Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

RichardBak wrote:But having seen every game the guy played for a dozen seasons, the idea that Stafford was just padding his stats all those years in Detroit always struck me as ludicrous.

I'm no Stafford expert, but I think part of the reason people thought that Stafford padded his stats is because his name lends itself so well to the interchangeable nicknames of "Stat Padford" and "Pad Statford". If Stafford's name was "Eric Zeier", then people probably wouldn't insinuate that he was padding his stats.

Bryan wrote:

RichardBak wrote:But having seen every game the guy played for a dozen seasons, the idea that Stafford was just padding his stats all those years in Detroit always struck me as ludicrous.

I'm no Stafford expert, but I think part of the reason people thought that Stafford padded his stats is because his name lends itself so well to the interchangeable nicknames of "Stat Padford" and "Pad Statford". If Stafford's name was "Eric Zeier", then people probably wouldn't insinuate that he was padding his stats.

That's a good point. Too late to change his name to Wenceslaus Siesztrzewitowski??

Bryan wrote:

RichardBak wrote:But having seen every game the guy played for a dozen seasons, the idea that Stafford was just padding his stats all those years in Detroit always struck me as ludicrous.

I'm no Stafford expert, but I think part of the reason people thought that Stafford padded his stats is because his name lends itself so well to the interchangeable nicknames of "Stat Padford" and "Pad Statford". If Stafford's name was "Eric Zeier", then people probably wouldn't insinuate that he was padding his stats.

I think you might be on to something here. When he was a Lion there was also the whole "ford" part of his name. It is a name that gives people in meme culture a lot to work with.

But I also think it's part of a larger culture in sports media where a players value is determined by wins and losses instead of production. There's this unspoken belief that without team success the production is somehow invalid like a counterfeit dollar bill. Even with great quarterbacks who've won titles like Rodgers and Brees there's this undertone that they failed by not winning more that's really similar to what you see with Marino.

rhickok1109 wrote:Actually, Stafford did make a crucial mistake but Tartt bailed him out.

The football gods really smiled on Stafford yesterday. If Tartt makes that interception and the Niners go on to win, then that pretty much seals the "Stat Padford" narrative of Stafford making mistakes when they hurt the most (like Danny White). I remember Lewis Billups had a crucial INT drop in the 2nd Bengals-Niners Super Bowl, and it seemed like a rather routine INT opportunity, but Tartt's INT looked more like fair catching a punt. It's incredible to me that he dropped the INT, because it was so easy. I honestly don't know how he still didn't catch the ball after the first bobble...it's like he missed the INT twice on one play.

RichardBak wrote:I've been saying for years that all Stafford needed was a decent team around him. Of course, the same can be said of many QBs, past and present. Some get the opportunity, others don't. Some take advantage of the opportunity, others don't. But having seen every game the guy played for a dozen seasons, the idea that Stafford was just padding his stats all those years in Detroit always struck me as ludicrous. Let's see if he can clear the final hurdle in a couple weeks. Obviously, a lot of us guys in Detroit are pulling for him.

One thing he accomplished this year was to lead the league in interceptions. He never did that with the Lions.

I'll give Stafford props and a boost up for the 3 playoff wins this year. He did throw the pick against 49ers, and it wasn't a good throw, but he hung in there. He's now got as many 4th quarter drives in the playoffs, two as Aaron Rodgers, though Rodgers is known to be deficient in that regard.

rhickok1109 wrote:

RichardBak wrote:I've been saying for years that all Stafford needed was a decent team around him. Of course, the same can be said of many QBs, past and present. Some get the opportunity, others don't. Some take advantage of the opportunity, others don't. But having seen every game the guy played for a dozen seasons, the idea that Stafford was just padding his stats all those years in Detroit always struck me as ludicrous. Let's see if he can clear the final hurdle in a couple weeks. Obviously, a lot of us guys in Detroit are pulling for him.

One thing he accomplished this year was to lead the league in interceptions. He never did that with the Lions.

Trevor Lawrence and Stafford each had 17, a couple more than Josh Allen.

rhickok1109 wrote:

RichardBak wrote:I've been saying for years that all Stafford needed was a decent team around him. Of course, the same can be said of many QBs, past and present. Some get the opportunity, others don't. Some take advantage of the opportunity, others don't. But having seen every game the guy played for a dozen seasons, the idea that Stafford was just padding his stats all those years in Detroit always struck me as ludicrous. Let's see if he can clear the final hurdle in a couple weeks. Obviously, a lot of us guys in Detroit are pulling for him.

One thing he accomplished this year was to lead the league in interceptions. He never did that with the Lions.

It was just bad luck. Also many of those interceptions came in one bad stretch at the end. "Leading the league" isn't a superlative that means the same thing every year cause it's dependent on what other players do or don't do. For example Brady led the league in TD's with 28 in 02 then 50 in 07. Stafford threw 1 less pick in his 5k yard season and the same amount of touchdowns, his career high. If you take a lot of chances you will throw interceptions but that comes with 41 touchdowns(2nd in the league) about a 2.5 ratio. It just so happened to be a year where no starter threw that many picks so he led the league.

Though I believe Kroenke and the Lombardi Trophy is a foregone conclusion(Prove me wrong Cincinnati) The Rams still have to get it done on the field. I will admit, I am pulling for Stafford and Donald but would be very happy for the Bengals fanbase as well.

I was impressed that the Rams were able to commit to their running game, even though the yardage wasnt there and they did a great job stopping the Niner running game, though Mitchell didnt run the ball enough. With two weeks to get ready, Akers, Michel and perhaps Henderson, should have ample attempts in the SB, but will HC McVay let Stafford cut it loose ?
If the Rams have at least 35 rushing attempts, they should win the game because Stafford is better when everyone gets involved.

The matchup of Ramsey on Chase will be fun to watch, so Higgins and Boyd will have to step up.
If Mixon can get at least 30 touches in this game, the Bengals have a good chance but he will have to block as well because the Rams will be coming. Burrow has to continue to show the poise that got the team here. A win by Burrow will justify some of the comparisons to Montana and Brady, as a young winner but the expectations will increase as well.

Well, here in Detroit, we're pretty much conditioned to always expect the worse, even when it comes to some of our traded favorites. So it wouldn't surprise many of us if Matt picks SB Sunday as the day to do a face-plant in front of the entire world. LA's favored, but Cincy impresses me. Would not at all be surprised if Burrow & Co. pull it off.

Just hope for a great game. There's never been a postseason quite like this one, that's for sure.