Matthew Stafford (1 Viewer)

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Here is the 2009 Calvin Highlight film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNZ-80EoZdA

Watch that and tell me you see any coverage that is specially geared towards Calvin that would've be played to any other WR.

The only play that is special is a jump ball vs Cinci.

Yes other plays he could be double teamed...but that highlight film is vs lots of teams and different games.

He isn't constantly double or triple teamed......he isn't exclusively single covered(i'm not stating that) but for yall to use the double triple team as a crutch is inaccurate.

The article you first linked is titled Calvin re-catches OPTIMISM for Lions prosects.

-it also has false information in it

-it sells....it provides hope

Scott Linehan is talking about a certain play or plays across the middle. Defenders look for Recievers in their zone...it is their job. Now more often they could shade to Calvin's side, but not on every play....if they did that on every play just sent Calvin on a streak and have the Lions play 10 vs 8 or 10 v 9. That doesn't happen....and you know it.

 

[Bojang0301]

Do you seriously need to bring your tired act into every thread? You sit there and tell someone to bring some facts to the table, while you are bringing Youtube highlight videos as your evidence?Come on man

It's better than making opinons with nothing to back it up.Tired act is funny as well....debating players....discussing different ways of thinking is what the shark pool is about. I feel that is what seperates FBG FF players from others....different schools of thought. Would you rather me agree....then nobody knows any other side of a player?The sad part about this thread is I admit that Calvin is double teamed some....and the plays I don't see he could be doubled teamed more often. But the other side of this argument won't admit that someone isn't double or triple teamed all year. That is just poor defense for the NFL and inaccurate information. Flooding the pool is inaccurate information brings the Shark pool down.Do I like Calvin Johnson? Yes....as a top 6 dynasty guy as some promote....no.Do I like Matt Stafford? Yes....he is a competitor that showed a lot of grit in that Browns game last season. He takes too many chances and relies on his arm too often(Cutler too) but he did this at Georgia as well. That said, those traits also make Stafford good as well. It is how much can the coaches bring Stafford and Cutler to a more conservative approach while keeping them in a gunslinger role....it's a difficult task.

Hmm... Who are your six? I'm guessing Marshall, VJax, Andre Johnson, Fitz, DJax and Roddy? It's very plausible to have him rated lower than most. I can also understand giving up a lot to get him though. He is a rediculous talent and posted 1300 yds. and 12 TD's in '08 with Kitna, Culpepper, Orlovsky and Stanton, IIRC. That's pretty nasty.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

The article you first linked is titled Calvin re-catches OPTIMISM for Lions prosects.-it also has false information in it

What information in the beat writer's article is false?

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Do you seriously need to bring your tired act into every thread? You sit there and tell someone to bring some facts to the table, while you are bringing Youtube highlight videos as your evidence?Come on man

It's better than making opinons with nothing to back it up.Tired act is funny as well....debating players....discussing different ways of thinking is what the shark pool is about. I feel that is what seperates FBG FF players from others....different schools of thought. Would you rather me agree....then nobody knows any other side of a player?The sad part about this thread is I admit that Calvin is double teamed some....and the plays I don't see he could be doubled teamed more often. But the other side of this argument won't admit that someone isn't double or triple teamed all year. That is just poor defense for the NFL and inaccurate information. Flooding the pool is inaccurate information brings the Shark pool down.Do I like Calvin Johnson? Yes....as a top 6 dynasty guy as some promote....no.Do I like Matt Stafford? Yes....he is a competitor that showed a lot of grit in that Browns game last season. He takes too many chances and relies on his arm too often(Cutler too) but he did this at Georgia as well. That said, those traits also make Stafford good as well. It is how much can the coaches bring Stafford and Cutler to a more conservative approach while keeping them in a gunslinger role....it's a difficult task.

Hmm... Who are your six? I'm guessing Marshall, VJax, Andre Johnson, Fitz, DJax and Roddy? It's very plausible to have him rated lower than most. I can also understand giving up a lot to get him though. He is a rediculous talent and posted 1300 yds. and 12 TD's in '08 with Kitna, Culpepper, Orlovsky and Stanton, IIRC. That's pretty nasty.

At a minimum....MJD, Rice, AP, CJ3, Fitz, AJ.

 

[Bojang0301]

Do you seriously need to bring your tired act into every thread? You sit there and tell someone to bring some facts to the table, while you are bringing Youtube highlight videos as your evidence?Come on man

It's better than making opinons with nothing to back it up.Tired act is funny as well....debating players....discussing different ways of thinking is what the shark pool is about. I feel that is what seperates FBG FF players from others....different schools of thought. Would you rather me agree....then nobody knows any other side of a player?The sad part about this thread is I admit that Calvin is double teamed some....and the plays I don't see he could be doubled teamed more often. But the other side of this argument won't admit that someone isn't double or triple teamed all year. That is just poor defense for the NFL and inaccurate information. Flooding the pool is inaccurate information brings the Shark pool down.Do I like Calvin Johnson? Yes....as a top 6 dynasty guy as some promote....no.Do I like Matt Stafford? Yes....he is a competitor that showed a lot of grit in that Browns game last season. He takes too many chances and relies on his arm too often(Cutler too) but he did this at Georgia as well. That said, those traits also make Stafford good as well. It is how much can the coaches bring Stafford and Cutler to a more conservative approach while keeping them in a gunslinger role....it's a difficult task.

Hmm... Who are your six? I'm guessing Marshall, VJax, Andre Johnson, Fitz, DJax and Roddy? It's very plausible to have him rated lower than most. I can also understand giving up a lot to get him though. He is a rediculous talent and posted 1300 yds. and 12 TD's in '08 with Kitna, Culpepper, Orlovsky and Stanton, IIRC. That's pretty nasty.

At a minimum....MJD, Rice, AP, CJ3, Fitz, AJ.

Oh, you meant overall. Ya, I can't really see that. I was talking about strictly WR's.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

The article you first linked is titled Calvin re-catches OPTIMISM for Lions prosects.-it also has false information in it

What information in the beat writer's article is false?

Calvin was single covered a handful of times all season.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

The article you first linked is titled Calvin re-catches OPTIMISM for Lions prosects.-it also has false information in it

What information in the beat writer's article is false?

Calvin was single covered a handful of times all season.

What facts do you have to prove the beat writers posted false information?

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

The article you first linked is titled Calvin re-catches OPTIMISM for Lions prosects.-it also has false information in it

What information in the beat writer's article is false?

Calvin was single covered a handful of times all season.

What facts do you have to prove the beat writers posted false information?

The 2009 highlight videoThe statements within the article....he stated the Bears used single coverage all first half and Calvin had 5 catches in the first half as well.While you're asking questions....it should be only fair that I as well. Do you agree that you were wrong that half of the Lions RB's receptions weren't on 3rd and long?Are you going to consider that he wasn't double/triple teamed that often and that the issues with Calvin Johnson are learning when to gear down in coverage or seperate(run away) from defenders? And/or Stafford needs to develop that anticipation of when recievers, like Calvin will be open, instead of when they are open?Or will you stick by the stance than an unbiased coaching staff and beat writers state that Calvin was double/triple teamed all season, outside of a handful of instances, and that was the reason Stafford/Calvin connection brought in the results that they did the low catch percentage?

 

[Anthony Borbely]

The article you first linked is titled Calvin re-catches OPTIMISM for Lions prosects.-it also has false information in it

What information in the beat writer's article is false?

