Matthew Stafford has won no playoff games, no divisional titles and has a career won/lost record of 24-37 as a starter in the NFL—a winning percentage of under .400.
Yet the Lions are apparently involving their quarterback in the team’s coaching search.
Stafford reportedly sat in on the Lions’ interview of Jim Caldwell last week. This should cause great consternation among Lions fans.
Stafford no more belongs in the interview room as I do. Or as you do. Or as your uncle does, or as your uncle’s barber.
The inclusion of Stafford, regardless that he’s the Lions’ franchise QB, sends up more red flags than a Russian parade.
First, Stafford isn’t Tom Brady. Or Peyton Manning. Or Drew Brees—all veteran quarterbacks steeped in experience, knowledge, and championships.
And even the above guys haven’t been part of a coaching interview process, that anyone knows about.
The inclusion of Stafford makes one wonder what has been pumped into his head since becoming a Lion in 2009.
It raises questions about what level of culpability management holds Stafford regarding all the losing that’s been going on.
Stafford, more than any other player, was responsible for the Lions’ collapse this season. His turnover-prone play torpedoed the Lions’ playoff chances, when the team went 1-6 down the stretch.
A cynic could say that the Lions are merely giving Stafford hiring power to go along with the firing power he already has, as his play got Jim Schwartz canned.
But seriously, folks, this is a slippery slope the Lions are going down.
Caldwell, for his part, was well-prepared for his interview with the Lions. He supposedly watched every single pass that Stafford threw in 2013, and the former Colts head coach came armed with suggestions of how to improve Stafford’s mechanics.
That still doesn’t justify having Stafford sit in on Caldwell’s interview.
This has tail-wagging-the-dog written all over it, and raises serious questions about the treatment of Stafford versus the other 52 men on the roster.
So does this mean that Stafford will be included in every coaching interview? Why stop with Caldwell? Or better yet, why start with Caldwell?
Another disturbing thing occurred regarding Stafford. It came shortly after the 2013 season ended with a thud.
Stafford was asked about whether he’d be open to working with a “quarterback guru” or some such person in the off-season.
“It’s not something that I feel would be my style or beneficial to me,” he said.
That’s not his style? It wouldn’t be beneficial?
It’s not his style to be the best quarterback that he can be? Even Tiger Woods has a swing coach, for goodness sake.
It all makes me wonder how much Stafford is being coddled by the people upstairs. How much he isn’t being challenged.
It also makes me wonder whether the change in culture needed with the Lions should have ended with just changing the head coach.
The Lions don’t need Matthew Stafford’s approval before they hire a new coach. They don’t even need him to like the new guy.
The new coach ought to be hired based on what management thinks, and Stafford will just need to deal with it.
This inclusion of Stafford in the interview process is pretty much unprecedented, and with good reason.
The coach coaches. The players play.
How many employees get a say as to who their new boss is going to be?
And from a candidate’s perspective, it’s tough enough to impress the brass in an interview, without having to wow the quarterback as well.
It’s fair now to be concerned about how much influence Stafford has around the Lions, and whether he is being held as accountable as he should for the monkey shines that are going on.
The inclusion of the quarterback in coaching interviews and his resistance to quarterback specialists because it’s “not my style”, ought to baffle folks and make them curious as to how Stafford has been bred since the Lions drafted him no. 1 overall in 2009.