Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinzWin
That is exactly what I was going to say Matty. After doing some investigatory journalism:
That is exactly what I was going to say Matty. After doing some investigatory journalism:
Matthew Stafford
Year-09 Team-SF GMS-10 TD-13 INT-20 Fumbles-4 QB Rating-61.0
Shaun Hill
Year-07 Team-SF GMS-3 TD-5 INT-1 Fumbles-2 QB Rating-101.3
Year-08 Team-SF GMS-9 TD-13 INT-8 Fumbles-4 QB Rating-87.5
Year-09 Team-SF GMS-6 TD-5 INT-2 Fumbles-3 QB Rating-79.6
Year-10 Team-DET GMS-6 TD-9 INT-7 Fumbles-1 QB Rating-79.6
Number can lie but only so much. Seems like Hill might be a better option right now for the Lionesses. However, I am not saying Stafford will not be better in the future, just not right now. He is essentially a rookie coming off of a 6 week injured stint so I see him as being very rusty and I think this can be played to our advantage. Yes he does have a cannon for an arm, but I like our chances. The who Hill/Stafford debate is a moot point anyway as Shaun Hill has a broken forearm and is not going to be able to suit up.
|
I'd say that grabbing Stafford's rookie stats aren't going to do very much to tell you what Stafford is going to play like. It'd be much safer and smarter to take Shaun Hill's 2010 line, the QB rating of 79.6, and plug that in for Stafford.
We don't really know what Stafford can accomplish in excess of that, perhaps nothing, but that would be the level of expectation for Stafford's play over the second half of the year, given that Hill was no. 2 on the depth chart there in camp.