Jump to content

Would adding Matthew Stafford make an already good team a Super Bowl contender?


notthatbluestuff

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Forge said:

Let's not turn this into a Goff thread. Everyone knows we've had enough of those and fairly recently too. 

Let’s also recognize LAR can’t move on from him to be a player in this market.   If Big Ben returns same deal in PIT.   Teams in position for 1 of the top 3 QB won’t bid.  Mia is either keeping Tua or making a move for Watson (same with NYJ except they can pick QB at 1.2 or improbably keep Darnold and amass more picks by trading back).    And those who aren’t yet in a window to contend won’t bid for a guy in his age-33 season next year.  
 

So in all likelihood SF, IND & DEN would all be interested. Stafford would improve SF / IND significantly.    He would be a massive upgrade in DEN and we have the OL to protect him (finally) and weapons to leverage his skills.    Our CB and DL need work.   But with a last place schedule 10W is not hard to see.   GM Paton is not as tied to Lock as Elway was - and Elway himself as VP said Paton makes the final call on all decisions.  And 2x Paton failed to endorse Lock as the 2021 starter.  So this got a lot more interesting.  
 

DEN is only going to bid with 1.9 though only if his medical reports say that he can be at peak level of play for the next 4-5 years.   You’re not spending 1.9 for a 2-year temp fix but looking at your 5-year solution. At age 33 that’s very possible - the back and now rib injuries need to be cleared so there’s not a more worrisome issue present (esp back).    IND won’t care as much as their win now window is wide open (whereas DEN would be just starting to open - why we need 4-5 years to bank on).
 

Indy will set the floor with 1.21 plus other picks.  It’s up to Den/SF to see if that cost is worth beating.  

Edited by Broncofan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 49ersfan said:

Or he thinks that challenging Goff will make him work that much harder this off-season to prove him wrong. We'll see what happens over the next few months.

12 minutes ago, Forge said:

Let's not turn this into a Goff thread. Everyone knows we've had enough of those and fairly recently too. 

Back on the topic of Stafford, I was looking at Stafford's passing TD shares during his prime in Detroit, and they're insane. His passing TD share was much lower this year at 61.4%, but between 2015 and 2019, they were in the range of 66.7% to 82.5% (with an average of 75.3% over those five years). That's insane. Yes, Detroit's poor running game played a big role, but that also demonstrates that he benefited greatly from situational play-calling.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Or he thinks that challenging Goff will make him work that much harder this off-season to prove him wrong. We'll see what happens over the next few months.

Back on the topic of Stafford, I was looking at Stafford's passing TD shares during his prime in Detroit, and they're insane. His passing TD share was much lower this year at 61.4%, but between 2015 and 2019, they were in the range of 66.7% to 82.5% (with an average of 75.3% over those five years). That's insane. Yes, Detroit's poor running game played a big role, but that also demonstrates that he benefited greatly from situational play-calling.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but weren't those comments made post-game after the loss to the Packers? I don't think McVay's immediate thought after a tough loss is to motivate his QB for the next year. To me, it seems like venting frustration. 

As for Stafford....the Lions have been an AWFUL organisation for decades. Stafford has his shortcomings but you put him in LA or SF and they're SB contenders. I don't think LA or SF will win the SB with Goff or Garapollo, so if either can get Stafford, they should.

 

Edited by 49ersfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 49ersfan said:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but weren't those comments made post-game after the loss to the Packers? I don't think McVay's immediate thought after a tough loss is to motivate his QB for the next year. To me, it seems like venting frustration. 

No, the evaluation comment was made the next day.

Quote

As for Stafford....the Lions have been an AWFUL organisation for decades. Stafford has his shortcomings but you put him in LA or SF and they're SB contenders. I don't think LA or SF will win the SB with Goff or Garapollo, so if either can get Stafford, they should.

Stafford doesn't move the needle for us. And unlike Stafford, Goff has actually delivered in the post-season. It makes plenty of sense for the 49ers because Garoppolo can't stay healthy. But we don't need a less durable QB than Goff who might be slightly better but also could be worse depending on the versions of Stafford and Goff that play next year. And that becomes even more true when you consider that Goff is entering the window for a pocket passer's prime, whereas Stafford is entering the twilight of his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but it would have to be an already elite roster.

I'm talking like Top 5 defense, good weapons, solid o-line, good coaches, etc.

That's not really a knock on Stafford, by the way.

But I really only think truly elite QB's like Mahomes, Brady and Rodgers can take an average-slightly above average roster and make them a SB contender.

