He had Sean McVay from the get-go.
Stumbling across this reel on Facebook had me pondering.
Stumbling across this reel on Facebook had me pondering.
What would Stafford have achieved if.....
- Thread starter RamUK
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
He'd probably challenge Brady as the best ever. But without the cheating.
We would have won in 2018. But I don't think a 23 year old McVay would have done much for a 21 year old Stafford.
you're thinking about that too logically. It's just a hypothetical thought, what is Stafford had a coach like McVay his whole career. Look what McVay did for Goff.
I know.
On his stats, they might be a lot lower. Things like 4th quarter comebacks would be lower because he wouldn't be behind as much with a McVay. The TDs and Ints might both be lower, as well as the passing yards because McVay would have installed a better run game than Stafford had in Detroit. He wouldn't have been 0-3 in the postseason from 2009-2020.
The accurate answer is he'd already be unanimously considered a HOF QB.
I'm one of those old heads. I like it just the way it is. With Goff, McVay had to learn exactly what he needed to be better. With Stafford, he's enjoying every fucking second. And it has allowed him to look for and find, the guy who will eventually take over for #9.
Ty Simpson. That was an interesting pick. A lot people were not happy with it. They thought they shoulda picked a guy who can help them win now. And while most thought Simpson was worthy of a first round pick, they also thought he was more of a late first round pick. Picking him at 13 was a reach. They coulda traded down and still got him.I know.
On his stats, they might be a lot lower. Things like 4th quarter comebacks would be lower because he wouldn't be behind as much with a McVay. The TDs and Ints might both be lower, as well as the passing yards because McVay would have installed a better run game than Stafford had in Detroit. He wouldn't have been 0-3 in the postseason from 2009-2020.
The accurate answer is he'd already be unanimously considered a HOF QB.
I'm one of those old heads. I like it just the way it is. With Goff, McVay had to learn exactly what he needed to be better. With Stafford, he's enjoying every fucking second. And it has allowed him to look for and find, the guy who will eventually take over for #9.
Here's the thing. There was talk AZ would move up to take him if the Rams traded back. And then there was the revelation that they had this planned all along. If they wait till next year they're picking very late in the first round. All the good QB's are taken by then. So now that frees up that pick so they can trade for Myles Garrett.
They have Stafford's heir apparent now. He has the look of a guy that fits what McVay wants out of his QB. And they're still all in for this year and maybe beyond. McSnead playing chess while other GM/HC combos are playing checkers.
Most are very satisfied with the Rams plan, or if not at least see the logic behind it. Never minding the fact that Simpson looks pretty damn good besides.
Good possibility of this scenario being valid.
LeFluer was likely aware of or in tune with the prospect of McSnead being high on Ty Simpson.
There is no way they were going to have the #13 pick anytime soon. Certainly not their own. And who could they trade away to acquire a pick that high? A guy you don't want to get rid of. Let's go back to 2025 draft, the genesis of the plan, when they traded out of the first round to get a first round pick from Atlanta and then drafted Ferguson. They claimed.....whether you want to believe them or not......they would have taken him at #26 if a trade didn't happen. So great, they got their guy and picked up a future first round pick.
Fast forward to 2026 and prior to the draft they trade their original first round (#29), a 5th Rd (#169) and a 6th round (#210) as well as a 2027 3rd round (#96???) for McDuffie. Then they sign Watson and they have their secondary issues solved. Next they draft Simpson. I am of the belief if he's your guy, I don't care if you take him 20 slots higher, as long as you get him. Then they trade their 2027 first round pick (#32????), 2028 2nd round pick, 2029 3rd round pick and Verse for Garrett. And as it turned out, many claim getting Simpson allowed them to say "Fuck that 2027 first round pick" to grab Garrett.
Like has been said, many times, these guys are playing chess, not checkers.
We can wonder what he would accomplish if he had McVay his entire career (same as I wonder what would've happened if S-Jax had McVay for his entire career, which is slightly different because the Hall won't even elect him until he passes, most likely, and maybe not even then, so I can understand in his case)...but how much would Stafford's career really have changed with McVay, having a young Stafford who was, in his own words, still growing as far as seeing the field and all of the intangibles.
It's also like a genie's wishes: you may try to make wishes, but the wish (answer) might fuck you up more than it would if you never made it. If Stafford had McVay his whole career, would that have meant that he was on the Lions with McVay? Would they have won that 2021 Super Bowl in So-Fi instead of us? Would we have still been a laughingstock without McVay? Again, just saying there's some pesky genie wish scenarios.
Personally, I'd rather focus on Stafford being here as he is. He's still already a top ten quarterback of all time, at the very least. Add another potential Super Bowl win or two, and he's easily top five, if not top four (and honestly, I can only put Marino, Elway, and maybe Peyton above him as far as overall awards, stats, and raw talent), with his stats and the accomplishments, and he's an easy first-ballot HOFer either way.
Just my weird opinion.
It's also like a genie's wishes: you may try to make wishes, but the wish (answer) might fuck you up more than it would if you never made it. If Stafford had McVay his whole career, would that have meant that he was on the Lions with McVay? Would they have won that 2021 Super Bowl in So-Fi instead of us? Would we have still been a laughingstock without McVay? Again, just saying there's some pesky genie wish scenarios.
Personally, I'd rather focus on Stafford being here as he is. He's still already a top ten quarterback of all time, at the very least. Add another potential Super Bowl win or two, and he's easily top five, if not top four (and honestly, I can only put Marino, Elway, and maybe Peyton above him as far as overall awards, stats, and raw talent), with his stats and the accomplishments, and he's an easy first-ballot HOFer either way.
