Would you be satisfied with Stafford's career for Josh?

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

To me it isn’t the topic - it is the OP dropping the thread and then disappearing.

 

If you ( @GunnerBill) started the thread - gave your opinions and then discussed it back and forth - the thread has meaning to you.  This poster in his last 5 posts - has started at least 3 threads and never once followed up or spoke again on it. 

 

 

Yea, I get that. I'm just saying I don't think this one as a topic in and of itself is a pointless discussion. 

[ILBillsfan]

yep, interesting tid bit that Stafford will the be the fastest QB to [pass for over 40,000 yards.

 

  If this was in the future for Allen I would be more than impressed.  Not there yet but hopefully the arrow starts moving up more

[The Firebaugh Kid]

Win the whole thing. That's it. 

[Artem Lipatov]

40.000 yards = 10 years * 250ypg.   That's impressive for Josh with best series 8 games * 200 yards.

But I'd satisfied with 1 Super Bowl win rather than 40.000 yards.

 

When we speak about careers of   great Qbs, I know how many rings have Brady, Brees, Rotlisberger, Rodgers. And I don't know how many yards they have. 

Although I respect Stafford, Rivers, Ryan. Very good Qbs but without a ring their greatness is in doubt.

    

[C.Biscuit97]

Interesting question.  I think Stafford is good but there’s a ceiling there.  Allen is going to have a hard time reaching MS’s numbers but he could have more Ws.  

 

The problem with a guy like MS is you are going to pay him a ton money but he isn’t the guy to significantly affect winning consistently.  So while I’d love to have a franchise guy, MS is kinda the dividing line between elite and good.  But I’d sign up for Allen being MS good right now.

3 hours ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:

I'd take Stafford-level play. Can't put the Lions W-L record solely on his shoulders. If we had Stafford with the rest of our offense and this defense, then we would be squarely in the Super Bowl conversation. 

But part of the problem is his contract limits them.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

[prissythecat]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There is. But they don't know what they have until it is gone. Put Tyrod Taylor or Ryan Tannehill or anyone of that level on that offense the past 6 years and they would have been picking in the top 6 or 7 every single year. 

 

Thats fair.   But there seems to be a good chance that the Titans are going to go with Tannehill by this afternoon ?

[BigPappy]

11 hours ago, MJS said:

Stafford and Dalton are in the same category for me. Stats monsters who aren't winners.

 

I'd rather have a winner. Allen might have a lot of flaws, but he's a winner. When the chips are down he gets the job done.

BINGO!!! We have a winner here folks. Hit the nail on the head. Allen for sure has his flaws and as his game progresses he and the OC will be able to mitigate those in how they game plan for him. It will just take some time. What Allen has going for his is.... He's a Winner! When his team is down he lays it all out on the line to get it done, and I think that is why he is so loved and respected by his teammates and his coaches. He doesn't ask anything of anyone that he doesn't already expect from himself. And this i think is what is different about this team vs any other of our previous teams since JK retired. 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

To me rating QBs deserves a great deal of attention to situational awareness. Making plays on third/fourth down, Red zone, end of the half, and especially the fourth quarter. We've all seen the garbage time, prevent defense stats that look great in a box score. If you actually watch the game you go back and see a stinker performance got them in that position to start with.

 

I know W/L record has a huge team component to it, but if you really look at it, the greatest QBs impacted games and have won a lot of them.

 

I can't think of a position in sports that has any more to do with winning, giving somewhat adequate resources than QB....perhaps Goalies in Hockey. But, they can only keep the team in the game, eventually you need some offense to win.

 

For me, Stafford is a good QB, I want Allen to be great.

Edited October 15, 2019 by D. L. Hot-Flamethrower

[Antonio]

I´m good with Josh leading the team to wins. He can kepp trhowin for under 300 yards a game for the rest of his carrer and I would be ok, as long as he keeps playing his best when the game is on the line. 

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

 

For me, Stafford is a good QB, I want Allen to be great.

 

The same. But would I be satisfied with good for 10 years? Yes I suppose I would be satisfied. Especially if the Bills can keep a defense intact because that combination would make us contenders. 

[Mark80]

Stafford has been surrounded by horrendous talent his entire career.  Put him on a good team and I would love to see what he could do. 

 

He is not, nor has ever been, the problem for the Lions. 