Calvin was single covered a handful of times all season.

What facts do you have to prove the beat writers posted false information?

The 2009 highlight videoThe statements within the article....he stated the Bears used single coverage all first half and Calvin had 5 catches in the first half as well.While you're asking questions....it should be only fair that I as well. Do you agree that you were wrong that half of the Lions RB's receptions weren't on 3rd and long?Are you going to consider that he wasn't double/triple teamed that often and that the issues with Calvin Johnson are learning when to gear down in coverage or seperate(run away) from defenders? And/or Stafford needs to develop that anticipation of when recievers, like Calvin will be open, instead of when they are open?Or will you stick by the stance than an unbiased coaching staff and beat writers state that Calvin was double/triple teamed all season, outside of a handful of instances, and that was the reason Stafford/Calvin connection brought in the results that they did the low catch percentage?

Unless someone proves them wrong, I will believe what the coaches and beat writers say. They saw every single play the Lions ran from every possible angle. I can't and won't believe someone that has not seen every play can be more accurate than someone who has. I have not seen one fact that disputes what they say. I have no doubt at all that they are accurate in what they say and that the beat writers report what they see without bias. Aside from that, or should I say in addition to that, I also watched every Lions game and although I did not see every play from every camera angle, I saw the same things with my own eyes that they saw. I completely agree with what the beat writers said. Other than that Bears game, I can't remember very many plays all year long where Calvin was single covered (not counting a blown coverage). I have no idea what the percentage is of single, double, and triple coverage, but based on what I saw and what I have read, I would be shocked if Calvin was single covered more than 10% of the time last year.

 

[Catbird]

I count 8 or 9 plays on the 2009 UTube video when the defense had 2 guy on him or in the zone where Calvin made his catch? The fact that they weren't both within touching distance of Megatron when the ball arrived says more about him (and maybe the throw) than about the defense attempted. And it stands ro reason that highlights would show the one or two plays against many different teams where Johnson had more room than usual to make a great play.

I think good point have been made that guys first starting as 3rd or 4th year QBs SHOULD have better numbers than rookie QBs - and so you are talking about a comparison with 5 other QBs. When you consider that none of them were on teams coming off 0-16, and none were on teams with either as bad an OL or probably as bad a defense - so that one would expect the interception rate would be awful throwing 'Hail Marys' while trying to come back in loss after loss after loss ... I don't think the numbers for Stafford tell you very much that wasn't obvious already. He is young, he has skills. He could still bust, could be too erratic to ever be great and be average, but has the arm to be exceptional and might be. Beyiond that, I think its all eyeball test at this point.

My responce would be to move up Henne to maybe #16 in FBG rankings and guess the others have a lesser chance to be great, and so have somewhat less dynasty value overall (although almost any of them could end up outperforming virtually any of the others). I like where Stafford and the Lions seem to be headed, and have no problem seeing him as having as much or more potential than anyone else in the yet unproven group.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I can't see how anyone could watch Stafford PLAY and not see something special in that kid. I believe Sanchez was fortunate not be be draft #1 and by the lion because I don't think he could have handled what Stafford did. I believe Freeman is a special guy too. I also believe Sanchez is only as good as the guys around him. JMHO

I saw something special in Stafford play, he still has a long way to go though too but I'm happy that he's a Lion. With that said, for the same reason you just said, that you can't believe people didn't see something special in that kid, how didn't you see that with Sanchez? I definately saw something special in him on the playoff march. He was not the same guy who played at the beginning of that season as he was the end. To take your team to the AFC Championship in New York City during your rookie year, that's good stuff. Did it help having good players around you, of course it did. Sanchez can't do anything about that, he had good players and adapted to that team and they played well. He shouldn't be penalized for having good players around him, he did what he had to do.

 

[gehazi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNs5nlqylqY

This isn't a 2009 clip....but it is of Calvin and proves your statement "double and even triple teamed all year"...to be incorrect. Unless you believe defenses completely switched coverages last year to double or triple team him. Then I would appreciate a breakdown of some hightlights/film to prove otherwise.

Play 1 (0:04)- Not double or triple teamed.....it's a zone.

Play 2 (0:14)- Not double or triple teamed.....it looks a like man coverage on him with a zone everywhere else.

Play 3 (0:32)- Not double or triple teamed.....it is man coverage with the CB bailing on the snap, which made the slant so successful..also having the TE going vertical helped.

Play 4 (0:45)- Not double or triple teamed....it is man coverage on a go route.

Play 5 (0:54)- Not double or triple teamed....it is man coverage on a fade.

Play 6 (0:58)- Who knows it was a broken play.

Play 7 (1:10)- same play as earlier and single coverage

Play 8 (1:20)- he is double covered with the flat player dropping and jumping at the pass after it's in the air.

Play 9 (1:26)- corner route with help over the top....but from a distance

Play 10(1:49)- fade route....single coverage

Play 11(1:57)- nobody was around him as he caught the ball...so no coverage...lol

Play 12(2:05)- single coverage on a crossing route.

Play 13(2:30)- single coverage

Play 14 - same as play 8

Play 15(3:00)- it's a hail mary

I just went through 3 minutes of a highlight of Calvin and found one play that you could even call a legit double team.

ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNZ-80EoZdA

I just watched this 2009 clip and saw one legit double team. He took a skinny post and the CB and saftey were both covering Calvin tight, but he still made the catch. But only one play was a double team.

I see one flaw with that. Don't you think it's easier to make highlight reel plays against less coverage? Logically I would assume that the double or triple teams would be less likely to produce big plays than zone or single coverage.

I agree....but breaking down two highlight films and only seeing 2 plays of even double coverage.....you have to lean that people tend to think Calvin has more coverage than what is probably out there.

Plus I also don't think many people understand defensive football...and just say double or triple teamed. If Calvin was double or triple teammed and Stafford could beat the defense 10 vs 9 or 10 vs 8 I would be even more alarmed.

The coaches and beat writers all have talked numerous times about the double and triple teams. I'd tend to take their word over a video of a few selected plays...all of which are highlights. There are no plays there that show heavy coverage on Calvin where they could not throw the ball to him. Double covered also doesn't always mean two defenders are right next to the receiver. Many coverages are subtle where players aren't necessarily draped all over the receiver, but close enough to not allow a throw to be made. Obviously, they won't show those plays in a video of Calvin Johnson highlights...but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Anyone who watched the Lions play regularly saw the coverages. The comments about the double and triple teams are not an exaggeration.

They also are biased and want to sympathize for their own players. Don't you agree?Video of selected plays...I didn't choose them...I found two youtube highlight reels. Find me some proof.

Anyone who watched games.....from the TV angle you can't determine coverages....you need the endzone angle for that or replays from those angles just after the play.

Apparently we should educate on defensive schemes then. Triple coverage? The only way I could think of is on a slant....or a deep dig(with both of these routes.....most good WR's would draw attention of two defenders) with a CB man up on him....saftey close over the top(but if he is a few yards off it isn't double covered)....with a LB dropping in his zone underneath of that area.

A hook, out, comeback from his X position couldn't see double coverage really. A go route would only see double coverage over the top and most of the schemes don't account for a close double coverage...they usually have the CB stopping in the flat and the saftey then takes the WR....or it's cover 3 with the CB and WR one on one.

Double coverage happens sometimes but I find it rare that two guys follow him around. What probably happens whenever he is double covered....is the defender in a zone moves to his area. The problem I see with this being a crutch....is that it is Calvin's job not to get covered up by multiple defenders(unless that is the design of the play). He needs to develop that part of his game and to find holes in coverage to utilize his athletic ability(then he wouldn't be double teamed).

Again, let me state that I am not saying he doesn't get double covered ever.....but the Lions fan's....Calvin lovers....keep that as a scapegoat as to why his numbers are down and players around him. Those fans need to come a little ways and realize that isn't always or even mostly the case. Either way....getting double covered without design and not getting open is somewhat CJ's fault. As you stated double coverage can come from depth and force throws to not be made. However a talented QB doesn't throw to a WR when they are open....they anticipate openings.

So you say we need the endzone camera angle to determine coverages, yet you use the same TV broadcast angle to determine whether Calvin was or was not doubled yourself. How is that not a contradiction? Doesn't your own statement eliminate any validity to your use of the youtube video's to make you point?

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

So you say we need the endzone camera angle to determine coverages, yet you use the same TV broadcast angle to determine whether Calvin was or was not doubled yourself. How is that not a contradiction? Doesn't your own statement eliminate any validity to your use of the youtube video's to make you point?

If you want to rehash this we can, the endzone angle is the best to determine coverages. But watching it on TV, they fail to replay every play. If you studied a Sideline view for a bit(DVR) and rewatched each play it is possible to determine coverage.In those highlight videos...they do show plays from different angles(some endzone, some wider sideline) which gives an advantage and the possibility to watch it over and over again.We could get in more in depth about my background in determining coverages....but this thread isn't about me. It is about 1) a completely biased statement by a staff member, 2) the faults of Detroits passing game stemmed from more than coverage on Calvin Johnson, 3) is matt stafford an overrated dynasty prospect at the moment.

 

[massraider]

It's a shame.

This is an interesting topic, and a player worth discussing, instead we have to scroll past a really lame argument.

 

[gehazi]

The whole "Calvin was triple teamed on every play" thing is way overrated. As a new Calvin FF owner I made a point to watch just about every Detroit game last year and it was not any worse than it is on any team that has one dominant WR and a not so great #2 (which is many).

It doesn't really matter though, because the whole point about "but Stafford only had one great offensive weapon" is silly when comparing him to those other QBs that the OP was comparing him to. What great offensive weapons did the '98 Colts have? What about the '99 Eagles? The 2002 Chargers? 2008 Ravens? 2007 Texans (with Andre Johnson hurt half the year, no less)? How many of them had more than one (or any) great offensive weapon? The list goes on.

Colts - Ahh...Marhall Faulk and Marvin Harrison. They were pretty good, no? Faulk had over 2200 total yards, of which 908 yards came on 86 receptions (maybe helped the passer rating/completion percentage?) Peyton's completion percentage to all other receivers other than Faulk was only 49%.

Eagles - had Staley with his career year (341 carries, 41 rec, 1500+ total yards). Not even sure this is the year you meant as McNabb only completed 49% of his passes and started only 6 games and they were not a good team really anywhere. Completion percentage drops to 41.5% when dump off's to Duce are taken out.

Chargers - (are you kidding?) LT had 379 carries, 1600+ yds rushing, 79(don't you think this many dump off passes to LT might have helped the completion %/ passer rating? Brees drops to 54% completion percentage without Tomlinson) rec for 489, not to mention a VASTLY better O-line. Oh, and it was Brees' SECOND year as a QB.

Ravens - They rushed for over 2000 yards with a great run game. Had a very good O-line, and a decent WR in Mason. But again, they had 76 running back receptions which clearly pad the completion percentage (drops from 60% to 51.4%) and rating. And one of the best defenses in football that protected Flacco all year. He was asked to do very little.

To be fair, Staffords completion percentage drops to 48.5% when Smith's 35 receptions are removed. But it's only .5% off what Manning did his rookie year. Also, Stafford was asked to sling it more than any of the others at 37.7 attempts/gm. Manning averaged 35.9, Brees averaged 32.8, and Flacco averaged a meger 26.8 att/gm. I think it is very telling that Stafford and Manning's completion percentages were very similar without RB dump offs and were both asked to sling it far more often than either of the other two. Also, Manning clearly benefited from the 8 and 9 man fronts that Faulk drew; something Stafford did not benefit from at all. Stafford also managed 226.7 pass yds/gm to Mannings 233.7 pass yds/gm.

I am not saying Stafford will be as good a Manning long term as Peyton is quite possibly the best QB ever. But I do think that Stafford's stats are not as bad as they are made out to be when put in context with Mannings rookie stats. The other two are really not very good comparisons IMO as Brees was not a rookie and Flacco was hardly asked to throw the ball and on a playoff contender.

I don't think given the additions the Lions have made on offense and defense and with a year of experience under his belt that having Stafford high in DYNASTY rankings is too far off at all.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

We could get in more in depth about my background in determining coverages....but this thread isn't about me. It is about 1) a completely biased statement by a staff member,

The comments I posted are what I saw when I watched the games and they were backed up with reports from beat writers and by the coaches. There is no bias in any of that. I don't come in here and make up things. If the reports from the beat writers said the opposite and the coaches said the opposite, then you may have a legitimate point. But they said the same thing I did and they have benefit of seeing every play from every camera angle. I'm sorry if you think that is all bias and untruths.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

The whole "Calvin was triple teamed on every play" thing is way overrated. As a new Calvin FF owner I made a point to watch just about every Detroit game last year and it was not any worse than it is on any team that has one dominant WR and a not so great #2 (which is many).

It doesn't really matter though, because the whole point about "but Stafford only had one great offensive weapon" is silly when comparing him to those other QBs that the OP was comparing him to. What great offensive weapons did the '98 Colts have? What about the '99 Eagles? The 2002 Chargers? 2008 Ravens? 2007 Texans (with Andre Johnson hurt half the year, no less)? How many of them had more than one (or any) great offensive weapon? The list goes on.

Colts - Ahh...Marhall Faulk and Marvin Harrison. They were pretty good, no? Faulk had over 2200 total yards, of which 908 yards came on 86 receptions (maybe helped the passer rating/completion percentage?) Peyton's completion percentage to all other receivers other than Faulk was only 49%.

Eagles - had Staley with his career year (341 carries, 41 rec, 1500+ total yards). Not even sure this is the year you meant as McNabb only completed 49% of his passes and started only 6 games and they were not a good team really anywhere. Completion percentage drops to 41.5% when dump off's to Duce are taken out.

Chargers - (are you kidding?) LT had 379 carries, 1600+ yds rushing, 79(don't you think this many dump off passes to LT might have helped the completion %/ passer rating? Brees drops to 54% completion percentage without Tomlinson) rec for 489, not to mention a VASTLY better O-line. Oh, and it was Brees' SECOND year as a QB.

Ravens - They rushed for over 2000 yards with a great run game. Had a very good O-line, and a decent WR in Mason. But again, they had 76 running back receptions which clearly pad the completion percentage (drops from 60% to 51.4%) and rating. And one of the best defenses in football that protected Flacco all year. He was asked to do very little.

