Field Gulls: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Spencer Hall's Sports Meme Power Rankings

The Tape: Matthew Stafford's Troubling Start

Once this starts it will have a life of its own.

One report not reputable enough to link to, and likely a leveraged guess, states Detroit will select Jason Smith with the first overall pick. Once this stuff starts leaking, it usually means news is imminent. I never thought Detroit would draft Stafford but I'm not so cocky as to bank on it. Nevertheless, we're only a little more than a month from the draft and if I'm going to do this right, it's time to start. So forgive me if this looks awfully silly awfully soon when Detroit announces the signing of Matthew Stafford, but onward.

If Stafford slips to two he slips to four, and if he slips to four, Seattle must draft him-if there's abundant evidence that Stafford will cut muster as an NFL quarterback. And that's where we start. Not with dry stats, or colorful similes about arm strength, or scouting reports written with upside-tinged glasses, but no-nonsense game reports, and as many as we can cram into the next few weeks.

Capital One Bowl

We'll start where Stafford left off. The Michigan State Spartans ranked 51st in ADE, a drive-based, opponent adjusted defensive metric. The NCAA ranks their pass efficiency defense 37th. PED incorporates totals and rates for yards, touchdowns and interceptions. I don't know exactly how, but it's the best comprehensive metric I could find for Michigan State's pass defense. It seems to be a bit like quarterback rating. Georgia ranks 8th in AOE, the offensive complement of ADE, and 14th in pass efficiency. The goal here is just list as much information as possible, and offer a little opinion as I go.

First Drive

1-10-GA37(12:05) Matthew Stafford passed to Kris Durham for 8 yards.

Georgia aligns 3 WR (left), WR (right), RB (right), Shotgun

Stafford makes one read, locks on, shows a slight hesitation and then delivers a strike Kris Durham on a quick curl.

2-2-GA45(11:43) Matthew Stafford passed to Knowshon Moreno for 13 yards.

Screen pass. Player introductions make spotting the formation of flow of the play impossible.

1-10-MIST42(11:28) Matthew Stafford passed to Michael Moore for 20 yards.

G: 3 WR (right), WR (left), RB (right), Shotgun

Stafford absolutely burns a hole in his primary receiver, staring, triple clutching, having all day in the pocket, finally shambolically scrambling right, turning left, finds Michael Moore crossing the field right to left, nearly in the flat, and drills him an accurate pass. The fixed gaze and panic when his primary read doesn't get open is super-concerning, but the decisiveness, quick release and ability to throw across his body with such velocity is very impressive.

1-10-MIST22(11:10) Matthew Stafford rushed for 11 yards.

G: 3 WR (right), WR (left), RB (left), Shutgun

This plays out like a broken zone read, with Stafford keeping the ball instead of handing off and decoying the weakside linebacker away from the play. Staffrd moves pretty well and the outcome is pretty nice, but slide, young man, slide.

1-10-MIST11(10:48) Knowshon Moreno rushed for 1 yard.

Toss left. You could say a good toss left.

2-9-MIST10(10:05) Matthew Stafford passed incomplete to Kenneth Harris.

G: 2 WR (right), WR (left), TE (left), RB (right) -> Slot (right), Shotgun

Left wide receiver Moore runs a quick curl in the flat, Stafford looks him off, looks up-field, finds Harris coming free on a post route into the end zone, again displays a quick release but overthrows Harris. A lot to like, even the overthrow doesn't much bother me. It does cost Georgia the score.

3-9-MIST10(10:01) Eric Gordon sacked Matthew Stafford for a loss of 5 yards.

The hater title for this play might be: "Your bust is showing." A more merciful take might it's a really bad play indicative of Stafford's inexperience.

Star-divide


G: 3 WR (right), WR (left), RB (left), Shotgun

M: 3-3 Nickel

Michigan State sends a stunting, six man blitz. Stafford has Moreno open in the flat. Open for steps. Moreno, in fact, is farther from the line of scrimmage than the linebacker that eventually sacks Stafford. Stafford is absolutely transfixed by Gordon, attempts to dive forward and is sacked. Stafford, your 20 is showing.

That ends the first drive. Stafford looks more bad than good, but it's seven plays and one went unseen. Obviously, the pocket awareness is the paramount concern, but that Stafford stares down his receivers is also troubling.

Second Drive

1-10-GA16(6:43) Matthew Stafford passed to Knowshon Moreno for 6 yards.

G: 2 WR (right), WR (left), TE (left), RB (right), Shotgun

Stafford looks down field and then passes to Moreno in the flat. Moreno weaves for six.

2-4-GA22(6:23) Matthew Stafford was intercepted. Kendell Davis-Clark returned the interception for 23 yards. GA was penalized 6 yards.

G: 2 WR (left), WR (right), TE (right), RB (right), Shotgun

Moore runs a short square in. Stafford rifles a pass to Moore's back shoulder that ricochets up off his hands and then travels an additional ten yards into the waiting grasp of Davis-Clark. Stafford hustles out and tackles Davis-Clark after a 23 yard return.

Interceptions are phenomenal and we shouldn't read too much into the outcome of this play, but the placement and especially the speed of the pass are indicative of a very unrefined quarterback. Brett Favre and especially Brett Favre's receivers suffered for years Favre's eight yard bullets and the resulting carnage. Arm strength isn't worth a damn without control.

To be continued.

1 recs  |  Comment 53 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Just wait until you get to the 2nd half of that game, if I recall

There are a few bright spots.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Mar 23, 2009 5:40 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

yeah, i was "scouting" him from my couch this game

first have was ragged but the second was really impressive.

by cro-mag! on Mar 24, 2009 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 23, 2009 6:12 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

boy, Georgia really likes the Shotgon

Holmgren would be crying. Do you think that’s indicative of Stafford needing more time to make reads? Or is that just the way Richt likes to call things? Though I think Georgia is a quick passing offense, so that would speed up the reads. Could stunt Stafford’s footwork and reads coming out of a conventional 3-5-7 step drop, though, or at least make it harder to bring him up to NFL speed. Might be something for you to look for in later tape, how well he does when not in the shotgun.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 23, 2009 6:19 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

College football in general uses the shotgun excessively.

There are very few pro-style offenses around at the major colleges, USC being the notable exception. It’s a problem a lot of QB’s have coming out of college today; they don’t have good backpedals and don’t know how to read the field while backing up. Georgia isn’t as bad as some though.

by Fear on Mar 23, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Georgia actually uses a regular drop-back a sizable amount.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 23, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's what I meant when I said Georgia isn't as bad as some.

While many colleges use the shotgun almost exclusively, Georgia isn’t nearly that bad. They actually use the drop-back a pretty decent amount of the time.

by Fear on Mar 23, 2009 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

shows how much college football I watch

I would kill me if I spent both Saturdays and Sundays on the couch in front of the TV. Also would help Georgia’s passing game if they had a week O-line, but they couldn’t have been that horrible, considering how well Moreno did (and Stafford).

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 23, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Huh?

You would kill yourself?

by Built2Spill on Mar 23, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You wouldn't?

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 23, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i would love my life!

i would love my life if i had time to watch football both Saturdays and Sunday!

by cro-mag! on Mar 24, 2009 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol

Sorry I laughed when the “no go” video said “private” and all the related video’s were “go” (board game) based animes.

by kearly on Mar 23, 2009 10:03 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

OK... so I have come full circle on the Stafford thing.

At one point I thought the concept of drafting Stafford was silly, and it really is the embodiment of the chicken – egg argument.

Do you draft a QB when you need one, (a bad move in throwing young QB talent into the fire immediately)….

or

Do you draft a franchise QB when you dont need one (and pay a guy to wait his turn, in turn NOT draft a potential difference maker now).

At any rate, I have flipped on this debate and wouldn’t mind seeing Stafford taken at #4.

by iverson2169 on Mar 24, 2009 12:09 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Wouldn't going full circle mean you were back to not wanting Stafford?

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Mar 24, 2009 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes sir. I guess I should have been more succinct

I thought that by stating I had come full circle it was obvious I originally was anchored in the “draft Stafford” camp.

apparently not :)

Originally I liked the idea of Stafford when the rumors about Hass being let go surfaced. Mora, TR and Co. squelched those rumors and I flipped to the OT, Crabtree, Orakpo train of thought…

by iverson2169 on Mar 24, 2009 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You take the man at 4.

by blackvanilla on Mar 24, 2009 12:48 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't think I can handle the stress of waiting.

This draft can’t come sooner. I’ve finally got NFL network so I can just plop in front of the couch for two days and veg out.

Regarding Stafford… I hate to say it but my gut is really feeling him. The numbers might be iffy, there might be concerns about his decision-making, we might still have a QB for a couple of years, but as soon as I see that highlight video from a while ago all the negatives fade away. Good God, that arm. It’s not just a matter of strength, it looks ridiculously accurate to me, and it looks like he knows where to put the ball so that defenders have no chance at it even when there’s three of them floating around the WR. If you can train him to pick the right guy to throw to (and we have the time to do so, as well as the Seneca), he’s going to be special.

One issue: is a gunslinger like him going to be happy with Knapp’s 50/50 offense? With that cannon I think a Stafford-in-Seattle future might feature a lot of playaction.

by djafrot on Mar 24, 2009 2:01 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Right on.
One issue: is a gunslinger like him going to be happy with Knapp’s 50/50 offense? With that cannon I think a Stafford-in-Seattle future might feature a lot of playaction.