 

If Allen can put up even close to his passing numbers, we are in for a wild 10+ years because I don't see Beane ever managing our talent on this roster so poorly as what Stafford has had to deal with.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 hours ago, PUNT750 said:

Over 11 seasons Matt Stafford  has passed for over 40,000+ yards with a completion percentage at 62.4%.  He's led the Lions to 4 winning seasons and 3 play-off appearances. 

If Josh Allen has similar stats in his career as a Buffalo Bill  what would your expectations be for the team??

 

I'm a little confused by this thread.  Are you asking whether Stafford's career numbers are great for a QB and we should be happy if Allen achieves them?

Or are you asking whether the Lions performance during Stafford's career is satisfactory and we should be happy if the Bills achieve them with Allen?

[Hebert19]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

This one is a sensible question though in fairness. The same question had struck me watching that games from last night. I will shut up now and let you enforce the rules. ☺️

 

Most 4th Quarter comebacks in the league since he was drafted. Top 10 all time. Not clutch? Hmmmm. The lack of playoff appearances are on his team. But if what you mean is you want Josh to be one of the very rare breed who can overcome a poor team around him then I absolutely agree that should be what we hope for. 

Comebacks in meaningless games vs comebacks when it matters.    I'm a georgia fan and I saw it while he was in college too.  

 

1 game...1 drive to make the playoffs...I take allen.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

15 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

Stafford has been surrounded by horrendous talent his entire career.  Put him on a good team and I would love to see what he could do. 

 

He is not, nor has ever been, the problem for the Lions. 

 

If Allen can put up even close to his passing numbers, we are in for a wild 10+ years because I don't see Beane ever managing our talent on this roster so poorly as what Stafford has had to deal with.

Calvin Johnson wasn't bad! Just sayin. They lacked a running game is the biggest issue.

[JohnBonhamRocks]

55 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Interesting question.  I think Stafford is good but there’s a ceiling there.  Allen is going to have a hard time reaching MS’s numbers but he could have more Ws.  

 

The problem with a guy like MS is you are going to pay him a ton money but he isn’t the guy to significantly affect winning consistently.  So while I’d love to have a franchise guy, MS is kinda the dividing line between elite and good.  But I’d sign up for Allen being MS good right now.

But part of the problem is his contract limits them.

 

I want the “problem” of having to pay a top QB.

[Numark3]

Matt Stanford’s stats plus Allen’s running ability and knack for winning equals a top 5 QB.  So yes

 

Stafford was clearly a top 6-10 qb at his prime.

[mushypeaches]

I've never seen Stafford as anything more than an accumulator.  You trot him out there for 16 games/year and the stat sheet shows some decent numbers but you're never thinking the guy is a winner or that he really elevates the play of the team as a whole.  Nor are you scared to face him as an opponent.

 

To me, he's the football equivalent of a guy like Harold Baines.  Never a top player in the league, but hangs around long enough to hit some numbers.  And don't get me started about Baines being in the HOF...

[Mark80]

16 minutes ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

Calvin Johnson wasn't bad! Just sayin. They lacked a running game is the biggest issue.

 

Of course Calvin was amazing.  I'm actually more referring to Oline and Defense.  Putting up stats in the passing game was never an issue.  Winning games is. 

[C.Biscuit97]

28 minutes ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:

 

I want the “problem” of having to pay a top QB.

Yeah but the issue is if they aren’t truly elite, you completely handcuff your team for years.  I want Allen to show he’s either the guy or clearly isn’t because it sucks to be stuck in the middle.

[John from Riverside]

They really are not the same type of QB....I dont care about the gaudy passing numbers I care about wins

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

They really are not the same type of QB....I dont care about the gaudy passing numbers I care about wins

 

Do you not think? I think there are some similarities. They are not the exact same guy but they have some similar traits. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I found myself asking that same question watching the MNF on the train this morning. The fact is that Matt Stafford has not been the problem on the Lions in any of his seasons there. In fact there have been years where the only good thing on the Lions has been Matt Stafford. But I still put him in the category of the guy who could win when you put the right pieces around him. My ideal scenario for Allen is that he ends up in that more transcendent category where he makes all the guys around him better. Those guys are few and far between - I acknowledge that - but if you have one you are going to be a Superbowl contender most years. 

