Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

CJ or Staff? Whos more important to the success of the Lions
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Detroit Lions
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Whos more important to the Lions success?
Matt Stafford
64%
 64%  [ 18 ]
Calvin Johnson
35%
 35%  [ 10 ]
Total Votes : 28

Author Message
FootballPhreak


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 35229
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
FootballPhreak wrote:
I sure hope we hold Stafford to a higher standard than "Tony Romo". And I think we do, otherwise this thread would have no debate whatsoever. The answer would clearly be CJ.

If that is the standard we are holding him to, I want a new team to root for.

Eh. If it's CJ (which is clearly debatable), it's only because Hill is a far better backup QB than Durham is WR. We have absolutely terrible WR depth. That's the only reason.

I disagree. After watching Stafford without CJ earlier this year I am fully convinced that replacing Stafford with any ol' Joe on the street would effect this team less than replacing CJ with any ol' Joe off the streets. Has nothing to do with Hill or Durham as others have suggested.

We were flat, dead in the water without CJ earlier in the year. I recall CJ having some monster games (and the Lions winning)with Drew Stanton at the helm(Is he still in the league even? lol)
_________________
Draft_FanAddict wrote:
If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what would...a missing head?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
FootballPhreak wrote:
I sure hope we hold Stafford to a higher standard than "Tony Romo". And I think we do, otherwise this thread would have no debate whatsoever. The answer would clearly be CJ.

If that is the standard we are holding him to, I want a new team to root for.

Eh. If it's CJ (which is clearly debatable), it's only because Hill is a far better backup QB than Durham is WR. We have absolutely terrible WR depth. That's the only reason.

I disagree. After watching Stafford without CJ earlier this year I am fully convinced that replacing Stafford with any ol' Joe on the street would effect this team less than replacing CJ with any ol' Joe off the streets. Has nothing to do with Hill or Durham as others have suggested.

We were flat, dead in the water without CJ earlier in the year. I recall CJ having some monster games (and the Lions winning)with Drew Stanton at the helm(Is he still in the league even? lol)

I don't agree, mainly because I don't think it's that simple. Outside of CJ, we have terrible depth... not just "meh", but terrible. If we put a terrible QB behind center, Calvin wouldn't have the opportunity to do much at all, much like many teams with elite WRs and terrible QBs are limited offensively. That skews this comparison.

Not only did Stanton show that he's not terrible, here's Calvin's average stat line with Stanton as a starter: 5.25 receptions, 90 yards, .25 TDs. Those aren't the numbers of the "NFL's best WR".

When we didn't have Calvin against GB, and Stafford was forced to rely on Broyles, Edwards, Durham and Ogletree, he finished with a 62.5 completion percentage (25 for 40) for 262 yards with 1 TD and 0 INTs. With terrible WRs, he still performed well.

When we had a terrible QB, and Calvin on the roster, we set the record for consecutive losses. (Note: didn't we do that "any ol' Joe" thing with Calvin on the roster, bringing in Kitna, Stanton, Orlovsky, Culpepper, McCown and Henson? We were an absolutely terrible team during that stretch.)

Calvin is more talented, but Stafford is more valuable.
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballPhreak


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 35229
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
FootballPhreak wrote:
TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
FootballPhreak wrote:
I sure hope we hold Stafford to a higher standard than "Tony Romo". And I think we do, otherwise this thread would have no debate whatsoever. The answer would clearly be CJ.

If that is the standard we are holding him to, I want a new team to root for.

Eh. If it's CJ (which is clearly debatable), it's only because Hill is a far better backup QB than Durham is WR. We have absolutely terrible WR depth. That's the only reason.

I disagree. After watching Stafford without CJ earlier this year I am fully convinced that replacing Stafford with any ol' Joe on the street would effect this team less than replacing CJ with any ol' Joe off the streets. Has nothing to do with Hill or Durham as others have suggested.

We were flat, dead in the water without CJ earlier in the year. I recall CJ having some monster games (and the Lions winning)with Drew Stanton at the helm(Is he still in the league even? lol)

I don't agree, mainly because I don't think it's that simple. Outside of CJ, we have terrible depth... not just "meh", but terrible. If we put a terrible QB behind center, Calvin wouldn't have the opportunity to do much at all, much like many teams with elite WRs and terrible QBs are limited offensively. That skews this comparison.

Not only did Stanton show that he's not terrible, here's Calvin's average stat line with Stanton as a starter: 5.25 receptions, 90 yards, .25 TDs. Those aren't the numbers of the "NFL's best WR".

