The Matthew Stafford FAQ

by John Morgan on Feb 18, 2009 3:54 PM PST Comment 37 comments

With the flood of Stafford posts up as recent; I wanted to post a FAQ piece encapsulating my opinions on the matter.

Do I think Matthew Stafford will be a great pro quarterback? I don't know.

What about Brian Brohm? I'd rather Seattle trade for Brohm than draft Stafford. Unfortunately, I have no evidence that Green Bay is even interested in trading Brohm. Fans always want to somehow beat the system: Nutso trades, fliers on players who will never play but would be so awesome if they did, and far out scenarios involving free agents with no desire to sign. It's possible Seattle could trade for Brohm. If Stafford is available at four, it's absolute Seattle could draft him.

How can I endorse a quarterback I do not think will be great? I haven't officially endorsed Stafford so much as said:

He's been considered a top pro prospect since high school

Fits what I interpret as Tim Ruskell's draft MO

Fits a need Seattle is almost desperate for

Is the right player, at the right time, for the right system

Will likely be available

Makes more sense than almost any other available prospect

May be the only franchise quarterback Seattle has a realistic shot of acquiring

And that quarterback is far and away the most important position in football.

What about a left tackle? Sean Locklear deserves a chance to see if he can stick. If he bombs out, next year's draft has five tackles projected to go in the first round and another six that could go in the first day. I think left tackle is approaching fad status, and do not think a great NFL team or even a great NFL offense needs a great left tackle.

What about Michael Crabtree? Crabtree is awesome and I think he'll make a great pro. I do not think drafting Crabtree matches Ruskell's philosophy, do not think of wide receiver as a building block position, believe wide receiver is as likely to bust as any position and believe Crabtree must provide elite production to dignify the salary he will be due.

Won't he be obscenely expensive? Whoever Seattle takes, they're staring down a 5-6 year, 60+ million dollar contract with 25 to 30 million guaranteed. That's elite money for any position but quarterback. Quarterbacks are paid much, much more than any other position. The Franchise Tag for quarterback is nearly five million more than the next highest paid position, cornerback. In that sense, quarterback is absolutely the smartest position to take in a fixed salary structure. Quarterback is the only position Seattle's pick will not have to be elite to justify his salary. Stafford becomes expensive just as Seattle is clearing money off its books.

What if he busts? The money isn't so much a factor as the production. A top drafted quarterback demands seasons to develop, and bust or not, Seattle will be forced to start Stafford. Seattle isn't likely to compete in 2009 or 2010. I keep reading "win now", but it would take a miraculous turnaround to win now. Seattle is not a young team that suffered growing pains last season; it's an old team that broke down. Drafting to win now is like chasing a pot with crap hole cards. Seattle could chase, end up an improbable winner, but it's more likely they'll lose now and be less able to pursue the next hand.

The Stafford bust effect kicks in 2011. Seattle's young talent will be entering its prime. Its older talent will be inside its peak. Matt Hasselbeck will likely be gone. Stafford could single-handedly ruin the 2011 season. How long does he last if he obviously sucks? Let's look back at eighteen* years of top ten picks**, starting five years ago in 2004. How long did the obvious busts last before sent packing?

Byron Leftwich: 3 seasons, 6 games.

David Carr: 5 seasons

Joey Harrington: 3 seasons, 11 games

Tim Couch: 4 seasons, 8 games

Akili Smith: 2 seasons, 1 game

Ryan Leaf: 1 season, 9 games

Kerry Collins: 3 seasons, 4 games

Heath Shuler: 2 seasons

Rick Mirer: 3 seasons, 9 games

Dave Klingler: 3 seasons

Jeff George: 3 season, 11 games

Far from being franchise crippling, bust quarterbacks rarely saw their fourth season, and no bust quarterback taken outside the first overall pick lasted into his fourth season. My methodology is pretty simple here. Any season in which a quarterback played the majority of games in a season and started a game the next season is considered a "season". That's to reflect that even if a quarterback did not start every game, the team was still captive to his potential (i.e. hadn't given up on him and drafted an adequate replacement.) Season's are counted as sixteen games no matter how many the quarterback actually started. The average top ten bust played 52 games (51.9) or three seasons and four games.

