hes got a good arm, so a good OC can create adult game plans with/for too.

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, Prodigal Syndicate said:

Point is, he isnt getting better at 32. He wasnt good enough in his prime, he will never be good enough. He lucked out playing on the lions where nobody cared about them. On a big market team he would have been hammered for his play. He has a Jay Cutler type demeanor where he doesnt seem to care even 1 bit about winning.

We shouldn't want any part of him. At best he makes us a mediocre to bad treadmill team. Just like his current team.

He is in his prime right now. The Lions suck, are poorly coached, and have been for years now.

Swap Stafford with Darnold and see just how bad that team is, so people can say their high draft pick TE was a stupid reach and Marvin Jones is a borderline WR2/WR3 and “not a #1” like people recite here about anyone like it’s gospel.

I think people are so used to what Jets QBs - and most young/drafted QBs - bring to the table that they think there’s a binary classification where everyone is either elite or trash. 

[choon328]

1 hour ago, GreenFish said:

The thing with Stafford is that he likely only has 4 or 5 years left of top end play. We are not a QB away. So at best we are contenders for 2 or 3 years before we need another reset. He should go to a team like the Colts or the 49ers.

I’ve become indifferent between a rookie or Darnold. But both are preferred over Stafford.

But it’s all about Watson until we get a definitive no he is not available.

Every time I see this I want to rip the remaining hair I have left out. This is the nfl in 2021. You are always a Great QB away from being a SB contender. That being said i would choose the Rookie bc I don't think Stafford is that good. 

[Prodigal Syndicate]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

He is in his prime right now. The Lions suck, are poorly coached, and have been for years now.

Swap Stafford with Darnold and see just how bad that team is, so people can say their high draft pick TE was a stupid reach and Marvin Jones is a borderline WR2/WR3 and “not a #1” like people recite here about anyone like it’s gospel.

I think people are so used to what Jets QBs - and most young/drafted QBs - bring to the table that they think there’s a binary classification where everyone is either elite or trash. 

Nobody said stafford was trash. But he isnt good enough to do anything worthwhile with. He would be a waste of time. He couldnt make one bad franchise better, why would he make our bad franchise better?

 

He was part of the problem with the lions, not the solution. When the lights were brightest he folded. That's just a fact.

[STLuLu]

None of the above

[RedBeardedSavage]

Darnold. 

Build the roster with the rest of the picks. 

[Spoot-Face]

42 minutes ago, Skeet Ulrich said:

Stafford is definitely a top 10-12 QB in the league. I hate to compare sports but it's a perfect comparison to a  gatekeeper in combat sports - not a championship level QB but definitely a skilled and talented player who is a cut above the average QBs in the league.

 

40 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You don’t need elite. You need good enough, and he’s easily good enough. He became an even better QB since losing his impossibly-great WR1. He may not be where he was physically 10 years ago, but that’s what all those years of experience bring, that (statistically) you won’t get from a rookie for a long time, even a deserved #1 overall pick like Stafford.

I’d take elite over Stafford, and would ante up at least another high 1st rounder to get it (considering the other flaws such a QB masks). Stafford is a better QB than Eli, who’s got 2 rings. 

 

33 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Why would someone try and convince you of something that isn't true?

Stafford clearly isn't an elite QB, i.e. top 5 or top 10.

He's a solid 10-15 type.  2nd tier.

That would be several tiers higher than the level of QB play we'd have for the past 20 years or so.

I appreciate fans see things as all or nothing, but there are several gradations between G.O.A.T. and a goat.

Stafford is upper middle class.  He's not upper class (a la Mahomes).  He's not middle class or lower class (a la Darnold).

 

29 minutes ago, BUM-KNEE said:

Stafford isnt elite, youre right.

He is however, pretty damn solid. Hes gone through enough battles to know what to do in specific circumstances. (something Sam needs to absorb from a good pro) Hes got a good arm, so a good OC can create adult game plans with/for too.

Thanks for the responses, guys. Perhaps I'm just shooting too high, because the idea of Stafford just doesn't get my juices flowing. Like, at all.