When we didn't have Calvin against GB, and Stafford was forced to rely on Broyles, Edwards, Durham and Ogletree, he finished with a 62.5 completion percentage (25 for 40) for 262 yards with 1 TD and 0 INTs. With terrible WRs, he still performed well.

When we had a terrible QB, and Calvin on the roster, we set the record for consecutive losses. (Note: didn't we do that "any ol' Joe" thing with Calvin on the roster, bringing in Kitna, Stanton, Orlovsky, Culpepper, McCown and Henson? We were an absolutely terrible team during that stretch.)

Calvin is more talented, but Stafford is more valuable.

So CJ was on pace for 84rec, 1440yds and 4TDs extrapolated with Stanton at the helm and you don't find that impactful or impressive in the slightest?

Stanton looked horrible out there yet CJ looked great - basically by your own admission with those numbers.

While I agree with most the facts stated, the opinion and premise concluded from those facts is beyond flawed. I disagree entirely. Most of it proves CJ is more important.
_________________
Draft_FanAddict wrote:
If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what would...a missing head?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
So CJ was on pace for 84rec, 1440yds and 4TDs extrapolated with Stanton at the helm and you don't find that impactful or impressive in the slightest?

Stanton looked horrible out there yet CJ looked great - basically by your own admission with those numbers.

While I agree with most the facts stated, the opinion and premise concluded from those facts is beyond flawed. I disagree entirely. Most of it proves CJ is more important.

Impressive? 5 receptions and 90 yards per game, with one TD every four games, to a receiver like Calvin Johnson? No, not impressive... not impressive at all. (And, no, Stanton did not look horrible out there. That isn't reasonable: there were many discussions with posters admitting that Stanton played well.)

As for the "more important" argument: eh, we wont budge. Without Stafford, I'm certain that we aren't a competitive team.
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Detroitlions703


Joined: 22 Dec 2008
Posts: 11315
Location: Michigan
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Im glad this got a lot of discussion and it sounds a lot like our argument.

For the record I said that CJ is more valuable than Stafford for many of the reasons stated. I trust Shaun Hill more to play with CJ than i do for our offense to play without Calvin. He does so much more than what shows up on the stat sheet (even though the stat sheet is filled up a ton too). Its not a knock on Stafford at all as I think he could be an elite QB every soon, its just that CJ is that good. During an 0-16 season where is was the only weapon (in his 2nd year and 1st full year mind you) he racked up ridiculous numbers with those tremendous qbs we had. Even with all defenses focused solely on him. He still does those things. On the flip side, Stafford inherited a terrible team and got a couple W's, all with the best WR in the game to throw too. Look at that year vs the previous winless Rams where Calvin happened to be too hurt to play. WE LOST AT HOME and the Rams finished 1-15. There has been very good growth since then but Stafford still cant beat the great teams. Next year this answer might change for me but right now I would tend to say that Calvin Johnson is more important to this team in terms of overall wins and success than Staff.
_________________
DontTazeMeBro wrote:
Oregon Ducks wrote:
Pats4ever wrote:
Hahaha. This team does not belong here
Mods, take care of this troll or I will.


Hold on mods. I wanna see where this goes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
DTOW


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 1248
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So CJ was on pace for 84rec, 1440yds and 4TDs extrapolated with Stanton at the helm and you don't find that impactful or impressive in the slightest?

Stanton looked horrible out there yet CJ looked great - basically by your own admission with those numbers.

While I agree with most the facts stated, the opinion and premise concluded from those facts is beyond flawed. I disagree entirely. Most of it proves CJ is more important.[/quote]

Whats the sample size? I really don't know just wondering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballPhreak


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 35229
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DTOW wrote:
Whats the sample size? I really don't know just wondering.

Well, I don't rightfully remember TBH. But in order for him to average "0.25TDs", he would have either had to have 1TD in 4 games or 2TDs in 8 games.

But the entire premise is flawed. Stanton came in originally cold, without a game plan for him, and with little to no chemistry between himself and CJ. Which means several things; you can't count it as a whole game, which it clearly was by the averages. And for any receiver to come in and put up the numbers CJ did, with a dud like Stanton at the helm, and no game plan to speak of, that receiver would have to be great.

Nobody spoke highly ill of Stanton because the standards were so low for him. We all expected very little of him. If Stafford performed today the way Stanton did then, there would be heads called for. All most expected from him was to "please not turn the ball over" And most of his good plays were with his legs. Many of his throws weren't even spirals. It would take a heck of a WR to make him look even decent....
_________________
Draft_FanAddict wrote:
If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what would...a missing head?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
DTOW wrote:
Whats the sample size? I really don't know just wondering.