As I've said before, part of the reason people interpret such malignancy in the quarterback bust is that teams that draft top quarterbacks are already rebuilding and therefore likely to be bad. If Seattle is already unlikely to compete in 2009, then should Stafford bust, he'd likely be off the team in 2013.

* I picked eighteen seasons to balance the post strike era with a large enough sample size.

** The only quarterback I omitted is Andre Ware, who only played in only fourteen games over four seasons. Seems like an obvious outlier.

This marks the end of my first phase of talking Stafford and posting will return to normal tomorrow. If I've piqued your interest, March will feature plenty of Stafford including entire game breakdowns.

0 recs | Comment 37 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My interest is piqued.

My only fear is that I’ll spend the next two months convincing myself that he’d be a good pick, only to see the Seahawks not select him come draft day and be disappointed (especially if he turns out to be a stud).

by LantermanC on Feb 18, 2009 4:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The consolation prize of Everette Brown or Michael Crabtree should help with the disappointment

I’m really interested to see the game breakdowns on Stafford.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 18, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would hate drafting Brown even more than Stafford.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 18, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would be more shocked if you actually provided an explanation for why

by Nate Dogg on Feb 18, 2009 8:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm on the Crabtree bandwagon

and I don’t necessarily see how the team needs a big rebuild process. FIrst, the Dolphins went from 1-15 last season to a 11-5 team? That’s a much bigger turn around than 4-12. And in our 4-12 record, we had injuries everywhere. If we can stay healthy, I don’t see how we’ll need to rebuild entirely, just a few cogs changed as times passes (such as Walter Jones retiring). And with the Lewis Projection system, he doesn’t appear to be in Peyton Manning’s or Tom Brady’s mold. I do not like him as a prospect, I’m not a talent evaluator, but I think I would be more secure with Brian Brohm learning under Hass (if by some miracle it happens).

Another point against him was that he’s drawing so many comparisons to Larry Fitzgerald, who only had 58 catches, 780 some yards. Do you remember how poorly our recievers were? Our tight end led the team in receptions with 55 catches, a receiver getting that much would’ve helped the team.

by Trepidation on Feb 18, 2009 4:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well, it's kind of unfair to pick on thing from the 2007 season, and then something else from the 2008.

You say that 2008 is not a true talent level (which I believe) citing injuries and bad luck. But in your last paragraph you point to Carlson as our leading receiver., but both Branch and Engram were out half the season and not 100% for the rest of the season, and Hasselbeck wasn’t 100% at any point, and Seneca was only 100% 75% of the time.

that being said, I would love Crabtree as well.

by LantermanC on Feb 18, 2009 4:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Larry also had Boldin and, uh, that other 3rd WR to share catches with...

…and the Cards weren’t exactly the points machine they are today.

That said, the more I see of Stafford, the more I like him. You can say it’s the Farvian mentality, the huge (and quick) arm, or the mobility… but when I see him throw I see some good accuracy too. Throws hit receivers in stride, or are thrown to spots where only the receiver can get it.

Really, I’d take either of them in a heartbeat and would be pretty disappointed. Part of that’s a “sex” factor, no question… this team NEEDS some sex appeal, honestly.

by djafrot on Feb 18, 2009 4:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"Quarterback is the only position Seattle's pick will not have to be elite to justify his salary. "

This is perhaps the strongest argument I’ve heard to justify taking a QB at 4.

by cyberwulf on Feb 18, 2009 6:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Move down in the draft

I don’t think that there is ANY player this year that is worth the top 5 money, move down and let Oakland take Crabs, and then move down again and let SF take Sanchez… look at the draft mocks – when we (or another team ahead of Oak) takes Crabs, that mock will have Maclin for Oak and Sanchez picked by SF. Why not, and pick up some extra picks??? I know - we need a trading partner, but, I think that this scenerio will work for us. We can pick any number of WRs, DTs, and OTs along the draft somewhere — I think Nicks, or Heyward-Bey wiil be just as good as Crabs – or they could be a bust also JMHO

by BUSTINHEADS on Feb 18, 2009 6:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Moving down from #4 is a lot easier said than done.

by BrianL on Feb 18, 2009 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Stafford's Draft Value

I’ve scoured the past several posts on Matthew Stafford to make sure I’m not asking an old question, and I hope this question is within the bounds of this draft discussion, so here goes…..

