although it is by far the dominant view of this board, I think.
Neither am I opposed to it completely.
So many factors go into a QB's good or poor performance. Seems to me that the Jekyll and Hyde QB theory puts all the 'bad' onto Stafford's shoulders. How many of those 'bad' performances were poor play calling, poor blocking, poor receiving, poor field position, etc etc etc? And no way am I allowing a bad pass here and there to define him.
I give little credence to the "Stafford hasn't won big games" statements simply because when has he actually had a fair chance to do so? With Detroit? I don't think so.
Agreed that when he's off he certainly appears to be off. BUT - I have yet to see him stay off for a complete game... he seems to snap out of slumps quickly to me.
I'm not sure he's not a Jekyll and Hyde QB but I'm certainly not convinced of it. - JamesJM