Well, I don't rightfully remember TBH. But in order for him to average "0.25TDs", he would have either had to have 1TD in 4 games or 2TDs in 8 games.

But the entire premise is flawed. Stanton came in originally cold, without a game plan for him, and with little to no chemistry between himself and CJ. Which means several things; you can't count it as a whole game, which it clearly was by the averages. And for any receiver to come in and put up the numbers CJ did, with a dud like Stanton at the helm, and no game plan to speak of, that receiver would have to be great.

Nobody spoke highly ill of Stanton because the standards were so low for him. We all expected very little of him. If Stafford performed today the way Stanton did then, there would be heads called for. All most expected from him was to "please not turn the ball over" And most of his good plays were with his legs. Many of his throws weren't even spirals. It would take a heck of a WR to make him look even decent....

Those were the statistics over Stanton's career starts. And there was a thread dedicated to posters admitting that Stanton played well for 2 of his 3 starts that season, his worst game being a bad outing against GB where he drove the team down the field on the final drive to win it.

You brought Stanton into this. Not only was Stanton not horrible, but Calvin's numbers weren't impressive. The argument doesn't help you.

If we didn't have terrible WR depth, and a solid backup QB, losing Stafford would be devastating to this football team. I'd still rather lose Calvin over Stafford at this point: I'm not convinced we make the playoffs without Stafford under center.
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballPhreak


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 35229
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
FootballPhreak wrote:
DTOW wrote:
Whats the sample size? I really don't know just wondering.

Well, I don't rightfully remember TBH. But in order for him to average "0.25TDs", he would have either had to have 1TD in 4 games or 2TDs in 8 games.

But the entire premise is flawed. Stanton came in originally cold, without a game plan for him, and with little to no chemistry between himself and CJ. Which means several things; you can't count it as a whole game, which it clearly was by the averages. And for any receiver to come in and put up the numbers CJ did, with a dud like Stanton at the helm, and no game plan to speak of, that receiver would have to be great.

Nobody spoke highly ill of Stanton because the standards were so low for him. We all expected very little of him. If Stafford performed today the way Stanton did then, there would be heads called for. All most expected from him was to "please not turn the ball over" And most of his good plays were with his legs. Many of his throws weren't even spirals. It would take a heck of a WR to make him look even decent....

Those were the statistics over Stanton's career starts. And there was a thread dedicated to posters admitting that Stanton played well for 2 of his 3 starts that season, his worst game being a bad outing against GB where he drove the team down the field on the final drive to win it.

You brought Stanton into this. Not only was Stanton not horrible, but Calvin's numbers weren't impressive. The argument doesn't help you.

If we didn't have terrible WR depth, and a solid backup QB, losing Stafford would be devastating to this football team. I'd still rather lose Calvin over Stafford at this point: I'm not convinced we make the playoffs without Stafford under center.

Well I suppose we just have a difference in opinion then.

I consider a noodle armed QB that can barely throw a spiral unacceptable regardless of how many meaningless threads about that QB were posted. Somehow more threads dedicated to him doesn't make me feel any better about the performance of a QB whose only place in the NFL MIGHT be as a #3 unexpected to EVER see the field.

I also consider a WR capable of putting up numbers equivalent to 900+ yards for a season awful impressive with said noodle armed QB. And 1440 even moreso. Especially when that same WR is twice as good today.

I would say going against those opinions only hurts YOUR argument my friend. But you can go ahead and be satisfied with less than average and disappointed in nearly amazing. That is your right.

Of course you only use Stanton's career starts. Because it would require work to find the other games which CJ did odd things with the ugly QB that only hurts your lack of an argument.

And we don't make the playoffs without Stafford or CJ. Pretty weak argument. But I certainly believe we have a better chance with Ryan Leaf at QB and CJ at WR than we do with Stafford under center and Charles Rogers at WR.
_________________
Draft_FanAddict wrote:
If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what would...a missing head?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
TL-TwoWinsAway


Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 25771
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
Of course you only use Stanton's career starts. Because it would require work to find the other games which CJ did odd things with the ugly QB that only hurts your lack of an argument.

What? Do you know how ridiculous this is? I considered those other (two) games, and the averages were almost exactly the same (5 receptions, 90 yards, .33 TDs). Of course, you'd criticize the fact that they weren't complete games before knowing that, then criticize the lack of the incomplete games because they were complete games. It's sad: you could have checked for yourself instead of resorting to these negative comments.
_________________


Team Stylish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theuntouchable


Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 9373
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope. All of you are dead wrong.