If Stafford is available at 1.4 where Seattle picks, as John suggests, and Seattle decides not to draft him, is it possible that Stafford drops all the way to 1.10 – where San Fransisco picks? Could Seattle be setting the market for Stafford at the fourth pick, when his value could potentially drop all the way to the tenth pick if we don’t draft him? I ask this because it has been mentioned numerous times on this website how reluctant teams are to trade into the top 5…..does this also include the top 10 (if a team were trying to catch a “falling” Stafford)? Does Matthew Stafford have a realistic chance of dropping 6 more spots if Seattle doesn’t draft him? This questioning may be irrelevant since picking fourth is what it is, and the Seahawks don’t appear to have much flexibility to do anything other than make the best choice, but I was interested in some feedback on the question.

by scratchandsniff on Feb 18, 2009 6:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think there is anyway he will last until the 10th pick.

He’s just too good. Some team will trade up for him if need be.

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 20, 2009 1:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If we're not going to be in contention for the next year or two

Why not just wait until the next draft to get a shot at Bradford/McCoy? They’re better prospects than Stafford IMO and we can still get the BPA, Crabtree.

by aerozeppelin on Feb 18, 2009 7:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

John Morgan's concern is

if Matt Hasslebeck has a terrible year this year, he may decide to retire. That would leave us with Seneca Wallace as our starting QB (if he’s still on the team) and would force us to start the QB we drafted next year way too early.

by Fear on Feb 18, 2009 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

True, but we could always get a Jeff Garcia, Kerry Collins type

as a 1 or 2 year stop gap. Or Brad Johnson from Dallas. I hear he’s good.

by LantermanC on Feb 18, 2009 7:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

praying for sarcasm

by Nick Andron on Feb 19, 2009 8:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes of course.

I’d be happy with the first two as backups or one or two year starters. Brad Johnson might be the only guy in the NFL who can have as many weapons on offense as he had last year and look as bad as he did. Seriously, if you’re and old guy who’s only supposed to come off the bench in emergency situations, and you can’t get more than 1 successful drive per game, you shouldn’t be playing anymore.

by LantermanC on Feb 19, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily.

Obviously, Seneca did a fair job starting this season. There’s nothing set in stone that just because you drafted someone early, they have to immediately start.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 18, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If we went into a season and Seneca started over a 1st round draft pick,

there would be a minor riot in Seattle.

That situation stinks. I can definitely see someone like a Garcia coming in.

I really doubt Matt retires early, anyhow. I think he’d be a good mentor-type, even if he’s probably too chatty to be effective! The first-rounder would constantly be thinking “OK, OK! SHUT UP already.”

by djafrot on Feb 18, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Journeyman backup John Kitna started over #1 overall pick Carson Palmer.

Worked well.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 19, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think John's overly concerned

Except in the sense that Hasselbeck may be done, already. I acknowledge that, and am concerned. But you only draft Stafford on account of his own merits. Don’t overthink it. I don’t know enough to say whether he’s merited; I know we all have questions, and that scares most of us away, but the concerns on Stafford haven’t been corroborated yet.

But I think John’s overly concerned, because it does sound like the next two to three seasons are being written off. Realistically, I’d project our win curve to be between 5 and 11 wins next year. The past 4 years, I’d have projected us at 7 to 11 wins. The difference isn’t great. The team needs to find a future at QB, but don’t let that translate into three more lost seasons.

We had more variables to contend with last year than this year. Last year didn’t work out, so that isn’t encouraging, but there are so, so many factors, that will eventually determine the fate of 2010 and 2011 that it’s very unrealistic to let an anticipated lack of success affect the draft strategy for this year. It’s defeatist, and Herm Edwards may need a word with you to ’splain why we draft.

by jacobstevens on Feb 19, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So I love that you are doing most of your scouting based on what Ruskell is looking for

because it gives us a better idea of what we can look forward to next year.

