NFL 2013 Season Thread

[Al B. Sure!]

Here's a shocking stat about Stafford.

Before this season, Stafford had how many wins against teams with over .500 records in his career?

7? 8? 10?

1

In 2012, the Stafford-led Lions beat the then 4-3 Seahawks 28-24. The Seahawks finished the year 11-5.

That's it. That was Stafford's only win against a winning team in his career.


This year, he has wins over the Rodgers-less Packers and two wins over the Bears so he now has 4 wins over winning teams, although one of those teams may finish the season .500 or below.



Then there's this:

[Al B. Sure!]

For comparison, Blaine Gabbert has 1 win over .500+ teams when he beat the then 4-1 (12-4 finish) Ravens in 2011 as a rookie. He also beat the then 1-1 Colts who finished 11-5 the same year.


It's interesting. Stafford had one great year in 2011 when he led the 10-6 Lions and he threw for 5000 yards and 41 TD's. Not a single one of those 10 wins came against a team with a winning record. Not one.

Fluffy stats against weak teams.

[rah]

Poll:

Whose fans have it worst?

Lions fans?
Vikings?
Bills?
Browns?
Cardinals?

The obvious answer is CUBS fans.

[Guynemer]

Here's a shocking stat about Stafford.

Before this season, Stafford had how many wins against teams with over .500 records in his career?

7? 8? 10?

1

In 2012, the Stafford-led Lions beat the then 4-3 Seahawks 28-24. The Seahawks finished the year 11-5.

That's it. That was Stafford's only win against a winning team in his career.


This year, he has wins over the Rodgers-less Packers and two wins over the Bears so he now has 4 wins over winning teams, although one of those teams may finish the season .500 or below.



Then there's this:

The chart doesn't bother me in the least; put Megatron with any quarterback in history, and you'd likely see a similar chart.

The wins over >.500 thing, though... yup. The Detroit Mother****ing Lions, everybody.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've always said he's overrated. He's the Matt Schaub of the NFC. Gaudy numbers buoyed by an elite WR and a pass-first offense. 1 playoff appearance and it was a loss.

He's a far better QB than Vick, fwiw. Better than Cunningham and Esiason and not far off Kelly.

[Al B. Sure!]

He's a far better QB than Vick, fwiw. Better than Cunningham and Esiason and not far off Kelly.

Are you trolling? You must be trolling.

Stafford is Daunte Culpepper without the running.

[Al B. Sure!]

Actually, the comparison isn't exactly off.

Culpepper had a monster 2004 (actually it was considered one of the greatest QB seasons of all time, though QB #'s now make it look a little less impressive). Though he had the great Randy Moss for 13 games, Moss wasn't himself. He finished with 767 yards, as the immortal Nate Burleson was Culpepper's leading WR with 1006 yards. Jermaine Wiggins and Marcus Robinson rounded out the receiving cast.

Culpepper went 379/548 for 4717 yards, 39 TDs and only 11 picks. He also rushed for 406 and 2 scores.

But it was his deeper stats that tell how great that year was. His completion % was 69.2%. He threw a TD on 7.1% of attempts and his INT% was a low 2.0%. His Y/A was an incredible 8.6. He had a 110.9 QB rating. All extremely impressive ratios.

But as we all know, Culpepper was a borderline starter the rest of his career. Yes, his first year starting way back in 2000, he had a solid 297/474 (62.7%) 3937yds 33TDs 16INT season but except for 2004, his career was mediocre.

In fact, if we exclude the abnormal 2004 campaign, but still include his second best first-year starting season, you have a mediocre QB:

7.33 Y/A
110 TDs/95INTs (4.15% TD%; 3.58% INT%)
61.75% completion rate

Now granted, Culpepper was a hell of a runner. He finished his career with 2652 rushing yards and 34 rushing TDs which is a lot of value ignored by his passing numbers.

Nevertheless, Culpepper is a portrait of a QB with one incredible season surrounded by mediocrity in the presence of one of the greatest WR of all time in Randy Moss. He led his team to the playoffs two years (2000 and 2004, his two best years), finishing with a 2-2 postseason record.