 

A Matt Stafford career would not be a disappointment though. Josh and Stafford have some similarities: they were low completion % guys in college; they throw off bad platforms more often than you'd consider ideal; they are both prone to a bit of hero ball; they both seem to play their best in the 4th Quarter when the game is on the line (I believe Stafford has the most 4th Qrtr comeback wins of any QB since he entered the league and is in the top 10 all time).

 

Stafford's record against teams with a winning record would be a worry and something you would want Josh to be better at but again I don't think that record is on Stafford so much as it is on some of the incompetent teams that have been put around him. As others have said, Matt Stafford with this Bills defense is a Superbowl contender. If the Bills can keep good defences around Josh (and with McDermott here they have a chance to do that) then a Stafford like career might result in a ring or two.  

 

I'll start here, because now we can go 2 for 2 on "very good QB we disagree about".  I'll put my bottom line up front: despite his gaudy passing numbers, Stafford has never been a complete QB who is able to take what the defense gives him and who prioritizes taking care of the ball highly enough.  He's been a QB who will keep you from sucking, but who isn't quite good enough to take you to the top.  Now is that on him, or is that more on his coaches and FO?  Good question.

 

Let's start with where I think we will agree: the problem with the Lions has been the Lions.  During Stafford's 10 year career there (11 years, but 1 season lost to injury) they have had a top-10 defense (points or yards) 1x.  They have had a top-half defense 4x.  Not coincidentally, 3 of those 4x are the years they saw playoffs.  They've had good players on defense, too, they just haven't managed to put it all together.  I can speculate as to what the issue might be, but I don't want to divert there.

 

Matt Stafford checks all the boxes to be a QB one can win with, given a decent team.   He's also my Exhibit B about why a franchise QB is not sufficient to build a team. To the OPs question, in general if Allen had career stats similar to Matt Stafford I'd be almost happy with him, but if the Bills have the Lions record with those stats I'd be extremely disappointed, because it would mean the Bills are not succeeding at putting in enough other pieces at coaching and defense to make the Bills a successful team.   But the two may be related.

 

With Stafford, the Lions have a big, strong-armed QB who can really sling it.  He has been top-5 in the league for passing yards 4x and top 10 an additional 3x. During those season, no surprise that the Lions have usually been scraping the bottom in rush attempts and rush yards.  And when you have a one-dimensional team, it's inevitable that some teams D will effectively shut down the pass, and the QB will rack up the picks as he tries to force something to happen.  Stafford led the league in picks as a rookie, and has been in the top 10 for turnovers 3x.

 

It's no coincidence that all three years the Lions have gone to the Playoffs with Stafford, they've been in the bottom third on TO.

There's a chicken-and-egg question here: Is the Lions offense so traditionally pass-heavy because Stafford has never had a rush game to depend upon, or have the Lions seldom had much of a rush game because Stafford has never developed (or been pushed to develop) as a complete QB?  I don't know the answer to that.  The Lions have used 10 picks on RB during Staffords time there, including a 1st, 3 2nds, and a bunch of later round picks, and not gotten much ROI.

 

So now the Lions have a HC who believes in a balanced attack and despises turnovers.  I think this may be the second year that Stafford is uninjured and he isn't headed for top 10 in passing yards (last year was the other.  I don't think that's a coincidence).  They are running a much more balanced offensive attack.  It will be interesting to see if Stafford can take a step and develop as more of a complete QB.  People use "game manager" as a pejorative, but the other side of it is just smart football: take what the D gives you.

[John from Riverside]

43 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Do you not think? I think there are some similarities. They are not the exact same guy but they have some similar traits. 

I just think Allen is far more atheltic.....a multi threat

 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I just think Allen is far more atheltic.....a multi threat

 

 

Allen is a better runner, for sure. Stafford is not athletic though. 

[Realist]

If Josh had career stats like Stafford as far as Yards, TDs, INTs, Completion %..absolutely I would take that, as long as we have our defense, coaches, and front office. With those stats and the other things all in place, Allen would definitely be leading us to the playoffs often and possibly Superbowl.

[Seven-N-Nine]

You don't trade up to draft a QB in the 1st round and settle for no SB appearances.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'll start here, because now we can go 2 for 2 on "very good QB we disagree about".  I'll put my bottom line up front: despite his gaudy passing numbers, Stafford has never been a complete QB who is able to take what the defense gives him and who prioritizes taking care of the ball highly enough.  He's been a QB who will keep you from sucking, but who isn't quite good enough to take you to the top.  Now is that on him, or is that more on his coaches and FO?  Good question.

