Matthew Stafford and Lions agree to new deal

[roysmyboy31]

Expected that.  He makes their whole offense go.  And showed a lot having the year he had without a top flight #1 like Megatron.  

[Soko]

That's...a lot. 

After what I'd call a career year (maybe not statistically across the board, but given the context and efficiency), I wouldn't exactly call this a surprise. Post-Megatron has been positive so far, but I'm not 100% sure he's worth that - then again, deals like this are hardly ever viewed that way in the beginning. 

Where does this leave the Lions cap wise? My off-hand memory says they don't have a lot of huge contracts on the books. Slay, Ziggy, and Tate/Jones are the only guys I can think of that are making a decent chunk of change.

[deltarich87]

 

[Lions017]

Good. Stafford is probably a Top 10 QB. In a couple of years when some of the other top guys have retired and a few others have signed new deals, this contract should actually look pretty good, especially with how the salary cap keeps going up. 

[Xmad]

56 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Stafford is closer to elite than he is to Flacco.

Flacco has nothing to do with this....? 

[TitanLegend]

49 minutes ago, IDOG_det said:

Happens when you take over for the worst team in history that was incapable of building a defense, offensive line, or stable of running backs.

 

 

This is huge for the Lions, honestly. This won't really have a negative impact on their cap space because they were already basically paying him this much to begin with. If this reduces his cap hit this year (convert salary to bonus), this could open up the opportunity for the Lions to trade for a player like Sheldon Richardson, who would provide a much needed boost to this teams embarrassing pass rush. And, if they don't open up extra cap space this year, that leaves additional room to sign some of the other players on the roster such as Ezekiel Ansah, Travis Swanson, Nevin Lawson, Tahir Whitehead, and potentially even someone like Greg Robinson if he continues to impress.

That excuse honestly only works for so long. Guys like Winston and Mariota who took over for garbage teams already have 3 and 5 wins respectively over teams with winning records and they took over at QB for pretty putrid teams. Carr already has 7 3 years in to taking over what was one of the worst franchises of the last decade.

8 years in with only 5 wins over winning teams is just so insanely bad it's almost unbelievable. The Lions talent since 2011ish hasn't been THAT bad.

I like Stafford, but that number is seriously worrying.

[IDOG_det]

19 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

That's...a lot. 

After what I'd call a career year (maybe not statistically across the board, but given the context and efficiency), I wouldn't exactly call this a surprise. Post-Megatron has been positive so far, but I'm not 100% sure he's worth that - then again, deals like this are hardly ever viewed that way in the beginning. 

Where does this leave the Lions cap wise? My off-hand memory says they don't have a lot of huge contracts on the books. Slay, Ziggy, and Tate/Jones are the only guys I can think of that are making a decent chunk of change.

Should actually open up about $5 million in cap space this year. Waiting on further details on future years, but it won't be too different from what they've already been dealing with the past few years.

[Shanedorf]

Stafford was one of the last bonus babies - he got a $ 42 million bonus as the top pick and now another $ 50 million bonus to sandwich his career

Here's the article on Stafford from 2009 when he was first drafted and how his deal led toward the changes that came for rookies in the 2011 CBA

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/matthew-stafford-contract-lions-root-rookie-wage-dilemma-article-1.361831

"Stafford is a lucky guy. He might be the last overall No. 1 pick in the last draft the NFL conducts without a system that limits the money that goes to rookies and redirects it to veterans if commissioner Roger Goodell gets his way in the upcoming collective bargaining negotiations."

[IDOG_det]

1 minute ago, TitanLegend said:

That excuse honestly only works for so long. Guys like Winston and Mariota who took over for garbage teams already have 3 and 5 wins respectively over teams with winning records and they took over at QB for pretty putrid teams. Carr already has 7 3 years in to taking over what was one of the worst franchises of the last decade.

8 years in with only 5 wins over winning teams is just so insanely bad it's almost unbelievable. The Lions talent since 2011ish hasn't been THAT bad.

I like Stafford, but that number is seriously worrying.

He took over the literal worst team in NFL history. And he managed to increase their win total too, taking them to the playoffs multiple times. Guys like Winston and Mariota have helped their teams but they've also been fortunate enough to land on teams that have been able to add talent around them. Using "QB wins" to evaluate a quarterback is ridiculous, it's lazy, it's inaccurate, and it's annoying. Look beyond one meaningless stat and try to actually see the reality of the situation.

And yes, the talent since 2011 has been THAT bad. Go take a look at the teams that were put together. They aren't too pretty.

[TheVillain112]

Lions were in a tough spot with Stafford being the last of the mega-rich rookie contracts.  They overpaid, but his title of having the richest contract in the NFL will last all of one season (if that).  Kind of a lose-lose situation for the Lions with Staffords contract...

[MrOaktown_56]

14 minutes ago, OleXmad said:

Flacco has nothing to do with this....? 

Quote

 

Welcome to salary cap Hell, Enjoy the stay while you watch all your good players leave in FA and your QB do just enough to say "Maybe next year" 

 

When good quarterbacks get extended, they can compensate for the lack of cap space on some level. At worst, stafford is a borderline top 10 guy and just took the Lions to the playoffs. It's an inevitability that he would get paid and at least he deserves the paycheck he gets and should show that he deserves it in the years to come.

 

If Rodgers got a 5 year 160 million deal, I wouldn't say "welcome to cap hell". Stafford is closer to Rodgers deal than he is to one like Flacco, where he put his team in "cap hell" by not doing close to enough to justify his deal.