To be fair, Staffords completion percentage drops to 48.5% when Smith's 35 receptions are removed. But it's only .5% off what Manning did his rookie year. Also, Stafford was asked to sling it more than any of the others at 37.7 attempts/gm. Manning averaged 35.9, Brees averaged 32.8, and Flacco averaged a meger 26.8 att/gm. I think it is very telling that Stafford and Manning's completion percentages were very similar without RB dump offs and were both asked to sling it far more often than either of the other two. Also, Manning clearly benefited from the 8 and 9 man fronts that Faulk drew; something Stafford did not benefit from at all. Stafford also managed 226.7 pass yds/gm to Mannings 233.7 pass yds/gm.

I am not saying Stafford will be as good a Manning long term as Peyton is quite possibly the best QB ever. But I do think that Stafford's stats are not as bad as they are made out to be when put in context with Mannings rookie stats. The other two are really not very good comparisons IMO as Brees was not a rookie and Flacco was hardly asked to throw the ball and on a playoff contender.

I don't think given the additions the Lions have made on offense and defense and with a year of experience under his belt that having Stafford high in DYNASTY rankings is too far off at all.

This is an excellent post, especially the comparisons of completion rates without the RB completions.

 

[ookook]

My 2 cents:

(1) It is irrelevant who is staff or not when making statements (at least in terms of their validity), so why bring it up?

(2) I live in Michigan and read sports corevage of the Lions. They have been down so long folks come close to just making things up to protect optimism. On these boards, Calvin Johnson gets tons and tons of love. I agree that the excuse of the double and triple coverage has been over-stated time and time again. To me, he has not lived up to the hype and has "other issues" than coverage that have prevented him from elite perfomance at the position. In his defense, losing all the time can be demolishing, but motivation is not coverage. I have seen less talented receivers and equally poor offenses do just as much.

 

[blend]

I'm not sure about all the numbers, but I know I'll be taking Stafford high - I've seen and heard enough that I'm a believer. I'm all-in with Stafford in my leagues.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Stafford had one weapon and he was doubled and even tripled all year, basically leaving him with nobody to throw to on many occasions.

Then it went to the coaches and media were unbiased but reported this"Johnson saw single coverage only a handful of times last season, but when he did, he was unstoppable. The Bears tried covering him with a single defender in their Week 3 matchup in Chicago. Johnson had five catches for 119 yards in the first half, forcing the Bears to switch to Cover 2 in the second."

Which means a handful of single coverage times all season....but he had 5 catches in the first half of single coverage vs the Bears.......i'm sure he didn't have one other instance of single coverage ALL season.

But in this highlight film(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNZ-80EoZdA) at a minimum he had fade patterns that were single coverage....are we not counting those?

2:15 fade pattern on the GL vs GB

3:26 fade pattern on the GL vs Chicago

Also b/c Scott Linehan said so??? I remember when Lovie Smith said "Rex is our QB" then replaced him 2 weeks later too. It's coach speak.

Then you went backed away from your statement into this:

I have no idea what the percentage is of single, double, and triple coverage, but based on what I saw and what I have read, I would be shocked if Calvin was single covered more than 10% of the time last year.

So was he double/triple covered all season??? Is it a handful of times like the media member said(b/c of course the media can't be biased)? Or is it 10% of the time?

The Lion QBs threw 90 passes to RBs and I bet half of those were dumpoffs on 3rd and long.

I just went back and charted the Lions first 5 games. I took targets for the RB's for each game.First I want to clarify what is 3rd and long? 3rd and short = 0-3 yards, 3rd and medium= 4-6 yards, 3rd and long 7+ yards.

RB's were targeted 42 times in the first 5 games and only 7 were of 3rd and long situations. So 7/42 or 16.6% were 3rd and long.

First off the coaches and media weren't talking in a literal sense handful of times single covered all season....as I showed.

But you place your faith in them(coaches/media) and your eyes. Despite you making a statement about your eyes betting half the dumpoffs to Lions RB's were on 3rd and long and I proved that to be false as well???

 

[Bojang0301]

My 2 cents:(1) It is irrelevant who is staff or not when making statements (at least in terms of their validity), so why bring it up?(2) I live in Michigan and read sports corevage of the Lions. They have been down so long folks come close to just making things up to protect optimism. On these boards, Calvin Johnson gets tons and tons of love. I agree that the excuse of the double and triple coverage has been over-stated time and time again. To me, he has not lived up to the hype and has "other issues" than coverage that have prevented him from elite perfomance at the position. In his defense, losing all the time can be demolishing, but motivation is not coverage. I have seen less talented receivers and equally poor offenses do just as much.

So you mean injuries last year? Because that is what he had is injuries. He put up 1300/12 with Kitna, Culpepper, Orlovsky, Stanton and Drew Henson for good measure. Less talented recievers doing as much as that with nothing? I, sir, call your bluff.

 

[ookook]

My 2 cents:(1) It is irrelevant who is staff or not when making statements (at least in terms of their validity), so why bring it up?(2) I live in Michigan and read sports corevage of the Lions. They have been down so long folks come close to just making things up to protect optimism. On these boards, Calvin Johnson gets tons and tons of love. I agree that the excuse of the double and triple coverage has been over-stated time and time again. To me, he has not lived up to the hype and has "other issues" than coverage that have prevented him from elite perfomance at the position. In his defense, losing all the time can be demolishing, but motivation is not coverage. I have seen less talented receivers and equally poor offenses do just as much.

So you mean injuries last year? Because that is what he had is injuries. He put up 1300/12 with Kitna, Culpepper, Orlovsky, Stanton and Drew Henson for good measure. Less talented recievers doing as much as that with nothing? I, sir, call your bluff.

Well, take Steve Smith in Carolina. He is considerably less physically gifted than Calvin Johnson and put up similar fantasy number last year and the year before. His QB and pass blocking were not steller. As I said, his size and speed do not much compare. So what did he have? Heart and a work ethic. Until CJ shows me those things, I think he is over-rated.

 

[Creed Bratton]

My 2 cents:(1) It is irrelevant who is staff or not when making statements (at least in terms of their validity), so why bring it up?(2) I live in Michigan and read sports corevage of the Lions. They have been down so long folks come close to just making things up to protect optimism. On these boards, Calvin Johnson gets tons and tons of love. I agree that the excuse of the double and triple coverage has been over-stated time and time again. To me, he has not lived up to the hype and has "other issues" than coverage that have prevented him from elite perfomance at the position. In his defense, losing all the time can be demolishing, but motivation is not coverage. I have seen less talented receivers and equally poor offenses do just as much.

So you mean injuries last year? Because that is what he had is injuries. He put up 1300/12 with Kitna, Culpepper, Orlovsky, Stanton and Drew Henson for good measure. Less talented recievers doing as much as that with nothing? I, sir, call your bluff.

Well, take Steve Smith in Carolina. He is considerably less physically gifted than Calvin Johnson and put up similar fantasy number last year and the year before. His QB and pass blocking were not steller. As I said, his size and speed do not much compare. So what did he have? Heart and a work ethic. Until CJ shows me those things, I think he is over-rated.