If the plan were to trade for Stafford, and still draft a QB other than Fields or Wilson, with the intention of sitting them, then I guess I could live with a couple years of Stafford. But watching these Championship games just makes me eager to get a transformative, franchise-leading QB of our own, and Stafford isn't one of 'em.

[Bronx]

2 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

 

 

 

Thanks for the responses, guys. Perhaps I'm just shooting too high, because the idea of Stafford just doesn't get my juices flowing. Like, at all.

If the plan were to trade for Stafford, and still draft a QB other than Fields or Wilson, with the intention of sitting them, then I guess I could live with a couple years of Stafford. But watching these Championship games just makes me eager to get a transformative, franchise-leading QB of our own, and Stafford isn't one of 'em.

Don't forget that the best kept secret. Is James Morgan. 

[Skeet Ulrich]

4 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

Thanks for the responses, guys. Perhaps I'm just shooting too high, because the idea of Stafford just doesn't get my juices flowing. Like, at all.

If the plan were to trade for Stafford, and still draft a QB other than Fields or Wilson, with the intention of sitting them, then I guess I could live with a couple years of Stafford. But watching these Championship games just makes me eager to get a transformative, franchise-leading QB of our own, and Stafford isn't one of 'em.

Stafford turns 33 the day after the SB. If you trade for Stafford, he's the QB for 3-5 years. In case you haven't noticed, the time of QBs sitting on the bench and learning for years is over. If you draft a QB high, unless you have a Jordan Love situation where you're behind a MVP guy or where the guy totally sucks like Hackenburg - you play early.

It makes no sense to use a 1 or a 2 on a guy, let him sit for 3 years, hand him the job then immediately have to pay him $30M off a handful of starts.

[Bronx]

2 minutes ago, Skeet Ulrich said:

Stafford turns 33 the day after the SB. If you trade for Stafford, he's the QB for 3-5 years. In case you haven't noticed, the time of QBs sitting on the bench and learning for years is over. If you draft a QB high, unless you have a Jordan Love situation where you're behind a MVP guy or where the guy totally sucks like Hackenburg - you play early.

It makes no sense to use a 1 or a 2 on a guy, let him sit for 3 years, hand him the job then immediately have to pay him $30M off a handful of starts.

Almost guaranteed that a rookie will have at best, a .500 record.

[PepPep]

1 hour ago, GreenFish said:

But it’s all about Watson until we get a definitive no he is not available.

I agree. Unless its all smoke, if I'm JD I'm working the phones trying to get the best deal I can for Watson. I'm assuming Houston doesn't start talking unless the #2 pick is involved and I'm fine with that but then I'm using that as leverage to give up Seattles picks instead of ours if they want more draft capitol. 

[southtown24th]

rookie

[DJF71]

Stafford sucks.

[Sperm Edwards]

39 minutes ago, Prodigal Syndicate said:

Nobody said stafford was trash. But he isnt good enough to do anything worthwhile with. He would be a waste of time. He couldnt make one bad franchise better, why would he make our bad franchise better?

 

He was part of the problem with the lions, not the solution. When the lights were brightest he folded. That's just a fact.

If you say so

[Philc1]

Darnold

 

Stafford is overrated and about done.  Fields is the next great bust

[RoadFan]

Stafford is extremely close to retirement. 

Denver is a good fit.

[Philc1]

2 minutes ago, DJF71 said:

Stafford sucks.

0 playoff wins in 12 years

 

it is what it is

[Philc1]

Just now, RoadFan said:

Stafford is extremely close to retirement. 

And he sucks

[Sperm Edwards]

13 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

 

 

 

Thanks for the responses, guys. Perhaps I'm just shooting too high, because the idea of Stafford just doesn't get my juices flowing. Like, at all.

If the plan were to trade for Stafford, and still draft a QB other than Fields or Wilson, with the intention of sitting them, then I guess I could live with a couple years of Stafford. But watching these Championship games just makes me eager to get a transformative, franchise-leading QB of our own, and Stafford isn't one of 'em.

He doesn’t get my juices flowing either, but that isn’t the measure of the correct move. Think of all the flowed juices after Darnold improbably fell to the Jets, for example. 

