Matthew Stafford’s mega deal is a win for the Detroit Lions

DETROIT, MI - AUGUST 25: Matthew Stafford #9 of the Detroit Lions looks on from the sidelines while playing the New England Patriots during a preseason game at Ford Field on August 25, 2017 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)
DETROIT, MI - AUGUST 25: Matthew Stafford #9 of the Detroit Lions looks on from the sidelines while playing the New England Patriots during a preseason game at Ford Field on August 25, 2017 in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit

Here’s why the critics of the Detroit Lions’ Matthew Stafford recent blockbuster extension should reevaluate their hot takes.

The NFL can be comprised into the haves and have nots. There are teams that have a franchise quarterback and those that do not. Most teams in the league fall into the latter category and fortunately for Detroit, the new Matthew Stafford deal secures their position among the “haves” for the foreseeable future.

On Monday Stafford and the Lions agreed on a new five year deal that will pay him $135 million over the next five years. The deal makes him the highest paid player in NFL history with an annual salary of about $27 million per season.

While most rational fans rejoiced, the internet did internet things and went crazy. Many chimed in with tweets about Stafford’s dubious 5-46 record against winning teams. Others pointed out that Stafford has yet to win a playoff game and therefor doesn’t deserve this kind of money.

I have never seen a more hollow statistic used as a criticism of Stafford’s abilities than the 5-46 record against winning teams. That stat is a joke. Just as baseball has shifted away from judging a pitchers ability in terms of wins and losses football should do the same for quarterbacks.

Stafford was drafted after the Lions pulled off the only defeated season in NFL history. He spent his first couple seasons battling significant injuries and throughout his career in Detroit he’s been surrounded by sub-par talent.

During Stafford’s tenure the offensive line has, for the most part, been a disaster. I don’t care if you’re Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers, if you have no time to throw the ball its hard to win games. The secondary was a running joke until fairly recently and the running game has been non existent. There was even the 2014 season when they couldn’t make a field goal before signing Matt Prater (that was fun).

Football is the ultimate team sport and to dismiss Stafford’s ability based on a shocking, yet flawed statistic is ignorant.

If you’re upset about the deal you either haven’t been watching the Lions or you simply haven’t been paying attention. Stafford has never been the problem. The man is a gunslinger. He’s orchestrated countless gutsy come from behind victories and taken the team from the doldrums of irrelevancy to consistent playoff contention.

When Derek Carr, quarterback for the Oakland Raiders, signed his extension which briefly gave him the title of highest paid player in NFL history I didn’t remember seeing nearly as much backlash on Twitter. Carr has also yet to win a playoff game in his young career. But I digress…

The best contracts in sports are usually given off of potential as opposed to past accomplishments. Stafford has yet to achieve post-season success, but I would hesitate to put that squarely on his shoulders given the circumstances.

I think people forget how much of a laughing stock the Lions were before Stafford. I remember the dark days of Mike McMahon, Jeff Garcia, and Charlie Batch. I remember when the only intrigue during the season was whether or not they would lose enough to get the first pick.

Signing Stafford was the only rational option. He’s still very much in his prime and you don’t let a quarterback with his talents just walk out the door. Franchising him would only put the team at a disadvantage financially and this also gives the team the ability to use the franchise tag on Ziggy Ansah.

Stafford’s deal now sets the market for franchise quarterbacks, which will lead to larger deals for quarterbacks like Kirk Cousins and Aaron Rodgers in the near future. I think all Lions fans can agree that driving up the price on the Packers signing a 33 year old Rodgers is a nice bonus.

Next: Detroit Lions - Why trading Jake Rudock makes sense

Stafford isn’t perfect, he isn’t Brady or Rodgers, and he has yet to lead the Lions to the promise land, but he is capable of leading this team to a Super Bowl over the next six years and that makes him worth every penny. The question is whether or not the franchise will be able to put the pieces around him to make it happen.