I think bojang hit it on the head. Being able to lead the league in touchdowns for one of the most inept team in the history of the nfl is astounding considering how much a receiver's production is dependent on other factors. And steve smith is a considerable talent in his own right. He's undersized, but his combination of speed, strength, and explosiveness makes him one of the ten most physically gifted receivers in the league who have actually produced in the league. He also has the benefit of playing with a running game that consistently brings eight into the box. If he didn't have any heart or work ethic his numbers would be a lot closer to randy moss' in oakland than to larry fitzgerald.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

My 2 cents:(1) It is irrelevant who is staff or not when making statements (at least in terms of their validity), so why bring it up?(2) I live in Michigan and read sports corevage of the Lions. They have been down so long folks come close to just making things up to protect optimism. On these boards, Calvin Johnson gets tons and tons of love. I agree that the excuse of the double and triple coverage has been over-stated time and time again. To me, he has not lived up to the hype and has "other issues" than coverage that have prevented him from elite perfomance at the position. In his defense, losing all the time can be demolishing, but motivation is not coverage. I have seen less talented receivers and equally poor offenses do just as much.

So you mean injuries last year? Because that is what he had is injuries. He put up 1300/12 with Kitna, Culpepper, Orlovsky, Stanton and Drew Henson for good measure. Less talented recievers doing as much as that with nothing? I, sir, call your bluff.

Well, take Steve Smith in Carolina. He is considerably less physically gifted than Calvin Johnson and put up similar fantasy number last year and the year before. His QB and pass blocking were not steller. As I said, his size and speed do not much compare. So what did he have? Heart and a work ethic. Until CJ shows me those things, I think he is over-rated.

Steve Smith didn't even have 1000 yards last year. Neither did Calvin. But Smith has heart and work ethic and Calvin doesn't? Heart and work ethic alone can't overcome poor play by the QB, among other things. Smith and Calvin's numbers were almost identical last year. Smith had 65/982/7. Calvin had 67/984/5. Both were in the top 5 the year before. I don't think lack of heart and work ethic caused Calvin's numbers to fall off last year any more than they did for Steve Smith. The problem for both was the offense; in Smith's case, terrible QB play and in Calvin's, a rookie QB and no other legit weapons on offense.

 

[Bojang0301]

My 2 cents:(1) It is irrelevant who is staff or not when making statements (at least in terms of their validity), so why bring it up?(2) I live in Michigan and read sports corevage of the Lions. They have been down so long folks come close to just making things up to protect optimism. On these boards, Calvin Johnson gets tons and tons of love. I agree that the excuse of the double and triple coverage has been over-stated time and time again. To me, he has not lived up to the hype and has "other issues" than coverage that have prevented him from elite perfomance at the position. In his defense, losing all the time can be demolishing, but motivation is not coverage. I have seen less talented receivers and equally poor offenses do just as much.

So you mean injuries last year? Because that is what he had is injuries. He put up 1300/12 with Kitna, Culpepper, Orlovsky, Stanton and Drew Henson for good measure. Less talented recievers doing as much as that with nothing? I, sir, call your bluff.

Well, take Steve Smith in Carolina. He is considerably less physically gifted than Calvin Johnson and put up similar fantasy number last year and the year before. His QB and pass blocking were not steller. As I said, his size and speed do not much compare. So what did he have? Heart and a work ethic. Until CJ shows me those things, I think he is over-rated.

Steve Smith didn't even have 1000 yards last year. Neither did Calvin. But Smith has heart and work ethic and Calvin doesn't? Heart and work ethic alone can't overcome poor play by the QB, among other things. Smith and Calvin's numbers were almost identical last year. Smith had 65/982/7. Calvin had 67/984/5. Both were in the top 5 the year before. I don't think lack of heart and work ethic caused Calvin's numbers to fall off last year any more than they did for Steve Smith. The problem for both was the offense; in Smith's case, terrible QB play and in Calvin's, a rookie QB and no other legit weapons on offense.

Calvin also missed two games (really three considering he was out most of the Pittsburgh contest).

 

[ookook]

I was looking at PPG of the two, and being asked to support the statement "I have seen less talented receivers and equally poor offenses do just as much" by way of an example.

So that fact that they have had similar numbers for two years served my point well.

Who do you believe is more physically gifted at the WR position? I think Calvin Johnson is. He is probably taller, stronger, and faster at this point.

Why do they have similar numbers despite this? One could argue is because of Carolina's superior running game, but I hoestly do not think that is it.

I believe Smith plays with more heart and works harder, compensating for the difference in physical talent.

Overall, I see them as about even in terms of projections.

Most see Johnson as having MUCH more upside due to talent and he is being drafted something like 25 spots higher.

Does CJ have more upside? Probably, since it is easier to change your atittude and work ethic than your physical ability. But that much more? Doubts.

So Smith, to me, has more value and I will be happy to wait.

 

[Bojang0301]

I was looking at PPG of the two, and being asked to support the statement "I have seen less talented receivers and equally poor offenses do just as much" by way of an example.So that fact that they have had similar numbers for two years served my point well. Who do you believe is more physically gifted at the WR position? I think Calvin Johnson is. He is probably taller, stronger, and faster at this point.Why do they have similar numbers despite this? One could argue is because of Carolina's superior running game, but I hoestly do not think that is it.I believe Smith plays with more heart and works harder, compensating for the difference in physical talent. Overall, I see them as about even in terms of projections. Most see Johnson as having MUCH more upside due to talent and he is being drafted something like 25 spots higher. Does CJ have more upside? Probably, since it is easier to change your atittude and work ethic than your physical ability. But that much more? Doubts.So Smith, to me, has more value and I will be happy to wait.

When has CJ's work ethic ever been in question? You have the right to your opinion but you are dropping falsities and could be confusing those who browse through these dicussions. There are a lot of reasons CJ is being drafted higher: Smith is older, less talented, has no proven WR's or TE's to take the pressure off of him and also has the same question mark at QB CJ does. I would definitely take CJ higher than Smith with that logic alone.

 

[ookook]

The point is that one can wait and get similar value one to two rounds later, not that one should pick Smith over Johnson straight up.

After all, I agreed that the ceiling for Johnson is higher.

But he is not yet an elite receiver since an old geezer like Smith puts up similar numbers. In short, I think Calvin Johnson is over-rated until I see Top 3 receiver numbers. You do not. I see that Smith has been Top 3 more than once in terms of PPG and Johnson has not.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

The point is that one can wait and get similar value one to two rounds later, not that one should pick Smith over Johnson straight up. After all, I agreed that the ceiling for Johnson is higher. But he is not yet an elite receiver since an old geezer like Smith puts up similar numbers. In short, I think Calvin Johnson is over-rated until I see Top 3 receiver numbers. You do not. I see that Smith has been Top 3 more than once in terms of PPG and Johnson has not.

Calvin had top 3 receiver numbers in 2008. Smith should have had more top seasons since he has played much longer.

 

[ookook]

Well yes, that was sort of the point. I trust proven players more. Turns out prediction made based on more observations tend to be more reliable.

And Johnson was WR4 in PPG in 2008 based on FBG scoring, behind Boldin, Steve Smith, and Fitz.

 

[DevilDog919]

Calvin Johnson-3,071 yards 21 TD in 1st 3 seasons

Andre Johnson-2,806 yards 12 TD in 1st 3 seasons

Larry Fitzgerald-3,135 yards 24 TD in 1st 3 seasons (Kurt Warner throwing and Boldin pulling defenders off in 2nd and 3rd seasons)

The only outlier, and its really not even fair because Randy Moss was just an outrageous player entering the league...

Randy Moss-4,163 yards 43 TD in 1st 3 seasons

So those that say Calvin Johnson has not yet shown anything, he has. He has shown me that he can produce better than AJ (on a very comparable team, both crappy QB and overall talent...about the only weapon on the team) and on par with Larry Fitzgerald's 1st 3 seasons.