I think this makes him even more special down the road. Misdirection is the key to many things in life.

by iverson2169 on Mar 24, 2009 2:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've been thinking

That maybe we should be looking at handoff and play-action skills of QBs in the draft. Not to exclusion, but for general comparison.

by Groundhog on Mar 24, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

just looking at the little bit I've seen of Stafford's playaction,

it looks decent enough, but it seems that every time he’d fake a handoff he’d have to pull his head up right away because there were defenders right in his face afterwards. I thought Georgia had the running game that could scare defences?

by djafrot on Mar 24, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Uh-Oh.

That makes it sound like Stafford’s play fakes aren’t fooling anyone.

Interesting that the top two rated QBs played on teams with good running games. Chicken or Egg?

by Groundhog on Mar 24, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Would we call Stafford a gunslinger?

It’s not like he comes from a pass-heavy offense (400-to-426 run-to-pass ratio), and most of his throws are rather short-range. Yes, he can throw the ball far, and yes, he likes to take chances with double and triple coverages, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a gunslinger.

I guess it would depend on one’s definition of “gunslinger”.

by Carl Shinyama on Mar 24, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just guessing here, but

I think it’s because of how he doesn’t hesitate to let loose the deep ball even in unfavorable conditions.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 25, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oops.

That’s 400-to-426 PASS-to-RUN ratio. Brain fart.

by Carl Shinyama on Mar 26, 2009 3:39 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Doubting he'll be there at 4.

I’m increasingly convinced Detroit will take Stafford and throw him right in the fire a la Matt Ryan. Picking Jason Smith leaves them with no QB to block for. Taking Curry makes little sense after the Peterson trade.

We’re going O-line and that’s just fine by me.

by lemonverbena on Mar 24, 2009 12:06 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

just as likely they take J Smith and hope Sanchez falls to 20

The Atlanta turnaround with Matt Ryan was good, but would detriot pattern itself more after the Dolphins?

by cro-mag! on Mar 24, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

According to both Kiper and McShay

Josh Freeman doesn’t fall past 19 to the Bucs, so I’m guessing Sanchez doesn’t fall to 20.

by LantermanC on Mar 24, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

*Shrugs*

every year those guys overestimate where QBs and WRs get picked and downplay the less ‘sexy’ positions. we could (should) look into it more, but i don’t see too many teams in need of a first round QB.

by cro-mag! on Mar 24, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Surely we've all been through this.

QB talent significantly drops off past the top picks, much more so than tackles. By doing this, they draft the highest rated QB (obviously the most important position) while also getting someone who could be a respectable starter (Oher, Eben Britton, others)

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 24, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Could have sworn

that the chart recently posted showed second round QBs faring closer to their first round counterparts than most any other position.

by ZZtown on Mar 24, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

TE and OL actually.

But TE doesn’t really count.
I still think that QBs need to be taken in the first two rounds, or at the very end and just take a hail mary’s chance on a random guy. Graph.

That being said, there aren’t any 2nd round QBs in this draft apparently. There might not be any 3rd or even 4th or possibly 5th rounders according to Kiper I believe.

by LantermanC on Mar 24, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So...

considering the Seahawks have two QBs who can play pretty well for the next few years, considering there are plenty of other lower risk ways to get good QBs if necessary, considering QBs can pick up Knapp’s offense pretty quickly and don’t need to sit and learn for years, and considering there are no good value QB picks in this draft, maybe this isn’t a good year to get a QB in the draft.

by ZZtown on Mar 24, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is anyone keeping track of how many times we're going to have to have this conversation?

It makes sense for Seattle to look long and hard at a QB with it’s top pick.

Do you have anything that shows that Knapp offense is easy to learn or that Stafford/Sanchez should or shouldn’t be drafted with the 4th pick?

by Nate Dogg on Mar 24, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sanchez - one year starter should be enough.

Not that I’m disagreeing that he hasn’t looked pretty good, but one could argue that’s simply too small a sample size.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 24, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You must have

missed the reports a few months ago that they are changing much of the terminology and have redesigned the WCO specifically to make it easier to pick up so they can plug in new players faster. And I just gave five good reasons above why the Seahawks shouldn’t pick a QB with the number four pick.

by ZZtown on Mar 24, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You gave five reasons

and didn’t back up one of them. You also didn’t read the two posts I linked.

