NFL Season 2020 Football • Page 1673

I’d take 2021 Brady over 2021 Stafford right now. No reason to bet against Brady until he actually does start declining at this point.

 

I’ve been hedging that bet for 5-10 years and it’s never worked so why start now?

 

Yeah I officially give up. I'll bet on him declining when he retires

 

I’m more interested in comparing Stafford to Goff tbh. I think the point is this is a huge upgrade for the Rams and I am really excited to see how McVay utilizes Stafford’s talent in his offense, and I’m excited for Stafford that he’ll finally get to see how a defense is supposed to react to play action

 

Lions OL since 2011 has ranked on average 14.8 in adjusted sack rate, only on time in bottom 10 and 4 times in top 12 (including a rank of 1 and a rank of 2.) Even if you don't like PFF, by basically any measure the OL has been average to good.

Rushing yardage isn't a good measure because it largely depends on how much a team runs the ball which depends on a number of factors that aren't correlated to how well they actually run the ball. Just to be clear, the Lions have been bad rushing the ball, but total yards isn't the way to show that.

 

“here’s what he didnt have” is more a comment on his lack of wins than his lack of statistical success. I don’t think anyone’s saying his numbers would improve on a better team, so much as his legacy

DeShaun is still great but his stats were better and he was winning a lot more when the Texans had support for him

 

I Don't think it means that at all.

 

i still think Stafford is better than Tannehill

I disagree with anyone saying running back isn’t that important for QB development. I don’t think anything would push Staffords *volume* numbers above his best years with Calvin... but his *efficiency* would’ve definitely improved with a good RB.

Henry makes it easy for the Titans to call a lot of play actions and roll outs. He also forces the other team to come out in stacked boxes and use sub packages less often, which leaves more openings downfield. Defenses are so scared of Henry that just faking the ball to him freezes LBs and safeties and really opens the middle of the field.

Tannehill was probably always better than he performed in Miami, but that incredible 33 - 7 TD / INT ratio has a lot to do with him not being the main thing other teams are game planning against.

Long story short, Tannehill’s reads in Tennessee are a LOT easier than Stafford’s in Detroit. Stafford has had to play against 7 players dropping back in zone basically his whole career and that definitely means tighter windows, tougher decisions, stricter timing, and also having to buy more time in the pocket for players to get open.

 

Rantalytics: Does running the football successfully help the play-action pass?

 

Yeah I mean I think Stafford is better but I liked Tannehill in Miami and he’s just been really impressive the last couple seasons, so there are a couple guys in the Stafford tier that even if I personally think Stafford is better than say Matt Ryan, I’m not passionate about debating it because it’s close enough.

I think Stafford is on a tier with guys like Tannehill, Kyler, Baker, and Matt Ryan, and I wouldn’t quibble too much if someone put any of those guys over Stafford. I think that group is a little better than the next tier of guys like Goff and Wentz, and maybe my controversial take is I’d put Cousins on that tier, not the Tannehill/Stafford tier

 

Stafford would make half the league a better team including the steelers so I'd have taken him

 

Cousins is definitely a tier below Stafford. Cousins is Stafford if Stafford-haters were actually correct.

 

Idk why people keep bringing up the Calvin years. Stafford has been pretty damn good without him.

 

You don’t think the Rams tried to get Watson?

 

A couple flaws in this:

1) rushing and play action success is defined by PFF and EPA rather than by numbers and stats, why? If anything that obfuscates the point because there are other hidden factors involved in PFF / EPA grades that prevent a direct correlation. Is there a reason why we can’t just compare completion / sack / turnover percentages during play action, and yards per attempt - things that directly indicate passing efficiency vs rushing efficiency?

2) they’re trying to argue that passing success has more to do with play action working than rushing success, but failing to complete the three way triangle of logic, and acknowledge that QB perform better in general in offenses that rush well. It’s a chicken or egg thing and I’m saying it’s the egg - this article does not disprove that directly. Obviously if play action is working and fooling the defense, a QB is going to play better. The causation pattern can go both ways.

like in my opinion that’s the main flaw here - successful play action helps average quarterbacks just as often as the other way around.

3) most teams do make a consistent effort to establish the run so it makes sense that for middle of the pack teams, the correlation is weak. However, in extreme cases such as the Titans running 2500 yards vs the Lions barely getting 1000... the correlation is expanded and becomes very palpable.

 

nope

not one person has reported that

 

Damn it just seems crazy to me to go that aggressive in the qb market and not go after the best one available

 

@tkamB

I thought of a 4th:

One thing that can also skew these numbers is the fact that if a team has a bad QB they’re obviously gonna try to run and call play action and other misdirection plays more often, to get the defense off their heels and try to hide the QBs flaws. And it works - just not well enough to make them perform better than a good QB on a bad running team. We see teams flatten the competition between a great QB and a mediocre QB this way all the time. That is a very easy explanation for why some teams that are good at running still don’t have great play action numbers.

 

the Rams don't have the assets to acquire Watson AND have the Texans take Goff

imagine the rumored deals for Watson and then add another 1st in all likelihood to get HOU to take Goff. Oh, and HOU doesn't have any cap space as it is.

 

#3
#50
2022 1st
2022 2nd
Xavien Howard

who says no?

 

@tkamB

I’d also like to see research on how much rushing success itself affects a QB cause that was the larger point I was making, that teams are not game planning for Tannehill and are not coming out in sub packages as much to stop Tannehill. Tannehill gets to throw crossing routes against man coverage with only 6 players dropping back, more often than almost any QB, because teams straight up can’t stop Henry if they are calling zone and pulling guys off the line.

 

We might have different definitions of “disappoint”.

 

Is it fair to consider Goff a bust?