But at some point before the draft, can we see something like ‘If JM were GM, he would draft (realistically) do this in the 2009 draft…’?

by LantermanC on Feb 18, 2009 8:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm careful

not to get overly excited about Stafford. I would be excited if our team saw enough in him to draft and prepare for life after Hasselbeck, but as compelling as JM’s arguments for why Stafford will be available are, I still think he’ll be off the board when we pick.

by Misfit74 on Feb 18, 2009 9:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think he will be

Especially now that the Lions have held onto Culpepper.

"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09

by Wayward Llama on Feb 19, 2009 3:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 20, 2009 1:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Still not sold on Stafford

I’ve been doing a little research, looking for the “Brady” diamond in the rough that could be had in late rounds and have settled on an interesting prospect… Todd Boeckman from Ohio State. Now, before you get riled up about a senior who was benched in favor of a Freshman, consider this:
1. Boeckman was 1st team Big Ten QB in 2007 leading Buckeyes to BCS title game.
2. Benched in ‘08 after 3rd week thrashing by USC, a game in which he was 14/27 with 2 picks… but Beanie Wells did not play (injured), one TD pass to Robiskie was called back due to holding, a second long pass inside the 10, ditto. The O-line was a sieve and Boek is no Seneca when it comes to scrambling ability. Neither are most NFL QB’s. And USC embarrassed a lot of offenses this year. I think Trussel unfairly threw him under the bus.
3. He handled the benching with extreme humility, stayed positive, remained a team captain, took the high road. Conclusion: Very high character.
4. Played in pro-style offense, 5 and 7 step drops.
5. Prototypical size, good arm strength, excellent accuracy (65%+)
6. 5th year senior who would have gone mid rounds in 2008 draft had he not returned for his senior season. Again, thanks for the loyalty Trussell.

He is projected to go undrafted, due exclusively as far as I can tell because he saw little playing time after USC. Seems to me he’d be worth a 7th round pick as a project. Watching film he actually reminds me a lot of Hass. I saw one game live late in the season (can’t recall which) where he came in late and threw beautiful touch pass into the corner of the endzone to his replacement QB (Pryor), who happens to be 6’6" and a very good receiver as well.

Summary, aside from Staffords greater number of starts, I don’t see a lot more potential with him than I do with Boeckman. Boeckmans big mistake seems to be playing for and trusting Trussel.

by diehard82 on Feb 18, 2009 10:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Correction

Item 2 above, he was 14/21. Sanchez was 17/28 in the same game with 1 pick.

by diehard82 on Feb 18, 2009 10:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Great post man.

I remember liking Boeckman last year. He reminds me a bit of Matt Flynn. Both seem to have big arms and neither make dumb decisions. I think both look like plodding qbs, but are fairly mobile (considering their appearance).
I would not mind taking a flier on him.

by LantermanC on Feb 18, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

And another guy who was supposedly not very mobile is Rothlessburger. He’s been pretty successful.

by diehard82 on Feb 18, 2009 10:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thats not accurate

If developed properly and not thrown into the fire too early, Roethlisberger has the size, arm strength, competitiveness and athleticism to become the best quarterback out of this class when all is said and done

From ESPN, premium unfortunately. Emphasis mine.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 18, 2009 10:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My Bad, you are correct

I assumed he was not known for agility since he looks fairly big and lumbering to me, but he has been known since day one as very agile. I guess I need a new prescription. Glasses too.

by diehard82 on Feb 18, 2009 11:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he's known as "agile"

But he can definitely get out of the pocket. I think it’s just his size and ability to escape sacks through his brute strength that makes him seem agile.

"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09

by Wayward Llama on Feb 19, 2009 3:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One of Roethlisberger's biggest assets out of school was his mobility.

Big, strong-armed, mobile game manager type QB.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 19, 2009 6:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know.

Every time I saw Boeckman play, he looked terrible…and considering that Ohio State plays against mostly high school-level talent, that’s not very convincing of his QB ability.

"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09

by Wayward Llama on Feb 19, 2009 3:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He looked awesome against the Huskies in 2007

And that was when we were actually looking good.

by LantermanC on Feb 19, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Great post, John.

Regardless of whether or not you think we should go after Stafford, I think the writing is on the wall. The Seahawks need to address the QB position sooner rather than later.

by BrianL on Feb 18, 2009 11:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs