Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinzWin
Just because Hill was playing at a higher level this year compared with Stafford's rookie numbers from last year in no way means as soon as you plug Stafford back in that those numbers will remain constant IMO. Stafford hasn't played for a full season and has been out since week one of this season. There are bound to be a lot of nerves and rust to come off.
Why would he automatically get better this season, just because he is not a rookie anymore? I don't think he has had the chance to develop as he was oft injured last season and only played in one game so far this year. He doesn't have a lot of experience to fall back on either. I just think that until he proves he can play better than he did last year I would rather have him than have Hill starting and playing the way he has been playing. That's all I am saying...
|
Well, my question is: what was he expected to prove to you over the last six weeks? Other than the fact that maybe, he gets hurt a little easier than you'd like from a first overall pick, the absence of the opportunity to show that he's better than he was as a rookie hardly means we should not expect Stafford to play better than he did as a rookie.
If he's going to be the Lions franchise quarterback, then yeah, that burden of proof is on him to justify his draft value. As far as performing as well or better than the middling numbers of a guy who was signed specifically to be Stafford's backup, that has to be the expectation here. Hill simply proved that a guy who failed elsewhere could perform at expectation in the Lions offense. So if Stafford is an out and out disaster in the next nine games -- you blame Matt Stafford for it. Not his coaching or his offense. But if Stafford's not a disaster, then he will play as well as Hill because we know what Hill is and what kind of help he has in Detroit: some.