

Tom Kowalski By Tom Kowalski
on October 06, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Matthew Stafford Detroit LionsThe Lions need quarterback Matthew Stafford back from his shoulder injury to have a shot at winning on a consistent basis.
ALLEN PARK -- Did you catch it?

After Sunday's 28-26 loss to the Green Bay Packers, Detroit Lions coach Jim Schwartz was answering questions in the interview room when he had some praise for quarterback Shaun Hill.

First, Schwartz had to make a thinly veiled reference to the fact the Lions are playing without their starting quarterback and have been since halftime of the season opener.

Schwartz also wondered how many other teams have had to deal with the same thing.

This was not a jab at Hill. He has played about as well as the Lions could have hoped for.

No, this is about Matthew Stafford. From the moment he was selected with the first overall pick last year, this always has been about Stafford.

Every offensive move the Lions made in the offseason had Stafford in mind. Give him receiving weapons, give him a running game, give him a chance. The NFL is so geared to passing that having a quality quarterback isn't a luxury, it's a necessity.

The winless Lions host the St. Louis Rams on Sunday at Ford Field, two hapless teams that have been mired in the muck for several years.

Like the Lions, the Rams got their franchise quarterback at the top of the draft. The Rams got their guy, rookie Sam Bradford, and he already is paying dividends.

That's what Schwartz wants you to know but can't tell you publicly. It sounds too much like football has become a one-man mission and that missing your quarterback shouldn't be an excuse for the losing.

But who's kidding who? Of course it's an excuse.

It also is a reason, and a good one. It shouldn't be the excuse for every loss, but it's definitely a reason why a team can't win consistently.

Look, I've said from the very beginning it would  take the Lions an extended period of time to build a legitimate roster of NFL players. In the interim, an excellent quarterback could cover a lot of ills, a lot of mistakes.

A lot, not all.

At the start of this season, I predicted the Lions would be a high-scoring machine that had the ability to bounce back from any deficit. Much of that was based on Stafford -- his arm, his intelligence, his feel for the game and, of course, his presence on the field.

Even with that, I only had the Lions winning four games. Stafford would keep them in close games, but other limitations -- offensive line inconsistency and defensive breakdowns, to name two -- would lead to a lot of losses.

Now that Stafford has been missing from that equation, Schwartz wants to remind you it's been that way since halftime of the season opener. The Lions have played four games. Stafford has played 30 minutes.

It's not that Stafford would have thrown for more than Hill's 331 yards against the Packers last week. It's that Stafford might have done a better job in those red-zone situations, getting touchdowns instead of field goals.

Maybe Stafford converts those key third-down situations to keep drives alive. Then again, maybe he doesn't.

But that's what the Lions are missing -- not just talent, but the evaluation process of how good that talent might be.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's necessary to have an elite quarterback to win consistently in the NFL, and if you don't have that quarterback it really shouldn't matter.

For now, as the Lions continue their search for the first victory of the season, Schwartz will say publicly that injuries shouldn't matter, that a team still has to be good when -- not if -- injuries happen.

That applies to all positions except quarterback. It's why they're special, and it's why the NFL goes to ridiculous lengths to protect them.

You'll never hear Schwartz come right out and acknowledge how much Stafford's injury has limited the Lions.

But he will say it. You've just got to listen close and catch it.