[TitanLegend]

9 minutes ago, IDOG_det said:

He took over the literal worst team in NFL history. And he managed to increase their win total too, taking them to the playoffs multiple times. Guys like Winston and Mariota have helped their teams but they've also been fortunate enough to land on teams that have been able to add talent around them. Using "QB wins" to evaluate a quarterback is ridiculous, it's lazy, it's inaccurate, and it's annoying. Look beyond one meaningless stat and try to actually see the reality of the situation.

And yes, the talent since 2011 has been THAT bad. Go take a look at the teams that were put together. They aren't too pretty.

So you're telling me the Lions roster has been just good enough for them to dominate non-winning record teams(.710 winning percentage in those games, 8th best in the league), but the gap between their roster and winning teams rosters is so big they can only manage 5 wins? Something ain't adding up there bro.

It certainly isn't and I'm not implying it's all Stafford's fault, but there's an issue somewhere in there. I'm not sure any other QB in modern NFL history who has started the same number of games as STafford could claim a record that bad vs winning teams. I mean all he/the Lions have to do is win games against 9-7 teams. It's not asking him to beat the Pats 20 times.

And yes using wins solely to evaluate QB play is bad, but you're kidding yourself if you don't believe that the biggest difference in wins or losses in todays game is QB play. If you don't have a good QB or an absolutely top tier defense, you aren't winning football games. QBs are supposed to elevate their teams. Especially QBs who get paid like this.

[IDOG_det]

3 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said:

Lions were in a tough spot with Stafford being the last of the mega-rich rookie contracts.  They overpaid, but his title of having the richest contract in the NFL will last all of one season (if that).  Kind of a lose-lose situation for the Lions with Staffords contract...

I don't get how it's a lose-lose. It sucked early on when they were also stuck paying huge salaries to Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh, but now that he's the only significant contract the cap situation is actually really good for the Lions. They get the deal done now and they only have a few free agents to worry about next year. Ezekiel Ansah can be tagged now that Stafford is signed, pretty much leaving Travis Swanson, Nevin Lawson, and Matt Prater as the only significant free agents for them next offseason. The Lions have a ton of cap room next year as well, so signing Stafford won't come close to preventing them from re-signing anyone or going into free agency and grabbing a few good players.

[Xmad]

14 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

When good quarterbacks get extended, they can compensate for the lack of cap space on some level. At worst, stafford is a borderline top 10 guy and just took the Lions to the playoffs. It's an inevitability that he would get paid and at least he deserves the paycheck he gets and should show that he deserves it in the years to come.

 

If Rodgers got a 5 year 160 million deal, I wouldn't say "welcome to cap hell". Stafford is closer to Rodgers deal than he is to one like Flacco, where he put his team in "cap hell" by not doing close to enough to justify his deal.

Uh huh. Stafford's a good QB and he got paid, but until the lions surround him with enough talent to actually win a playoff game he "won't live up to the deal" I still don't get how Flacco or even Rodgers is relevant to the Lions ability to manage the cap and surround Stafford with talent but ok. 

I'd put my money on Stafford playing well, but never really doing much in the post-season because of the lions consistent failure to surround him with the talent to win. 

 

[IDOG_det]

2 minutes ago, TitanLegend said:

It certainly isn't and I'm not implying it's all Stafford's fault, but there's an issue somewhere in there. I'm not sure any other QB in modern NFL history who has started the same number of games as STafford could claim a record that bad vs winning teams. I mean all he/the Lions have to do is win games against 9-7 teams. It's not asking him to beat the Pats 20 times.

They struggle against good teams because they can't hold a lead, not because they struggle to get a lead in the first place. When they get a lead against a good team, the defense blows it (they have been hovering near historically bad for a while). If by some miracle the defense doesn't blow it, the offense can't put together long, time consuming drives at the end of the game by running the ball because their offensive lines have been bad and their running backs have either been bad or on the sideline injured. Which, in turn, just means the other teams offense gets a shot to take the lead back against a garbage defense (happens often). Their strategy is more successful vs bad teams because those offenses sometimes make the Lions defense not look like garbage. They can win against the not-so-great teams because they limit the number of possessions in order to hide the defense and keep games close until the end. The Lions have been pretty notorious for their "slow starts" because they are literally getting off to a slow start to every game. They are intentionally going slow to reduce the number of possessions each game, which means the drives at the end of the game have the chance to tie it up or even take the lead because the other team simply hasn't had enough time to outpace the Lions offense. That's why the Lions implemented an even greater focus on the short passing game this year. High % chance to complete equals longer drives, which equals less drives, which gives them a chance at the end of the game. At the end of games, they rely on Stafford to put together game winning drives (which he has done very well). It's easy to win against the bad teams when your offense can put the ball in your QB's hands at the end of the game and go get a score, especially when the opposing offense isn't as equipped to do the same. It's a little more difficult to win against the "middle of the pack" teams, yet the Lions have been fairly decent against them because Stafford has led game winning drives against them. It's very difficult to win against the good teams, because every time they go score to make it a closer game, the other team usually is able to score at will and take off as much time off the clock as they please. It's hard to win when you have to put up 30 points while simultaneously trying to reduce the number of drives to reduce the total points scored against you to give yourself a chance to win at the end of the game.

The Lions don't have a bad record against winning teams because of Stafford, but they do have a solid record against bad teams because of him. And if you knew like...anything beneath the surface about this team it would be pretty obvious.