Just my weird opinion.
The Lions were a horrible team that drafted Stafford (0-16). That's what happens when you are as good as Stafford was coming out of college. It's hard to become a contending team like the Rams have under McVay, Snead, and the entire Rams management. No doubt Stafford would have made a team with a solid management team a consistent contender. From what I read, the Lions never established a solid running game or a solid defense to help Stafford. For the most part, the McVay-led Rams have provided Goff and Stafford with both. Highly rated quarterbacks don't get drafted into a good organization. It took the blockbuster trade of H Walker (1989) for Aikman and the Cowboys to become a consistently winning team. If Stafford was in Aikman's situation, I'm sure he would have produced the multiple championships (3) that Aikman got or more.
Last edited:
I agree with what Irvin said to the extent that Andy Reid and McVay have proven that they can put QBs in more advantageous positions to succeed. There is a long history of QBs having success with Reid, then going to other teams and not being as good.
I don't agree with the implication that Stafford had bad offensive coaching in Detroit. The Lions had a myriad of issues when Stafford was up there. Sometimes, the defense was bad. Sometimes, their running game was atrocious. Some years, Stafford got injured. I don't think it is fair to lay everything at the foot of the coaches. At one point in Stafford's career, his reputation wasn't so hot and the media actually gave his OC much of the credit for helping to make him a more efficient and effective QB. So, this narrative that Stafford was always a great QB who was held back by incompetence around him is a more recent creation and doesn't match what many media people were actually saying in those years when they happened.
This happened with Tom Brady's career as well. Most people were not calling him a GOAT at the beginning of his career. A good percentage of people thought that Brady was overrated and being propped up by the coaching and system around him. It was after more SB wins and when his passing stats got better in the middle of his career that the conventional thinking about him as an individual player shift.
Same in the NBA with Michael Jordan. Many people forget that in the early years of Jordan's success with the Bulls, there were many skeptics who downplayed his accomplishments. We could have a similar debate comparing Jordan's career with Stafford's, because what if Phil Jackson had never been hired by the Bulls and installed the triangle offense? What if Pippen and Grant never join the team? Conceivably, Jordan never wins a single NBA title. His place in history might be remembered completely differently today.
It works both ways. I don't think that Sean McVay is necessarily a better offensive coach than Kyle Shanahan. The key reason McVay has a SB ring and Shanahan lost to Andy Reid in the SB is due to the QBs on the teams. If Shanahan had the more talented QB in those SBs, his team probably would have won. So, where would McVay be today if he never had good starting QBs on his roster? He's a coach, he's not a magician.
I don't agree with the implication that Stafford had bad offensive coaching in Detroit. The Lions had a myriad of issues when Stafford was up there. Sometimes, the defense was bad. Sometimes, their running game was atrocious. Some years, Stafford got injured. I don't think it is fair to lay everything at the foot of the coaches. At one point in Stafford's career, his reputation wasn't so hot and the media actually gave his OC much of the credit for helping to make him a more efficient and effective QB. So, this narrative that Stafford was always a great QB who was held back by incompetence around him is a more recent creation and doesn't match what many media people were actually saying in those years when they happened.
This happened with Tom Brady's career as well. Most people were not calling him a GOAT at the beginning of his career. A good percentage of people thought that Brady was overrated and being propped up by the coaching and system around him. It was after more SB wins and when his passing stats got better in the middle of his career that the conventional thinking about him as an individual player shift.
Same in the NBA with Michael Jordan. Many people forget that in the early years of Jordan's success with the Bulls, there were many skeptics who downplayed his accomplishments. We could have a similar debate comparing Jordan's career with Stafford's, because what if Phil Jackson had never been hired by the Bulls and installed the triangle offense? What if Pippen and Grant never join the team? Conceivably, Jordan never wins a single NBA title. His place in history might be remembered completely differently today.
It works both ways. I don't think that Sean McVay is necessarily a better offensive coach than Kyle Shanahan. The key reason McVay has a SB ring and Shanahan lost to Andy Reid in the SB is due to the QBs on the teams. If Shanahan had the more talented QB in those SBs, his team probably would have won. So, where would McVay be today if he never had good starting QBs on his roster? He's a coach, he's not a magician.
I don't have many player memories of those years Stafford was on the Lions, outside of Megatron. Early on, the running game wasn't good by comaprision or the defnse.
NOTEBOOK: Stafford likes what he's seeing from running backs
Tim Twentyman covers all the Lions news of the day including improving the run game, Patricia vs. Bowles and more.
www.detroitlions.com
The Detroit Lions have relied a lot on the right arm of quarterback Matthew Stafford since he entered the league in 2009.
Over that span, Detroit's rushing attack has ranked in the top 20 in the league just once (17th in 2013). They've ranked 28th or worse five times.
Stafford will take the ball and sling it 50 times a game if that's what it takes to win, but having more balance and the ability to ice a game or win one on the ground, was something GM Bob Quinn and head coach Matt Patricia wanted to try to add to the Lions' offense this offseason. --------------------------------------
It's possible that Stafford had to take more risks with a poor Lions team. I posted above that Aikman needed a great supporting cast that took him 3 years to get to the playoffs. If he had McVay, his learning curve would have been sped up,
I'm just spitballing here.
If a young McVay had a young Stafford, he may have exiled him in a similar manner than he did Jared Goff. It's not as simple a scenario as it seems.