1. Hasselbeck has injury issues and is old. Wallace is a back up, mediocrity is not something you should strive for at QB . Seattle has a chance to get a great player at the most important position in the game, and if things go well they have the chance to let him sit a year.
2. What are all these lower risk, dependable ways of getting a good quarterback? Chicago is dieing to know.
3. There isn’t anything to show that Gregg Knapp has changed they way quarterback development works. Maybe the terminology is easier, that doesn’t mean he’s going to be able to successfully plug in rookie quarterbacks and have them hit the ground running.
4. Maybe you’re right and Stafford and Sanchez will not be good pro’s, I’m not sold on them yet either. But sorry to say your opinion isn’t the straw that broke their draft chances backs, what don’t you like about them?
5. Where did you learn to count?

by Nate Dogg on Mar 24, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I read em

1. Hasselbeck is fine, three years younger than this year’s Probowl QB, and if he should go down, Wallace is as good as quite a few QBs who have taken their team to the SB, especially when that team is focusing on defense and the running game. So, plenty of time to find a young guy.
2. See NO, AZ, Seattle, and about ten other NFL teams
3. Not just the terminology, the offense itself
4. They are high risk at #4
5. The next few years should yield lower risk QBs in the draft (see my first post), well within the Seahawks’ window.

by ZZtown on Mar 25, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hm

1) is he? how do you know that he will be “fine” for 2009 and 2010? wouldn’t the prudent decision be to take a hard look at the top QB prospect in the draft, with the intention of sitting him for at least a year?

2) see CHI, MIN, TB, DET, and about ten other nfl teams. (also, using AZ and NO… is it “lower risk” to assume that there will be a quality QB to hit free agency, AND to assume he isn’t past his prime, AND that he fits in our system? For every Drew Brees there is a Dante Culpepper.

3) i will be shocked if any aspect of NFL playcalling and strategy gets simpler over the next 5 years. and if it does, simplifying (don’t call it “dumbing down”) an offense seems like something you do out of neccessity, not because you want to.

4) every player is ‘high risk’ at 4. if the best prospect in the draft at the most important position in football is available it would be silly to not even consider drafting him.

5) shrugs no real way to discuss this.

by cro-mag! on Mar 25, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I sort of felt the same way, but

I’m assuming you also think we’ll be mildly competitive next season. In which case we’ll probably drafting in the late teens/early twenties. History shows you rarely get franchise QBs that late in the first.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 25, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah.

Dammit. I get the nagging feeling we’re going to take a tackle at #4, which might be the pragmatic thing to do but MAN is it ever BO-ring.

Of course, Detroit could see Culpepper as a decent enough starter to carry the team for a year or two and want to wait a year for a McCoy or something.

by djafrot on Mar 24, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would hedge my bets if there were a great tackle in this draft.

We got Walter Jones at #6, why can’t we get one at #4 :(

There isn’t even a Shawn Springs!

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 24, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Really? I get the opposite feeling.

For whatever reason I think both tackles will be gone, and I don’t think Ruskell likes Monroe much. I have a feeling that he totally throws us for a loop. Sanchez, Stafford, and Crab all come to mind. Have the Seahawks even spent much effort scouting Crab or Sanchez though?

by LantermanC on Mar 24, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Trade leverage?

I’m not against Sanchez, but for reasons covered we’ll likely pass on him. It seems we’re doing our due dilligence, but I really think the paramount reason for showing interest in Sanchez could be to elicit a trade partner. However, even that seems unlikely. If only I had ESP.

by Misfit74 on Mar 24, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In looking through that article....

Something jumps out at me. The Jags have scheduled a second meeting with him this month already and are meeting with him the same exact night that Seattle plans on doing dinner with him.

Seattle at #4
Jags sit at #8

If TR feels Jacksonville is keen on Sanchez, and Tim really wants to move down in the draft and gain extra picks as well, he might be wanting to “hard sell” a Seattle interest in the USC QB.

by iverson2169 on Mar 24, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

sorry misfit74

didn’t see your response before posting. I think were saying the same thing.

by iverson2169 on Mar 24, 2009 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Worried about the jellyfish.
Start posting about the Seahawks »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Jj_flag_detail1_small
Field Gulls Mod-enforced Rules and Standards

Recent FanPosts

Tigeravitar_small
Football Logic: 101
Olympiabeer_small
The Official Fantasy Football Thread – Week 11. The place for fantasy talk, thought, questions and general fantasy ranting.
Small
Post Your Hawk: Week 11
Rainbow_small
Video Preview: Seattle Seahawks at Minnesota Vikings
Small
Putting a bow on the Hutchinson debate for hawk fans
Jj_flag_detail1_small
Off Topic: Best Sequels, Worst Decisions and Plans for 2010
Profilepic_small
Alright, I Officially Hate Adrian Peterson.
Me_at_the_vikings_game_small
Ask the Daily Norseman
Small
The Two 1st-Rounders in 2010
Profilepic_small
Mora's Presser and General Feelings Towards Our HC

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation


Managers

Image_114_small Shrug

Jj_flag_detail1_small John Morgan

Rainbow_small Scruffy Lefty

Authors

Vp081-c_small Christian

Small BrianL

Small abender20

Small Doug Farrar

Dksbtwit_small Johnny Peel (DKSB)