Now let's look at Matt Stafford again and compare his 2011 campaign with Culpepper's 2004:

Culpepper: 379/548 for 4717 yards, 39 TDs and 11 picks
Stafford: 421/663 for 5038 yards, 41 TDs and 16 picks

Deeper stats:
Culpepper: 69.2% Cmp%; 7.1% TD%; 2.0% INT%; 8.6 Y/A; 110.9 QB rating
Stafford: 63.5% Cmp%; 6.2% TD%; 2.4% INT%; 7.6 Y/A; 97.2 QB rating

As you can see, Stafford's lone monster year pales in comparison to Culpepper's 2004. Stafford threw over 100 more times and two extra TDs but he threw less accurately, had a lower Y/A, and was more prone to throwing INTs and took more attempts to throw a TD. In every facet, Stafford's 2011 was inferior to Culpepper's 2004.


Now let's take away that anomalous year and look at Stafford otherwise and how he stacks up to Culpepper minus his best year:

Culpepper:
7.33 Y/A
110 TDs/95INTs (4.15% TD%; 3.58% INT%)
61.75% completion rate

Stafford:
6.81 Y/A
67 TDs/55INTs (3.80% TD%; 3.12% INT%)
57.81% completion rate

Again, Culpepper was the superior QB. Better Y/A, better accuracy, and more likely to throw TD's, not even including Culpepper's ability as a runner which Stafford lacks. Stafford is surprisingly better at avoiding interceptions, however.


So there you have it. The portrait of two mediocre QB's tied to an otherworldly WR who developed a reputation due to a single monstrous outlier season but were marginal otherwise.

[Ben Kenobi]

Stafford is Daunte Culpepper without the running.

I was referring to Romo, not Stafford. Stafford can't hold Romo's jock.

As for Culpepper, I think he's very underrated. Had you had the mancrush you had on Vick on Culpepper, I'd have no qualms. The man could throw and throw well. You don't throw for 4700 yards without being a damn good QB.

[Sava]

What did I tell you people?

Detroit would win, at best, eight games.

I've been watching these *******s for 35 years. You guys should trust me.

I didn't doubt you. Detroit sucks.

Also, Detroit is also a verb... synonymous with choking games away down the stretch.

Did you see the Cowboy game? Man, they Detroited it up!

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you see the Cowboy game? Man, they Detroited it up!

Could be worse. They could be the Bears.

[-Jrabbit]

Troll.

Given what's happened with their competition, the Bears should already have the division clinched. Unfortunately, they've choked in a few very winnable games (Redskins, 2d Minny, 2d Detroit). If it weren't for the stunning ineptitude of the Lions, this division would have been decided around Thanksgiving. As it is, at least the Bears control their own fate - which is more than others cans say and, quite frankly, more than any in the NFC North deserves. I'm not expecting a lot, but we should be in for some entertaining football the next couple weeks.

Plenty of room to improve, but a solid rookie year for Trestman.

[Ben Kenobi]

the Bears should already have the division clinched. Unfortunately, they've choked in a few very winnable games

Yeah, it's interesting how competitive a division is between the Rodger-less packers, the Vikings who have no QB, the Lions and the Bears, oh my! I'm surprised they haven't renamed it munchkinland division. Cutler even has his lolipop.

[Al B. Sure!]

I was referring to Romo, not Stafford. Stafford can't hold Romo's jock.

Wut?

I quoted a pic of Stafford and called him overrated. You then quoted me and said he's better than Vick. How the **** were you referring to Romo?! Your communication skills suck.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah, it's interesting how competitive a division is between the Rodger-less packers, the Vikings who have no QB, the Lions and the Bears, oh my! I'm surprised they haven't renamed it munchkinland division. Cutler even has his lolipop.

For all we know, the next Super Bowl winner may come out of there. You never know.

When the 2011 Giants beat the Patriots in the SB, they took the division at 9-7, just ahead of the 8-8 Eagles, 8-8 Cowboys, and 5-11 Redskins.

[Ben Kenobi]

I quoted a pic of Stafford and called him overrated. You then quoted me and said he's better than Vick. How the **** were you referring to Romo?! Your communication skills suck.

The picture of Stafford claimed he sucked because he was 'the next Romo'. Yet, Romo doesn't suck. That was my point.