Any other QB will need a top tier roster.

Edited by Bolts223
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the team i  can see him improving a team enough to be finals bound that already has the pieces to be be successful but dont have a good qb like colts, steelers (if big ben retires), 49ers (if they stay healthy), redskins. His not good enough to make a team like jets playoff bound. 

How he plays in playoffs is a different story his only been to postseason 3 times in 12 years and lost all 3. Is he going to be good enough to get u so a sb i just dont know. 

Saying all that i would love him on my 49ers he is a huge improvement over jimmy g and it be worth the risk if the cost is too high. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

No, the evaluation comment was made the next day.

Stafford doesn't move the needle for us. And unlike Stafford, Goff has actually delivered in the post-season. It makes plenty of sense for the 49ers because Garoppolo can't stay healthy. But we don't need a less durable QB than Goff who might be slightly better but also could be worse depending on the versions of Stafford and Goff that play next year. And that becomes even more true when you consider that Goff is entering the window for a pocket passer's prime, whereas Stafford is entering the twilight of his career.

I think you're better off with Stafford. You wana stick with Goff, your NFC rivals are thankful.

Edited by 49ersfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 49ersfan said:

I think you're better off with Stafford. You wana stick with Goff, your NFC rivals are thankful.

No, I'm quite okay with moving on from Goff under the right circumstances. Deshaun Watson is an example of those sort of circumstances. Stafford isn't. It's shortsighted thinking. It's fan thinking. But you're welcome to be thankful.

Let's say we trade Goff and acquire Stafford. Considering the price tag being floated, even if we acquired a first for Goff, it would cost that and more for Stafford. Basically, at best, we break even in draft compensation. At worst, we give up more than we get. And then we also acquire about $8 million in excess cap after trading Goff and trading for Stafford. That puts us in an even bigger cap crunch. Basically, we're trading for a QB who isn't guaranteed to be better than the one we're trading away, is more injury prone, is much older, and leaves us with less resources to improve the team.

No thank you. Stafford doesn't move the needle for us.

Edited by jrry32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2021 at 6:26 AM, jrry32 said:

 

Stafford doesn't move the needle for us. And unlike Stafford, Goff has actually delivered in the post-season. It makes plenty of sense for the 49ers because Garoppolo can't stay healthy. But we don't need a less durable QB than Goff who might be slightly better but also could be worse depending on the versions of Stafford and Goff that play next year. And that becomes even more true when you consider that Goff is entering the window for a pocket passer's prime, whereas Stafford is entering the twilight of his career.

Eesh, you're not happy today then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

That bad!?

What is it, because the gap in class is negligible or non-existant, or due to the picks or all of it? 

All of it. It would take a long post to explain why I am so angry. The short version is that I very nearly quit rooting for the Rams when they dumped Kurt Warner all those years ago. I felt they did him wrong and were wrong to do what they did. That happened two years after we played for the Super Bowl. Well, two years after we played for our most recent Super Bowl, history has repeated itself.

I felt very optimistic about our future. I felt we had an extended window. I felt that Goff could turn it around if pushed and given a chance. I felt that we could build a team around him that could compete next year. I felt that if Goff failed next year, we would have the draft capital to try and find our Mahomes. I felt the only guy worth going all in on this offseason was Deshaun Watson. He's young and a guy who has MVP potential. I felt that Stafford was better than Goff in 2020 but not a massive upgrade and has a history of shrinking in big games and moments. The Rams made a trade that basically goes all in on Stafford winning them a Super Bowl in the next couple of years. And I think that's a massive mistake. I won't bore you with additional details. I am very frustrated that they did this. It comes off like McVay got angry at Goff and made this move out of anger and frustration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2021 at 7:10 AM, JonMcC2018 said:

That's kind of missing the point.

Stafford is without doubt nothing more than a decent-to-average starting NFL quarterback, and has been somewhere in that 10-20 range his whole career. Not elite, not a 'franchise' type quarterback, but probably a good option on a team with lots of talent and solid coaching around him.

The issue is definitively saying that he is the type of guy who could never get to the Super Bowl, because in the right situation he absolutely could. And it would have a lot less to do with his 'mental toughness for the big game' and much more to do with having a good team around him, being coached well, getting some luck in the playoffs and staying injury free. I mean Blake freaking Bortles was one bad call away from being in the Super Bowl three years ago!

Stafford is not one I would categorize as elite but I think he is a franchise QB.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...