Most of the stuff I've heard is NOT if the Rams are better with Stafford, but rather it's mostly with the Soap Opera stuff about McVay being an impatient meanie, Goff being a sad victim, the Rams paying too much, blah blah blah. Why? Because it is nearly universal take among the NFL talking heads that were NFL QBs, or coaches, or GMs (you know.... guys that actually know something) that of course Stafford is better..... in pretty much every way. So there's no point in specifically debating that straight up question.
Talking about playoff wins and losses as a measuring stick, basing it on "This QB won this game or lost this game" is only true if the game was close and that QB either rose up and did something great, or folded. Teams win and lose playoff games. They are team wins and losses with only the previous caveat.
So for me it's an easy answer. Yes, the Rams are better with Stafford because he's on a tier well above Goff. I probably ought to add "potentially " because no one can foresee injuries to key players. But barring that, I'd guess that he's worth about 2-3 more regular season wins, winning the West every year, and being in the NFC title game at least every other year.
I want to add one more factor. The Rams are a destination team, now. Players want to come to LA for the sun and fun, the hot coach, and now Matthew Stafford and knowing they will be on a winner. I can see a couple of players every year coming to LA for reduced money (like it used to be for the Pats), on a short term deal, so they could pad their stats and then move on to greener pasture$.
The Rams have a very bright present and future.