 

Let's start with where I think we will agree: the problem with the Lions has been the Lions.  During Stafford's 10 year career there (11 years, but 1 season lost to injury) they have had a top-10 defense (points or yards) 1x.  They have had a top-half defense 4x.  Not coincidentally, 3 of those 4x are the years they saw playoffs.  They've had good players on defense, too, they just haven't managed to put it all together.  I can speculate as to what the issue might be, but I don't want to divert there.

 

Matt Stafford checks all the boxes to be a QB one can win with, given a decent team.   He's also my Exhibit B about why a franchise QB is not sufficient to build a team. To the OPs question, in general if Allen had career stats similar to Matt Stafford I'd be almost happy with him, but if the Bills have the Lions record with those stats I'd be extremely disappointed, because it would mean the Bills are not succeeding at putting in enough other pieces at coaching and defense to make the Bills a successful team.   But the two may be related.

 

With Stafford, the Lions have a big, strong-armed QB who can really sling it.  He has been top-5 in the league for passing yards 4x and top 10 an additional 3x. During those season, no surprise that the Lions have usually been scraping the bottom in rush attempts and rush yards.  And when you have a one-dimensional team, it's inevitable that some teams D will effectively shut down the pass, and the QB will rack up the picks as he tries to force something to happen.  Stafford led the league in picks as a rookie, and has been in the top 10 for turnovers 3x.

 

It's no coincidence that all three years the Lions have gone to the Playoffs with Stafford, they've been in the bottom third on TO.

There's a chicken-and-egg question here: Is the Lions offense so traditionally pass-heavy because Stafford has never had a rush game to depend upon, or have the Lions seldom had much of a rush game because Stafford has never developed (or been pushed to develop) as a complete QB?  I don't know the answer to that.  The Lions have used 10 picks on RB during Staffords time there, including a 1st, 3 2nds, and a bunch of later round picks, and not gotten much ROI.

 

So now the Lions have a HC who believes in a balanced attack and despises turnovers.  I think this may be the second year that Stafford is uninjured and he isn't headed for top 10 in passing yards (last year was the other.  I don't think that's a coincidence).  They are running a much more balanced offensive attack.  It will be interesting to see if Stafford can take a step and develop as more of a complete QB.  People use "game manager" as a pejorative, but the other side of it is just smart football: take what the D gives you.

 

I don't disagree with much of that actually. We end up in the same place. The bolded is pretty much exactly what I said. But I think the reason their run game has sucked is they have had a below par oline for as long as I can remember and their running backs have pretty much sucked. They drafted Javid Best who sucked and then got hurt. Reggie Bush had a nice season there before he fell off physically and then they drafted Abdullah which was another bad pick. 

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, mushypeaches said:

  And don't get me started about Baines being in the HOF...

Deal!

[Pokebball]

1 hour ago, Mark80 said:

Stafford has been surrounded by horrendous talent his entire career.  Put him on a good team and I would love to see what he could do. 

 

He is not, nor has ever been, the problem for the Lions. 

 

If Allen can put up even close to his passing numbers, we are in for a wild 10+ years because I don't see Beane ever managing our talent on this roster so poorly as what Stafford has had to deal with.

Is the talent on the Lions a result of it being Detroit?  And does Buffalo have a similar challenge?  I'd say yes.  Obviously the owners, GMs and organizations all are factors.  But holding those other factors equal among all locations, Buffalo has the same challenge in attracting talent that Detroit does.  I want the best talent Buffalo can get, but Buffalo will always struggle with getting enough talent to regularly compete for the Super Bowl.  There will always be more attractive locations to play at.

 

[Victory Formation]

No, I would not be satisfied. I think Allen is a winner, Stafford is not.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

20 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't disagree with much of that actually. We end up in the same place. The bolded is pretty much exactly what I said. But I think the reason their run game has sucked is they have had a below par oline for as long as I can remember and their running backs have pretty much sucked. They drafted Javid Best who sucked and then got hurt. Reggie Bush had a nice season there before he fell off physically and then they drafted Abdullah which was another bad pick. 