Keep on lowering his value though.

 

[ookook]

Borberly ranks Johnson as WR2 and Smith as WR10, so we get the homer-love. Overall, Johnson is 5th and Smith 13th.

Two of his three seasons Johnson has been held to 5 TDs or fewer.

Since Smith was injured in 2003 that has not happened to him once.

I have both put at about 8 or 9 TDs this season. Both will likely see better numbers than last year as a result of QB improvement.

WR2 to WR5 will go in 2nd in many leagues. WR10 to WR13 will go one to two rounds later.

I expect similar numbers and can get a player as much as 2 rounds later. Gee, where might the value lie?

Living in MI, I watch plenty of Lions games. I cheer for them (much as I do a sick puppy). Johnson is not a diva. But his body language to me said that losing was wearing on him and he does not give 100% every play.

Smith, although a hothead and perhaps even a bit of a punk, wants that ball like nobody's business.

Heart and work ethic.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Borberly ranks Johnson as WR2 and Smith as WR10, so we get the homer-love. Overall, Johnson is 5th and Smith 13th.

Two of his three seasons Johnson has been held to 5 TDs or fewer.

Since Smith was injured in 2003 that has not happened to him once.

I have both put at about 8 or 9 TDs this season. Both will likely see better numbers than last year as a result of QB improvement.

WR2 to WR5 will go in 2nd in many leagues. WR10 to WR13 will go one to two rounds later.

I expect similar numbers and can get a player as much as 2 rounds later. Gee, where might the value lie?

Living in MI, I watch plenty of Lions games. I cheer for them (much as I do a sick puppy). Johnson is not a diva. But his body language to me said that losing was wearing on him and he does not give 100% every play.

Smith, although a hothead and perhaps even a bit of a punk, wants that ball like nobody's business.

Heart and work ethic.

First, I have never understood why people think Calvin lacks heart and work ethic. The only thing I saw last year was a player that was frustrated by the losing. You win 2 games out of 32 and that should not be a surprise. I believe the frustration shows that he cares and HAS heart. Regarding the Comparison of TD receptions by the two WRs, Steve Smith has averaged 7 over his 7 full seasons. Calvin has averaged 7 in his 3 seasons. You make it sound like Steve Smith's TD numbers are better, but they aren't. He has only had double digit TDs one time in 7 years. He has not had less than 5, but he also has not put up all that many TD in 7 years. He also has much more experience.

If you want to see why I have Steve Smith 10th, read the spotlight that I wrote. Below is the link:

Link

The short version of the above and the main reason I rank Steve Smith 10th is that I am not a fan of the Panthers as a team and think their defense is well below average. I don't see a playoff contender. Now you may ask why this matters. The thing with Smith is that he has had some terrible QB play over the last few years and has never been able to put up even mediocre numbers in those games. One example is he averaged only 54 yards per game when Delhomme played. Does that mean he lacks heart and work ethic? He averaged 94 in the 4 games with Moore. This year, the Panthers have several questions at QB. First, Matt Moore is unproven. Now, I'm not all that concerned with this and think he will be good enough that he won't destroy Smith's numbers the way Delhomme did last year and QBs like Weinke, Carr, and Testaverde did in previous years. However, this is where my point on the team comes in. I do not think the Panthers are a serious playoff contender. Should this be the case, I fully expect to see Claussen play later in the year. With no other proven WRs on the entire roster and mediocre TEs, a rookie QB with one option will ruin Smith's value. This is a very real possibility. I don't think Moore is a lock to be a good QB, or I may feel different. Read the spotlight for a much more detailed opinion on Smith. If I really thought Moore would play all year, I would rank Smith in the top 5, but I cannot see Claussen not playing a few games this year. With Smith's severe dropoff with poor QB play, I'm not willing to rank him in the top 5 if I think a rookie QB will play a few games...and I do think that will happen.

I have given numerous reasons why I have Calvin 2nd and I can assure you it has zero to do with being a "homer". To summarize...last year, Calvin played in 14 games. When prorating his numbers over 16 games, he would have had 76 catches for 1124 yards. To me, that is his floor for this year. I just can't see any way he could do worse than last year because there is nothing about him or the Lions that is worse. If there is even one thing related to Calvin that is worse than last year, I'd like to see it.

There are significant positives compared to last year. This is the first time Calvin will play with the same QB in back-to-back years. Same with offensive coordinators. The Lions also added significant improvements to the offense, namely Best, Burleson, and Scheffler. Stafford is no longer a rookie. How can he not be a lot better than last year? In fact, I don't see any reason Calvin can't put up similar or better numbers than he did in 2008, when he was the 3rd overall fantasy WR. He is still a very young player, turning 25 this summer.

I really would like to know why some people are using last years numbers as a base and more or less ignoring his 2008 numbers. With so many positives compared to last year and no real negatives, why would Calvin not revert back to the form he had in 2008? It's not like he has never been an elite WR because he was in only his second year. Also, his numbers over his first 3 years are virtually identical to those of Fitzgerald. I think he has a much higher chance of matching his 2008 numbers than his 2009 numbers.

Now, I think I have laid out a lot of facts to back up why I ranked Calvin 2nd and Smith 10th. You can agree or disagree and that is fine, especially when backed up with reasons of your own. However, to say that my rankings are because of "being a homer" are wrong. If I had just put projections out there and not backed them up, then I could understand the homer comments. But I gave more than enough reasons for my projected numbers and while agreeing or disagreeing is fine, I do not think the homer comments are justified.

 

[Creed Bratton]

Borberly ranks Johnson as WR2 and Smith as WR10, so we get the homer-love. Overall, Johnson is 5th and Smith 13th.

Two of his three seasons Johnson has been held to 5 TDs or fewer.

Since Smith was injured in 2003 that has not happened to him once.

I have both put at about 8 or 9 TDs this season. Both will likely see better numbers than last year as a result of QB improvement.

WR2 to WR5 will go in 2nd in many leagues. WR10 to WR13 will go one to two rounds later.

I expect similar numbers and can get a player as much as 2 rounds later. Gee, where might the value lie?

Living in MI, I watch plenty of Lions games. I cheer for them (much as I do a sick puppy). Johnson is not a diva. But his body language to me said that losing was wearing on him and he does not give 100% every play.

Smith, although a hothead and perhaps even a bit of a punk, wants that ball like nobody's business.

Heart and work ethic.

You keep saying that calvin johnson is overrated but haven't offered any reason for this besides a supposed poor work ethic and a lack of heart. In college, calvin johnson was noted to have a good work ethic and to my knowledge reports have consistently held this to be true in the nfl as well. We don't hear about him coming to training camp out of shape or not knowing the playbook or things of that nature. If i'm wrong about that then maybe you can point me to an article or beat writer saying otherwise. And lacking heart is a pretty vague criticism and there's really no other objective reason you're offering as to why calvin johnson is overvalued. You say that calvin johnson is also not an elite receiver because he's never been a top 3 PPG receiver(was only WR4 including boldin in 2008) in contrast to steve smith, but then you freely admit that calvin has a higher ceiling than steve smith which seems to contradict your criticism that he hasn't been elite.

You contend that steve smith can offer comparable production and offers much better value and have provided plenty of reasons for that, but that just may mean that steve smith is undervalued, not that calvin johnson is overvalued and overhyped. Particularly when considering that you've said that you would take calvin over steve smith straight up.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Borberly ranks Johnson as WR2 and Smith as WR10, so we get the homer-love. Overall, Johnson is 5th and Smith 13th.