The point is to build a team good enough to win it. Whiff on a QB pick and - absent Morgan stepping up from out of nowhere to erase the failed 1st round pick - all the rest is meaningless. 

For all the poo-pooing of Stafford, and “no-brainer” choices of blindly putting faith in another 1st round pick QB prospect, consider that Stafford is an example of a successful 1st round pick QB. He’s good enough with a good enough team around him. Many others are not, and we’ve drafted more than one such QB. 

[Spoot-Face]

13 minutes ago, Skeet Ulrich said:

Stafford turns 33 the day after the SB. If you trade for Stafford, he's the QB for 3-5 years. In case you haven't noticed, the time of QBs sitting on the bench and learning for years is over. If you draft a QB high, unless you have a Jordan Love situation where you're behind a MVP guy or where the guy totally sucks like Hackenburg - you play early.

It makes no sense to use a 1 or a 2 on a guy, let him sit for 3 years, hand him the job then immediately have to pay him $30M off a handful of starts.

My implication was if they don't draft a QB at 2, and opt for picking one lower down that is considered a project. If they draft a QB at 2, I definitely want them starting.

[Spoot-Face]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

He doesn’t get my juices flowing either, but that isn’t the measure of the correct move. Think of all the flowed juices after Darnold improbably fell to the Jets, for example. 

The point is to build a team good enough to win it. Whiff on a QB pick and - absent Morgan stepping up from out of nowhere to erase the failed 1st round pick - all the rest is meaningless. 

For all the poo-pooing of Stafford, and “no-brainer” choices of blindly putting faith in another 1st round pick QB prospect, consider that Stafford is an example of a successful 1st round pick QB. He’s good enough with a good enough team around him. Many others are not, and we’ve drafted more than one such QB. 

Okay, you're winning me over to the side of "not hating Stafford".

[Bronx]

6 minutes ago, RoadFan said:

Stafford is extremely close to retirement. 

Denver is a good fit.

And it's legal.

[Skeet Ulrich]

3 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

My implication was if they don't draft a QB at 2, and opt for picking one lower down that is considered a project. If they draft a QB at 2, I definitely want them starting.

Even project guys don't sit for 3-4 years. You have to pay them. If you trade for Stafford he's the unquestioned starter for at least 3 years.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

Okay, you're winning me over to the side of "not hating Stafford".

OK good. Now that you feel that way, let me tell you why I don’t want him.

[Prodigal Syndicate]

15 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If you say so

What has he done for them besides accumulate stats?

In the 12 years he has been there, they made the playoffs 3 times and went 0-3.

 

In the 12 years prior to his arrival, the lions made the playoffs 2 times and went 0-2.

 

They have losing records in 8 of 12 season with him.

 

So I ask again. If he wasnt able to elevate the lions, why would you want him here when we have a worse team than they do? 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Prodigal Syndicate said:

What has he done for them besides accumulate stats?

In the 12 years he has been there, they made the playoffs 3 times and went 0-3.

 

In the 12 years prior to his arrival, the lions made the playoffs 2 times and went 0-2.

 

So I ask again. If he wasnt able to elevate the lions, why would you want him here when we have a worse team than they do? 

So when it’s a Jets QB, the problem is the team and coaching around him. When it’s someone else, he’s part of the problem despite being subject to the same.

A lot of the difference is you don’t get to see it the other way around (namely, swap the Jets QBs with Stafford) to see the difference, or swap Stafford and someone who hasn’t been in a tragic scenario. 

He’s a good QB on a bad team with bad coaching. There aren’t many QBs who can overcome that, including Watson, Brees, and more. Easy to forget Brees QB’d his team to a losing record 4x in a 5 year window. 

Stafford isn’t my #1 choice, but not only we could do a lot worse, typically we do a lot worse. 

[Warfish]

37 minutes ago, Spoot-Face said:

Thanks for the responses, guys. Perhaps I'm just shooting too high, because the idea of Stafford just doesn't get my juices flowing. Like, at all.