 

Yeah like I said, there's a Chicken-Egg question.  They invested the draft picks (I was surprised to look it up, and see how many).  They got very poor ROI.

But is that in part, because they didn't prioritize the run game enough as a whole to get that ROI ( O-line, run game coordinator, suitable playcalls for the style of runner they had)?  Is it because Stafford was not coached to restrain his "never saw a pass I can't make" hero-ball gene and hand off?  All of the above?

 

Don't know, just know it's probably not a successful strategy. 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yeah like I said, there's a Chicken-Egg question.  They invested the draft picks (I was surprised to look it up, and see how many).  They got very poor ROI.

But is that in part, because they didn't prioritize the run game enough as a whole to get that ROI ( O-line, run game coordinator, suitable playcalls for the style of runner they had)?  Is it because Stafford was not coached to restrain his "never saw a pass I can't make" hero-ball gene and hand off?  All of the above?

 

Don't know, just know it's probably not a successful strategy. 

 

It is because they have drafted bad running backs and below par OLinemen. 

[Cripple Creek]

6 hours ago, prissythecat said:

There is a nickname that people in Detroit have used for Stafford:  “Stat Padford”.    

How, exactly, does a QB pad their stats? 

 

Do you think that he purposefully falls behind so he has to throw late?

Is he responsible for the (lack of) running game for various seasons?

Is he responsible for the defense?

Is he responsible for ST lapses?

 

In other words, if you do know people in Detroit, and they do refer to him in that way then they are idiots. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

It is because they have drafted bad running backs and below par OLinemen. 

 

True enough, but superficial.  If something is a priority, teams prioritize it.

 

Example: Bills under Rex/Roman.  By damn, they were gonna have a run game.  In case an aging FredEx and draft choice Karlos Williams didn't do it for them, they signed Boobie Dixon and Mike Gilleslee, then traded for LeSean Mccoy.

 

2nd Example: this year's Bills.  Improving the OL was a big priority.  In addition to drafting an OLman high in the 2nd, look at the pile o' FA we brought in.

 

Maybe the Lions did all that, I don't follow them enough to know.  But when a team stays bad in one area so consistently for so long, it usually implies something systematic beyond bad luck on draft day (or even bad draft e v a l).

 

 

[Nextmanup]

15 hours ago, PUNT750 said:

Over 11 seasons Matt Stafford  has passed for over 40,000+ yards with a completion percentage at 62.4%.  He's led the Lions to 4 winning seasons and 3 play-off appearances. 

If Josh Allen has similar stats in his career as a Buffalo Bill  what would your expectations be for the team??

Around the time leading up to Allen's draft, one of the QB talking heads made a specific comparison between Josh Allen and Stafford, arguing that Stafford represented the upside/ceiling of Allen's career.  Just his opinion of course, but I remember that one very well.

 

At the time, I was disappointed with the comparison, wanting more.

 

 

 

 

 

[RoyBatty is alive]

No.

 

Josh is very raw and needs a lot of work but he has an incredibly high ceiling.  He appears to have  a solid owner, HC and GM behind him. He needs to reach for the ceiling.

 

Watching the Lions over the past years almost as dreadful as the Bills.

 

I want a super bowl appearance which means we have also conquered the Pats dominance.

[Nextmanup]

1 minute ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

No.

 

Josh is very raw and needs a lot of work but he has an incredibly high ceiling.  He appears to have  a solid owner, HC and GM behind him. He needs to reach for the ceiling.

 

Watching the Lions over the past years almost as dreadful as the Bills.

 

I want a super bowl appearance which means we have also conquered the Pats dominance.

How long do you expect Josh to get in order to work out his "Rawness" ?

 

At this point in his career, EJ Manuel was already finished as the Bill's starting QB.

 

IMO we should know who Josh is at the end of this season.  It's not going to change dramatically from that.

 

 

[JohnBonhamRocks]

2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Yeah but the issue is if they aren’t truly elite, you completely handcuff your team for years.  I want Allen to show he’s either the guy or clearly isn’t because it sucks to be stuck in the middle.

 

I think Stafford is an elite QB who has been saddled with a tough environment; it’s been the Lions’ lack of defense and run game that has handcuffed them. 

[Mat68]

No.  He is Qb purgatory.  Good numbers, Tds, big plays.  No real defining win.  Seems he always just falls short.