Two of his three seasons Johnson has been held to 5 TDs or fewer.

Since Smith was injured in 2003 that has not happened to him once.

I have both put at about 8 or 9 TDs this season. Both will likely see better numbers than last year as a result of QB improvement.

WR2 to WR5 will go in 2nd in many leagues. WR10 to WR13 will go one to two rounds later.

I expect similar numbers and can get a player as much as 2 rounds later. Gee, where might the value lie?

Living in MI, I watch plenty of Lions games. I cheer for them (much as I do a sick puppy). Johnson is not a diva. But his body language to me said that losing was wearing on him and he does not give 100% every play.

Smith, although a hothead and perhaps even a bit of a punk, wants that ball like nobody's business.

Heart and work ethic.

You don't see an obvious flaw in logic of trying to compare a late 20's Smith with multiple years of NFL experience to Johnson's 1st 3 years in the league?

 

[Balance]

Here is the 2009 Calvin Highlight film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNZ-80EoZdA

Watch that and tell me you see any coverage that is specially geared towards Calvin that would've be played to any other WR.

The only play that is special is a jump ball vs Cinci.

Yes other plays he could be double teamed...but that highlight film is vs lots of teams and different games.

He isn't constantly double or triple teamed......he isn't exclusively single covered(i'm not stating that) but for yall to use the double triple team as a crutch is inaccurate.

The article you first linked is titled Calvin re-catches OPTIMISM for Lions prosects.

-it also has false information in it

-it sells....it provides hope

Scott Linehan is talking about a certain play or plays across the middle. Defenders look for Recievers in their zone...it is their job. Now more often they could shade to Calvin's side, but not on every play....if they did that on every play just sent Calvin on a streak and have the Lions play 10 vs 8 or 10 v 9. That doesn't happen....and you know it.

Wouldn't it make sense that Calvin's highlights would come when the opportunity presented itself? Like the few plays when the other team isn't focused on him?

 

[Creed Bratton]

I think it might be useful to look at the past few seasons to see if calvin is truly being overrated in a historical context.

Terrell Owens, Steve Smith, Boldin, Holt, Santana Moss, Marvin Harrison, Darrell Jackson, Houshmandzadeh, Andre Johnson, Braylon Edwards, Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, Miles Austin and Reggie Wayne is the entire list of receivers who have been top 5 PPG receivers over the last five seasons.

Out of those fifteen receivers four of them aren't in the league anymore or are practically retired - TO, Darrell Jackson, Torry Holt, and Marvin Harrison

Houshmandzadeh, Santana Moss, and Braylon Edwards are being drafted just outside the top 30 at their position and have only two seasons of more than 1150 yards between 23 combined seasons.

Out of the other eight receivers remaining, six of them including calvin are being drafted in the first two rounds. Only Anquan Boldin and Steve Smith are clearly being drafted outside the top ten at their position and i think that can be attributable to changes in their qb and surrounding situation. Boldin is with a new team and Steve Smith has never put up a season with elite numbers without Jake Delhomme. The other receivers are dealing with by and large stable situations compared to last season.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that the majority of receivers that i've listed have actually put up multiple seasons as top 5 PPG wide receivers, so it's not unreasonable to think if someone's put up a top 5 season there's a good chance they can do it again.

 

[Ray_T]

Give or take, it appears as if Stafford is being valued at approx #15 for dynasty QB's. If I were to cherry-pick, more people seem to rank Stafford in the #10-#15 range as opposed to the #16-#20 range for dynasty QB's. I read people mention the "it" factor when discussing Stafford's future. His arm strength is also compared to many of the gunslingers (ie. Favre, Cutler, etc) of the NFL. However, when I compare Stafford's rookie season to the rookie/first season's of the other Top-15 QB's, it appears as if Stafford falls severely short.

Even if I ignore Stafford's 2-10 record as a starter, it's hard to ignore his stats compared to the other top (...and medium) shelf QB's in fantasy football. If you review the stats below, the following comparison's jump off the page:

** Stafford easily has the worst TD/INT ratio of the group. In fact, only Stafford (13/20) and Peyton Manning (26/28) had a negative TD/INT ratio in their rookie/first season.

** Stafford had the second worse Yards/Attempt at 6.0, eclipsing only McNabb's 5.9.

** Stafford had the second worse Completion % at 53.0%, outperforming only Eli Manning's 52.8%. Only 3 (E Manning, P Manning and McNabb) of the 15 other QB's listed had a Completion % lower than 60.0% in their rookie season.

** Most alarming, at 61.0, Stafford easily had the worst QB Rating of the group. For comparative purposes, P Manning had the second worse QB Rating with a 71.2 in his rookie season...10 points higher than Stafford. 10 of the other 15 QB's had a QB Rating of 80.0+ and 4 of the 15 had a QB Rating of 90.0+.

If there's any saving grace, it's Stafford's Yards/Game. At 226 yards/game last year, Stafford outperformed all but 3 QB's (Rogers, P Manning, E Manning). The Lions will likely need to continuing throwing the ball to stay in games and, with the addition of Burleson, Scheffler, Best and a healthy Pettigrew, Stafford could certainly improve on this 226 yards/game.

For the people who rank Stafford as a Top-15 dynasty QB, do you believe the rookie/first season has little influence on the long-term success of a QB? Or, are you simply giving Stafford a mulligan in his first season? Disclaimer: I have Stafford in one of my four leagues. I'm wondering if the shark move is to get Top-15 value for a player who may very well never be a Top-15 QB.

Stafford

TD: 13

INT: 20

Yards/Game: 226

Yards/Attempt: 6.0

Comp Pct: 53.0%

Rating: 61.0

P Manning

TD: 26

INT: 28

Yards/Game: 233

Yards/Attempt: 6.5

Comp Pct: 56.7%

Rating: 71.2

Brees

TD: 17

INT: 16

Yards/Game: 205

Yards/Attempt: 6.2

Comp Pct: 60.8%

Rating: 76.9

Brady

TD: 18

INT: 12

Yards/Game: 189

Yards/Attempt: 6.9

Comp Pct: 63.9%

Rating: 86.5

A Rogers

TD: 28

INT: 13

Yards/Game: 252

Yards/Attempt: 7.5

Comp Pct: 63.6%

Rating: 93.8

Romo

TD: 19

INT: 13

Yards/Game: 181

Yards/Attempt: 8.6

Comp Pct: 65.3%

Rating: 95.1

Rivers

TD: 22

INT: 9

Yards/Game: 211

Yards/Attempt: 7.4

Comp Pct: 61.7%

Rating: 92.0

Schaub

TD: 9

INT: 9

Yards/Game: 203

Yards/Attempt: 7.8

Comp Pct: 66.4%

Rating: 87.2

Roethlisberger

TD: 17

INT: 11

Yards/Game: 198

Yards/Attempt: 8.9

Comp Pct: 66.4%

Rating: 98.1

Favre

TD: 18

INT: 13

Yards/Game: 215

Yards/Attempt: 6.9

Comp Pct: 64.1%

Rating: 85.3

McNabb

TD: 21

INT: 13

Yards/Game: 210

Yards/Attempt: 5.9

Comp Pct: 58.0%

Rating: 77.8

Eli Manning

TD: 24

INT: 17

Yards/Game: 235

Yards/Attempt: 6.8

Comp Pct: 52.8%

Rating: 75.9

Flacco

TD: 14

INT: 12

Yards/Game: 185

Yards/Attempt: 6.9

Comp Pct: 60.0%

Rating: 80.3

Palmer

TD: 18

INT: 18

Yards/Game: 222

Yards/Attempt: 6.7

Comp Pct: 60.9%

Rating: 77.3

M Ryan

TD: 16

INT: 11

Yards/Game: 215

Yards/Attempt: 7.9

Comp Pct: 61.1%

Rating: 87.7

Cutler

TD: 20

INT: 14

Yards/Game: 218

Yards/Attempt: 7.5

Comp Pct: 63.6%

Rating: 88.1

I think you are confusing his future by his rookie season. A rookie season is just to take your lumps and learn as much as you can. What if Stafford just sat and didn't play? Where are Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers rookie stats in this equation? Stafford looks like he is going to be a top 10 QB if you look past just his rookie stats.