The correct answer good sirs, is The Green Bay Packers. They alone determine the Lions fate and the outcome of every Lions game. Not just the Lions, the entire world. The entity known as the Green Bay Packers have the ever powerful gravitional pull from the almighty Aaron Rodgers with which determines the outcome of every living creature.

I once heard, and this is just rumors, but I once heard that Aaron Rodgers once mutterred the word "boom" and on that day the sun exploded and thus created "The Era of Light" that we now dwell within.
_________________

MathMan wrote:
anyone around?

I feel..so cold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FootballPhreak


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 35229
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TL-TwoWinsAway wrote:
FootballPhreak wrote:
Of course you only use Stanton's career starts. Because it would require work to find the other games which CJ did odd things with the ugly QB that only hurts your lack of an argument.

What? Do you know how ridiculous this is? I considered those other (two) games, and the averages were almost exactly the same (5 receptions, 90 yards, .33 TDs). Of course, you'd criticize the fact that they weren't complete games before knowing that, then criticize the lack of the incomplete games because they were complete games. It's sad: you could have checked for yourself instead of resorting to these negative comments.

Ignore the fact those numbers, if continued, would lead to a HOF career. And all the other points on Stanton as well. Not to mention you are extrapolating partial games as whole games now. If you extrapolated correctly to the minutes Stanton played it would lean even more heavily in my favor.

You picked out the one, the only thing, you thought you may have a miniscule chance of disproving, and come up empty....what are you to do now? It has just gotten sad at this point.

I am done here, I have made my point. While it does not prove/disprove with any certainty the main discussion, it is clear if CJ can do that with Stanton, years ago before he was as good as he is now, he certainly has a larger impact than some realized. It at least gives a bit more for people to think on that were siding on the Stafford side and only helps those of us that have watched this team struggle far more without CJ today than they do without Stafford today.

Have a wonderful day.
_________________
Draft_FanAddict wrote:
If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what would...a missing head?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
FootballPhreak


Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 35229
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theuntouchable wrote:
Nope. All of you are dead wrong.

The correct answer good sirs, is The Green Bay Packers. They alone determine the Lions fate and the outcome of every Lions game. Not just the Lions, the entire world. The entity known as the Green Bay Packers have the ever powerful gravitional pull from the almighty Aaron Rodgers with which determines the outcome of every living creature.

I once heard, and this is just rumors, but I once heard that Aaron Rodgers once mutterred the word "boom" and on that day the sun exploded and thus created "The Era of Light" that we now dwell within.

While I missed the thread leading up to this determination, I have always known this and I sincerely apologize to the all so holy Aaron for forgetting his magnitude across the known world. My apologies sir, it won't happen again Cool
_________________
Draft_FanAddict wrote:
If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what would...a missing head?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
DrRay11


Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Posts: 3313
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
theuntouchable wrote:
Nope. All of you are dead wrong.

The correct answer good sirs, is The Green Bay Packers. They alone determine the Lions fate and the outcome of every Lions game. Not just the Lions, the entire world. The entity known as the Green Bay Packers have the ever powerful gravitional pull from the almighty Aaron Rodgers with which determines the outcome of every living creature.

I once heard, and this is just rumors, but I once heard that Aaron Rodgers once mutterred the word "boom" and on that day the sun exploded and thus created "The Era of Light" that we now dwell within.

While I missed the thread leading up to this determination, I have always known this and I sincerely apologize to the all so holy Aaron for forgetting his magnitude across the known world. My apologies sir, it won't happen again Cool


It's over on NFL General, I believe. In paraphrase, the comment was that the Lions could go as far as the Packers let them.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theuntouchable


Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 9373
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FootballPhreak wrote:
theuntouchable wrote:
Nope. All of you are dead wrong.

The correct answer good sirs, is The Green Bay Packers. They alone determine the Lions fate and the outcome of every Lions game. Not just the Lions, the entire world. The entity known as the Green Bay Packers have the ever powerful gravitional pull from the almighty Aaron Rodgers with which determines the outcome of every living creature.

I once heard, and this is just rumors, but I once heard that Aaron Rodgers once mutterred the word "boom" and on that day the sun exploded and thus created "The Era of Light" that we now dwell within.

While I missed the thread leading up to this determination, I have always known this and I sincerely apologize to the all so holy Aaron for forgetting his magnitude across the known world. My apologies sir, it won't happen again Cool


Thank you. I only hope the one referred to as The Football Oracle in all texts throughout time could possibly find it within himself to forgive us for being ignorant and refrain from chastising us for our stupidity. If not for him, the world of football would have never made it.
_________________

MathMan wrote:
anyone around?

I feel..so cold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Detroit Lions All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group