I Hope Detroit Drafts Matthew Stafford

by Brandon on Feb 18, 2009 2:19 AM CST

Since the Packers are in no way considering drafting Georgia QB Matthew Stafford, I haven't been reading too much about him. But I have been wondering if he's turning pro early before teams find out he isn't that good.

His selection does affect the Packers since he's widely expected to be taken 1st overall by Detroit.

I'm not a fan of drafting underclassmen QBs. It's more likely that the college QBs who start a lot of games (thereby gaining a lot of playing experience), and prove they can start basically from the moment they set foot on campus, are the really good ones. But since the Packers did pretty well last season with a QB who left college early, that line of thinking probably doesn't hold a lot of water among most Packer fans.

Stafford is 6'3" 236 lbs. and apparently a very good athlete, I've seen some nifty highlight real plays. He's got the physical tools to succeed in the NFL. But so did Ryan Leaf.

David Lewin writes for Football Outsiders.com and his college QB projection system is among the best. He is not kind to Stafford's NFL future:

In his three seasons at Georgia, Stafford started 33 games and completed 57.1 percent of the passes he threw. That puts him in some pretty uninspiring company.

QBs similar to Stafford

Quarterback Starts Comp Pct.

Patrick Ramsey 38 58.9

Jake Plummer 40 55.4

Shaun King 39 55.5

J.P. Losman 27 57.8

Matt Ryan 32 59.9

Matt Stafford 33 57.1

Yes, reigning rookie of the year Matt Ryan appears on that list, but with a bit of an asterisk. Ryan played for a Boston College team that had no running game and threw 654 passes in his final season, skewing his completion percentage some. Even if Ryan doesn't come with an asterisk, a one-in-five shot of picking a quarterback of Ryan's caliber shouldn't encourage Stafford's selection in the slightest.

One of the arguments against a statistical-based system for projecting college quarterbacks is that a system quarterback such as former Hawaii star Colt Brennan would put up inflated numbers that weren't true indicators of his NFL ability. Although scouts should sniff that stuff out and encourage teams to avoid taking such players in the first two rounds (something Lewin built into his system), another easy way to control for system quarterbacks is to compare the quarterback to the previous starter at his school.

Stafford was directly preceded at Georgia by the recently retired David Greene; both spent their entire college careers under head coach Mark Richt in similar offensive systems. Stafford's college numbers are actually worse than Greene's, with the latter completing 59 percent of his passes and averaging 8.01 yards per attempt to Stafford's 7.83. If Stafford was really a star in the making, wouldn't he have put up better numbers, in the same system, than a guy who washed out of the NFL without taking a professional snap? If it was our $25 million guaranteed, the answer would need to be yes.

QBs similar to Stafford
Quarterback	Starts	Comp Pct.
Patrick Ramsey	38	58.9
Jake Plummer	40	55.4
Shaun King	39	55.5
J.P. Losman	27	57.8
Matt Ryan	32	59.9
Matt Stafford	33	57.1

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I agree and dont...

Stafford has the ability to be an great QB. But he does need work. He has a big arm and get the ball pretty much anywhere on the field. But just ask JaMarcus Russel and OAK if just having a big arm will make you good…. Stafford lacks accuracy and awareness both things that get better the more you play. So I would say yes I dont think he is ready but would disagree and say he will be good sometime in the future. I think he will have an easier chance to improve then his counterpart QB in the draft Mark Sanchez who has the accuracy and awareness at times but lacks the arm strength.

by bizzle4 on Feb 18, 2009 6:01 PM CST reply actions

First let me say that the most important trait in a QB is ACCURACY… You don’t need to have a really strong arm, unless you are playing in the cold and/or windy… LIKE GB!!!

I have been luke warm on Stafford and for the #1 overall pick, I am NOT taking someone I am lukewarm on!!! THe article about his accuracy is really worrisome, and given that I would not take him #1… Not in Detroit, Not in GB!!!

You can improve arm strength to a certain degree (ask Brady or Rodgers), but accuracy is MUCH more difficult to improve!!! It takes ALOT of hard work and generally a couple of years to correct flaws in his throwing mechanics and footwork!

That being the case I definitely hope Detroit picks him #1… LMAO

by Strohman on Feb 18, 2009 9:01 PM CST up reply actions

I don't like Sanchez that much either

Every time I saw USC play, I couldn’t get over how drawn out the receiver’s routes were. In the NFL you can’t run the kind of routes USC does. Just ask Mike Martz and Kurt Warner’s and Jon Kitna’s concussion specialist. The most important aspect of football is pass protection, and Sanchez was afforded too much of it and it’s hard for me to gauge how good a QB he really can be.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey

by jobe on Feb 18, 2009 10:57 PM CST up reply actions

Sanchez

I’m not wild about that guy either.

by Brandon on Feb 19, 2009 11:40 PM CST up reply actions

Two small things:

1) Although the QB comparisons on that list look bad, many of them would at least offer some stability to the revolving door at QB the Lions have had in my lifetime. Ryan, Plummer, Ramsey-I wouldn’t want those guys on my Packer team, but if I were a Lions fan I’d take them in a heartbeat over Olavsky (sp?), washed up Culpepper, Drew Stanton, Joseph Harrington, Scott Mitchell, or whatever other dreck they’ve been trotting out under center. I guess that doesn’t justify paying Stafford #1 overall money by itself, but for a team looking to put 0-16 behind them drafting a franchise QB makes a lot of sense. At least, aesthetically.

2) Don’t be so quick to discount the importance of arm strength in regards to Stafford. All Favre had was the arm, and remembering back to ‘92 he was SEVERELY lacking in accuracy/decision making/intangibles/reading defenses/etc. Jay Cutler is another more recent example. Some analysts, Ron Jaworski for example, used to rave about Cutler because he had a big league arm and could make all of the throws in the NFL. It looks like Cutler is the best QB from that draft. Not saying any of you guys are wrong regarding drafting Stafford #!, just sayin’ you know? You can’t teach a strong arm, just like you can’t teach height in basketball.

I miss the slide, the balloons, and the giant beer mug. :(

by Adam P on Feb 20, 2009 9:27 AM CST reply actions

Absolutely

Even the best projection system is only the most likely outcome. The most likely outcome might be that Stafford is a bust, but there still is probably a good chance he’ll become a star. But he’s a huge risk as a number 1 overall pick, especially with the huge salary cap killing contract involved. There was a good reason Favre slipped into the 2nd round; he had a lot of risk coming out of college.

by Brandon on Feb 23, 2009 12:19 AM CST up reply actions