Stafford in WFT Plans? He’s Available

[MTK]

Honestly how is trading for Stafford even a debate? Just get it done.

[sevier2]

Originally Posted by MTK

Honestly how is trading for Stafford even a debate? Just get it done.

This is where I'm at.

I've seen this team make blockbuster trades/FA signings time and time again for players that weren't of the same caliber as Stafford. We desperately need an upgrade at QB and he still has a LOT to offer at this point in his career.

I know it's a new regime in Washington and they're trying to reset the culture but this seems like a move we have to make. If they were willing to go "all in " on Cooper last off-season they should see do the same here.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by MTK

Honestly how is trading for Stafford even a debate? Just get it done.

It makes us NFC East Champs for a couple of years, hooray.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mredskins

It makes us NFC East Champs for a couple of years, hooray.

I think you're underselling Stafford and the value of having a legit QB to go along with this growing defense, but anyway, given our brilliant W/L record since 1991 how is winning a few more division titles at the very least, a bad thing?

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by MTK

I think you're underselling Stafford and the value of having a legit QB to go along with this growing defense, but anyway, given our brilliant W/L record since 1991 how is winning a few more division titles at the very least, a bad thing?

It is not but i am being devils advocate.

Do we try to build to a long term winner or a flash in the pan NFC east champ for a few years?

The ULTIMATE question is is Stafford the piece that pushes our needle to Super Bowl contender. My gut says no.

I rather trade a bunch of assets get Watson then build around a 25 year old stud QB. That in the short term may move us back a step where in the short term with the Stafford trade moves us forward a step or two.

Look at Tampa Bay once Brady is injured or retires they are toast. All their chips lie with him.

BUT one could argue the NFL is a NOW league and long term plans in the NFL are non existent.

If you go the Stafford route you got go find weapons to place around him that can produce now.

My overall point is Stafford alone doesn't really get us anywhere special just not in the basement where we have lived so long.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mredskins

It makes us NFC East Champs for a couple of years, hooray.

You have to get to the playoffs to be in the mix as an annual contender.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[SkinsGuru]

Originally Posted by MTK

Honestly how is trading for Stafford even a debate? Just get it done.

probably because chances are low we can get Stafford . . . too many better qualified teams will be looking (Patriots, 49ers, Colts, Rams), so why would he come here?

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by SkinsGuru

probably because chances are low we can get Stafford . . . too many better qualified teams will be looking (Patriots, 49ers, Colts, Rams), so why would he come here?

Our Defense is better than all of those teams other than LAR.. Also the Rams would take a big chunk to eat Goff's salary

[SkinsGuru]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Our Defense is better than all of those teams other than LAR.. Also the Rams would take a big chunk to eat Goff's salary

Not sure i agree with that . . . 49ers defense was missing their best player in Bosa (their Young) and quite a few others. They were a superbowl team that almost won the year before. They also have far better WR's than us, one of the the best TE's in the league, and a great running game (all 3 things we are missing).

Colts, same thing, much better offense skill players, great offensive line, great running game, good WR's. And a stellar defense that IMO like the 49ers is still ahead of ours. Definitely more consistent for now.

That being said, our defense is close to both of those teams, but our offense is not.

PLUS . . . which teams have a reputation of being run better? The colts, the 49ers or the Redskins? yeah, not close as we are considered one of the worse run franchises in all of spots. One year made us look better, but us fans were so used to BAD that decent seems great to us. Others don't wear those same burgundy and gold glasses when the look at our team.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by SkinsGuru

probably because chances are low we can get Stafford . . . too many better qualified teams will be looking (Patriots, 49ers, Colts, Rams), so why would he come here?

Ian Rapoport is saying that a third of the league has called Detroit to inquire about what it will take to trade for Matthew Stafford.

I don't think he has a say in where he goes, like Watson with the no trade clause. It will come down to the highest bidder.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Ian Rapoport is saying that a third of the league has called Detroit to inquire about what it will take to trade for Matthew Stafford.

I don't think he has a say in where he goes, like Watson with the no trade clause. It will come down to the highest bidder.

He has a say in that any team trading for him will want to be assured that he'll be open to signing a longer term deal to stay there beyond just the two years remaining on his deal.

When negotiations get serious, teams vying for his services will ask to talk contract with Stafford's team. They'll want to make sure all parties are happy.

So if he says, hey I can't stop you from trading me to the Jets, but I'm not signing there long term, the Jets likely offer less to the Lions at that point. Stafford definitely has influence in the process.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

He has a say in that any team trading for him will want to be assured that he'll be open to signing a longer term deal to stay there beyond just the two years remaining on his deal.

When negotiations get serious, teams vying for his services will ask to talk contract with Stafford's team. They'll want to make sure all parties are happy.

So if he says, hey I can't stop you from trading me to the Jets, but I'm not signing there long term, the Jets likely offer less to the Lions at that point. Stafford definitely has influence in the process.

Oh, he definitely has influence, I'm just saying he doesn't hold the same leverage that D Watson does. Ultimately if a team wants him, and pays Detroit's price, it's a done deal.

[simbosargos75]

Originally Posted by MTK

Honestly how is trading for Stafford even a debate? Just get it done.

It's a debate. He's not nearly as good as some make him out to be. Wake me when he wins something.

I'd take him. No way I'm giving a 1st. Yeah, I know there'll be competition, blah blah blah. Cool. Let those other teams piss away a high pick on an injury-prone 33 year old. With back problems no less.

Offer 74. See what happens.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by simbosargos75

It's a debate. He's not nearly as good as some make him out to be. Wake me when he wins something.

I'd take him. No way I'm giving a 1st. Yeah, I know there'll be competition, blah blah blah. Cool. Let those other teams piss away a high pick on an injury-prone 33 year old. With back problems no less.

Offer 74. See what happens.

He's been on one of the most piss poorly run franchises in all of sports. I doubt anyone else would have had much more success there in Detroit. As for injuries he's started all 16 games in 9 of his 12 seasons and 1 of those 3 that he didn't was his rookie year.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by simbosargos75

Let those other teams piss away a high pick on an injury-prone 33 year old. With back problems no less.

That's just false.

In Stafford's last 10 seasons, only one did he not play all 16 games.

2011 - 16 games
2012 - 16 games
2013 - 16 games
2014 - 16 games
2015 - 16 games
2016 - 16 games
2017 - 16 games
2018 - 16 games
2019 - 8 games
2020 - 16 games


Look for yourself: https://www.pro-football-reference.c...S/StafMa00.htm


And in the last 7 seasons, the most INTs he's thrown is 13. Any team could use a QB that durable and that efficient with the football.