Agreed. Look at Aikman's rookie year in a similar rebuilding situation...TD: 9

INT: 18

Y/G: 159

Comp %: 52.9

Rating: 55.7

Yes, and judging a rookie qb coming into a good team with a good system in place and with good talent is different than judging a rookie qb going into a team that has been a loser for many years and has a revolving door as far as coaches go.Not only is the QB learning a new system and learning how to be a pro, the rest of the team is learning this new system too. and when you have a defense that does not perform and puts pressure on the offense to produce, its unlikely the rookie qb will step up to the plate with eye catching numbers. Especially with the RB situation they had in detroit last year. Defenses would not view the run as a threat and so the QB is forced to play against a defense that knows what they are going to do most of the time.

so in this case, comparing Stafford to Flacco may not be a fair or reasonable comparison.

 

[Bojang0301]

Here is the 2009 Calvin Highlight film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNZ-80EoZdA

Watch that and tell me you see any coverage that is specially geared towards Calvin that would've be played to any other WR.

The only play that is special is a jump ball vs Cinci.

Yes other plays he could be double teamed...but that highlight film is vs lots of teams and different games.

He isn't constantly double or triple teamed......he isn't exclusively single covered(i'm not stating that) but for yall to use the double triple team as a crutch is inaccurate.

The article you first linked is titled Calvin re-catches OPTIMISM for Lions prosects.

-it also has false information in it

-it sells....it provides hope

Scott Linehan is talking about a certain play or plays across the middle. Defenders look for Recievers in their zone...it is their job. Now more often they could shade to Calvin's side, but not on every play....if they did that on every play just sent Calvin on a streak and have the Lions play 10 vs 8 or 10 v 9. That doesn't happen....and you know it.

Wouldn't it make sense that Calvin's highlights would come when the opportunity presented itself? Like the few plays when the other team isn't focused on him?

I'll be honest, ever since this debate has been going on I haven't even watched the highlights posted. Man is it fun to watch Calvin. I was sitting here thinking these were '08 clips and was like damn that QB has a hell of an arm (thinking it is Orlovsky or Stanton). Stafford has a for real arm he needs to cut down on the mistakes but those clips made me remember a little bit of why I value him so much (excellent pocket awareness, poise and arm).

 

[ookook]

By my count, SEVENTEEN WRs scored more fantasy points per game last season than Calvin Johnson.

I am NOT taking that guy as the 2nd WR off the board when the situation has not changed that much.

To be fair, he was 4th the year before, so I would surely rank him somewhere in between 4th and 17th (but not better than he has EVER finished, as that is a statistical foolishness to project even when it happens).

As I said, I expect better number out of BOTH as I see Stafford as improving and Moore a likely upgrade over Jakey D.

Really, this hijack of a Stafford thread keeps mistating my position. It is not that C. Johnson is no good, it is that to me he is not a stud (yet, probably will be at some point) and there are other WRs whose ADP creates value whereas it is unlikely to me that C. Johnson will have value where he is being drafted.

Here are the WR rankings based on my projections:

1. A. Johnson

2. L. Fitzgerald

3. R. Moss

4. R. Wayne

5. M. Austin

6. C. Johnson

7. B. Marshall

8. S. Smith (CAR)

9. R. White

10. S. Smith (NYG)

11. A. Boldin

12. G. Jennings

13. D. Jackson

14. M. Colston

So be not surprised where I see the shark pick between the two given their ADP.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

By my count, SEVENTEEN WRs scored more fantasy points per game last season than Calvin Johnson.I am NOT taking that guy as the 2nd WR off the board when the situation has not changed that much.

You seriously don't think Calvin's situation has changed much? 1. The first time he will ever have the same QB in back-to-back years2. The first time he will ever have the same offensive coordinator in back-to-back years.3. The new weapons (Best, Scheffler, and Burleson). 4. Stafford is not a rookie anymore and should naturally show some improvement. I really don't see how you can say his situation has not changed. It is significantly better than last year and maybe ever better than his stellar 2008 season.

 

[Jack Burton]

o-line.

offensive weapons.

just 2 of the MAJOR reasons he had a "bad" rookie campaign.... this guy should turn out to be a decent/very good QB in the league... look for it to start this year with an improved o-line, and plenty more weapons to throw at... and whats that!? A RUNNING GAME.

jahvid best should do well this season...

id take stafford in a heartbeat, Detroit is only improving.

I'm not so sure about how much they're improving. I didn't like what I saw from Swartz and his coaching staff at all. I think he may be just another bad Lions coaching hire. Marinelli could have won two games for petes sake.Stafford has an absolute cannon of an arm but he is very eratic so he is as much of a bust candidate as he is a boom candidate. My gut and history tells me the Lions will ruin this kid like every other up and coming NFL star they ever drafted.

 

[ookook]

Yeah Anthony, put the Homer glasses aside for a moment if you can.

Things are a bit different in Detroit, but just a bit. Not a lot.

Again, no offense intended but 85% of C. Johnson's situation remain the same. As does the Song, as we have heard it from fanboys time and time again.

 

[ookook]

Oh, and the rest of the division all got better too.

 

[Bojang0301]

Yeah Anthony, put the Homer glasses aside for a moment if you can.

Things are a bit different in Detroit, but just a bit. Not a lot.

Again, no offense intended but 85% of C. Johnson's situation remain the same. As does the Song, as we have heard it from fanboys time and time again.

 

[DesmondBishop]

It's a shame. This is an interesting topic, and a player worth discussing, instead we have to scroll past a really lame argument.

I was thinking the same thing. While I think Stafford will be solid I do not think he will be great, I found it very interesting that FBG has him ranked as the #10 dynasty QB and Flacco who is at this point clearly better and just got a couple nice weapons himself is rated #13.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

It's a shame. This is an interesting topic, and a player worth discussing, instead we have to scroll past a really lame argument.

I was thinking the same thing. While I think Stafford will be solid I do not think he will be great, I found it very interesting that FBG has him ranked as the #10 dynasty QB and Flacco who is at this point clearly better and just got a couple nice weapons himself is rated #13.

Flacco has played 2 years with a very good team that has an elite defense. He is not asked to do much more than manage the game. Stafford played one year with a terrible team. I will give Flacco credit; he has played well. But if his rookie year was with last year's Lions, I doubt he would have been able to do any more than Stafford did.Flacco should be better at this point. It doesn't mean he will (or won't) in the future.