I'm flipping (a little) on Stafford

Matt Stafford is making this tricky. After the KC game, it looked pretty clearly as though he would never earn his contract. Since then he's posted 4 passer ratings over 100 and 4 QBRs higher than 70 (only the top 5 QBs in the league have total QBRs over 70). He's bumped his overall passer rating from bottom quarter in the league to top 10. People, local people, are making a big deal about this. Stafford is finally answering his critics. He's won 5 of his last 7. Beat a playoff-level team on the road (Green Bay). He set a team completion % record for a game when he went 22-25 vs. New Orleans. Only thrown 2 picks. These are truly astounding numbers. 


The Lions would have you believe that Stafford is finally clicking with an offensive coordinator and all this is replicable. I think that's partly true, but I think what they'd like to gloss over is the fact that they've only played 2 above average defenses (St. Louis & Green Bay) in that span, and Stafford went 1-2 in those games, throwing both of his picks. Every other defense he's seen has been mediocre (Philly) to piss poor (New Orleans). Taking this into account, I still have to admit that while the version of Stafford we're currently seeing isn't real, neither was the crappy version we saw in weeks 1-8.

So what now? I've been advocating taking a QB with our top draft pick, preferably Paxton Lynch. He has the measurables, accuracy, rocket arm, mobility, etc. that you want in a starting QB these days. The problem is that the Lions are now 6-9 and could easily finish 7-9, which wouldn't give them a high enough pick to draft him. A guy like Curt Cousins might be available in round two, but I'm less sold on the idea that the answer to turning this team around lies with a QB change.

The Lions have one of the worst offensive lines in the league. Football Outsiders ranks them 26th out of the 32 teams, which is NOT good. I heard Trent Dilfer talking to a couple of local radio guys (Dery & Sharp) said something that struck me.

Ever since Matt Stafford has been there, the offensive line has stunk. You need a good offensive line to have a consistent offense. You need physicality, you need good pass protection, you need depth - 7 guys, not just 5. Every time I analyze Stafford, I come out of it saying, 'well, he can only do so much.' The offensive line doesn't just protect Matthew Stafford, it protects the Offense. It allows you to call certain plays in certain situations the comfort. If you don't have a good offensive line, your play-caller is scared TO DEATH for 60 minutes because every play is potentially a catastrophically negative play due to seepage.

When he said "the offensive line protects the offense", I thought about how bad we at picking up a 3rd & 1 or a 4th & 1. The Lions get stuffed A LOT on those plays. A big reason why Calvin Johnson has been so much less productive this year is because Stafford can't sit back in the pocket long enough for him to get down field. Another thing Dilfer brought up is that offensive line players take at least 3 years to develop. Anybody we draft now is going to be more for depth, less for instant impact.

Previously I probably would've rated Detroit's needs going into the off-season as 1. QB, 2. OL, 3. CB, 4 DL. Now it's more like 1. OL/DL, 2. OL/DL, 3. OL/DL, 4. CB. I'm still not crazy about Stafford, especially at the price he's going to command when his contract expires, but I think he could end up a "good" QB, given the right line. By the way, every time some draft analyst says something like, "you got a franchise QB, you need to get some toys to play with" in reference to whichever WR, I want to punch that guy in the face. The best gift you can give a QB is a really good line, not a "matchup nightmare" receiving threat.