If the plan were to trade for Stafford, and still draft a QB other than Fields or Wilson, with the intention of sitting them, then I guess I could live with a couple years of Stafford. But watching these Championship games just makes me eager to get a transformative, franchise-leading QB of our own, and Stafford isn't one of 'em.

No worries.  He doesn't really get my juices up either. 

Like my previous support (pre-Darnold) for signing Cousins, and my current support for trading for Watson, I would be "ok" with Stafford because he is a legit professional #1 NFL QB who can (and likely would) put up legit, normal, NFL passing numbers:  4,000+ yards, 65% comp., 25-30 TD, Hopefully under 15 INT's.

That is something we've seen literally once (Fitzmagic) in the past 20+ years.

I would strongly prefer Watson, who IS a top 5 elite NFL QB.  

And I'm fine with drafting a QB if JD and Saleh think a great one is available, but man, I AM tired of the Sanchez, Clemens, Geno, Darnold failures in doing so.  I really do not want to sit through another 3-4 year stretch of yet another bust QB in rounds 1-2, with the same old "needs time, and weapons" debates.

The thread only gave three options, so I ranked those three only.  Opening it up to all the options:

1. Trade 2021 #2, 2022 #1 (Seattle pick) and 2023 #1 for Watson

2. Trade a 2021 3rd and 2022 2nd for Stafford (yes, it's a lowball offer) or walk away.

3. Draft a rookie QB.......at #23 or in the 2nd.  Mac Jones, or Trask.  

4. Draft a rookie QB at #2, Fields.

5. Stick with Darnold.

6. If we have to, draft Wilson.  As noted elsewhere, I get a bad vibe there I cannot logically explain, and want no part of him.

[Prodigal Syndicate]

7 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

So when it’s a Jets QB, the problem is the team and coaching around him. When it’s someone else, he’s part of the problem despite being subject to the same.

A lot of the difference is you don’t get to see it the other way around (namely, swap the Jets QBs with Stafford) to see the difference, or swap Stafford and someone who hasn’t been in a tragic scenario. 

He’s a good QB on a bad team with bad coaching. There aren’t many QBs who can overcome that, including Watson, Brees, and more. Easy to forget Brees QB’d his team to a losing record 4x in a 5 year window. 

Stafford isn’t my #1 choice, but not only we could do a lot worse, typically we do a lot worse. 

We would still be a bad team with him is the point. He just isnt that good.

 

You want to give up a pick to go from terrible to slightly less bad?  Might as well just go sign Fitz again if that's the goal.

 

Also every season he hasnt had bad teams. That's a lie. He had a good team around him especially on 1 playoff run. He just choked in the playoffs like he always does.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Prodigal Syndicate said:

We would still be a bad team with him is the point. He just isnt that good.

 

You want to give up a pick to go from terrible to slightly less bad?  Might as well just go sign Fitz again if that's the goal.

 

You have no basis to say so, other than just saying so. 

Being on a bad Lions team does not equal he’d be in a bad situation anywhere because he’s on the team.

But go on believing it if it makes you feel better. It’s unlikely we’re going after him anyway, and he’s not my top choice. But he’s not my last choice either.

[Prodigal Syndicate]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

You have no basis to say so, other than just saying so. 

Being on a bad Lions team does not equal he’d be in a bad situation anywhere because he’s on the team.

But go on believing it if it makes you feel better. It’s unlikely we’re going after him anyway, and he’s not my top choice. But he’s not my last choice either.

You missed my edit, but saying he had bad teams every year is a straight up false statement.

 

He just choked when they made the playoffs. Because he isnt good.

[Bronx]

3 minutes ago, Prodigal Syndicate said:

Might as well just go sign Fitz again if that's the goal

Are you serious?

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Prodigal Syndicate said:

You missed my edit, but saying he had bad teams every year is a straight up false statement.

 

He just choked when they made the playoffs. Because he isnt good.

If you say so, it must be true

[Prodigal Syndicate]

1 minute ago, Bronx said:

Are you serious?

I mean, if people want a has been never was QB who only knows how to lose, why give up draft capital. You arent winning anything with either.

 

[Prodigal Syndicate]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If you say so, it must be true

Yes. How dare someone examine how a player played when he made the playoffs on a good team.