View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 16th, 2018, 12:22 am



Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 16  Next
 QB or LT? 
Author Message
Pop Warner Vet
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 12:28 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Grand Rapids
Post 
Quote:
...Fair point. I would say you base it on measurable statistics like starting a super bowl...


Okay, I looked at the past 20 Super Bowls (XXIII - XLII) to find the draft round of the starting Quarterback and the starting Left Tackle on each team (40 performances per position, some players more than once, obviously).

Results:
Both positions were represented by a first-round pick about half the time (19/40 QB's, 20/40 LT's).
Left Tackle was represented by a second-round pick significantly more often (9 times) than Quarterback (3).
Quarterback was represented by a mid-later-round pick (rounds 3-7) significantly more often (14 times) than Left Tackle (6).
Undrafted/Supplemental Draft Left Tackles were only slightly more common (6) than Quarterbacks (4).

Super Bowl Starters drafted by round (starting QB's / starting LT's):
round 1 (19 / 20)
round 2 (3 / 9)
round 3 (5 / 1)
round 4 (1 / 2)
round 5 (0 / 1)
round 6 (7 / 0)
round 7+ (1 / 1)
undrafted (3 / 5)
supplemental draft (1 / 1)

Quarterbacks to start a Super Bowl (draft round - name):
1 - Eli Manning
6 - Tom Brady
1 - Peyton Manning
1 - Rex Grossman
1 - Ben Rothlisberger
6 - Matt Hasselbeck
6 - Tom Brady
1 - Donovan McNabb
6 - Tom Brady
UD - Jake Delhomme
9 - Brad Johnson
4 - Rich Gannon
6 - Tom Brady
UD - Kurt Warner
1 - Trent Dilfer
1 - Kerry Collins
1 - Steve McNair
UD - Kurt Warner
1 - John Elway
3 - Chris Chandler
1 - John Elway
2 - Brett Favre
1 - Drew Bledsoe
2 - Brett Favre
1 - Troy Aikman
3 - Neil O'Donnell
Supplemental Draft - Steve Young
6 - Stan Humphries
1 - Troy Aikman
1 - Jim Kelly
1 - Troy Aikman
1 - Jim Kelly
6 - Mark Rypien
1 - Jim Kelly
3 - Jeff Hostetler
1 - Jim Kelly
3 - Joe Montana
1 - John Elway
2 - Boomer Esiason
3 - Joe Montana

Left Tackles to start a Super Bowl(draft round - name):
5 - David Diehl
2 - Matt Light
1 - Tarik Glenn
1 - John Tait
1 - Walter Jones
2 - Marvel Smith
2 - Matt Light
1 - Tra Thomas
1 - Todd Steussie
2 - Matt Light
3 - Roman Oben
UD - Barry Sims
1 - Orlando Pace
2 - Matt Light
1 - Jonathan Ogden
1 - Lomas Brown
1 - Orlando Pace
1 - Brad Hopkins
UD - Tony Jones
1 - Bob Whitfield
1 - Ross Verba
Supplemental Draft - Gary Zimmerman
1 - Bruce Armstrong
2 - Bruce Wilkerson
10 - John Jackson
UD - Mark Tuinei
1 - Stan Brock
4 - Steve Wallace
UD - Mark Tuinei
1 - John Fina
UD - Mark Tuinei
1 - Will Wolford
1 - Jim Lachey
1 - Will Wolford
2 - Jumbo Elliott
1 - Will Wolford
2 - Gerald Perry
2 - Bubba Paris
1 - Anthony Munoz
4 - Steve Wallace


January 13th, 2009, 4:22 pm
Profile
League MVP

Joined: January 13th, 2006, 4:18 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Maryland
Post 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We have the #1 overall pick. We have to get the BEST player in this draft. As of right this moment, I believe the BEST player in this draft is a LT. To me, Stafford is not a Franchise must have QB. We need to do our due diligence and check him out 100% but I don't think he ends up being "the guy". Bradford to me has potential to be a star QB and I would take a good look at him as well. However, he hasn't declared yet. We do need a franchise QB. But that doesn't mean we have to reach for a QB if we think that will only be pretty good simply to get a QB. If, after all the evaluations are done we determine that there is a franchise QB in this draft and take him #1 I won't hate it (well ok I might hate it if it's Stafford). We NEED to get the #1 overall pick right and as of now LT seems to be the choice for me. Michael Oher. That could change as things get closer. 3 years down the road we will know for sure if we made the right selection or not.


January 13th, 2009, 5:28 pm
Profile
Pop Warner Vet
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 12:28 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Grand Rapids
Post 
You make some good points, Pablo. If I can offer a few counterpoints...

Pablo wrote:
We were 0-16, no reason to play it safe. This team needs to take some risks, what the hell do we have to lose?


"Taking more risk" doesn't necessarily carry more reward. For example, if you're losing a poker game, do you go all-in every hand hoping for a miracle? No. If you want to win, you still take into account all relevant information (your hand, the cards on the table, whether he likes to bluff, etc, etc) to make the best decision. If a LT drafted onto a bad team is more likely to perform well then a QB forced to play on a bad team, you take that into account making the decision, along with draft grades, scouting, etc.

Pablo wrote:
Why should we take a QB? Let me give you just ten simple reasons...

First, this team needs an identity and a face of the franchise. A QB gives a team that more than any other position - by far. Drafting an OL won't give them this.


Detroit fans want wins more than a handsome young signal-caller. We had one a few years back, a good pianist, too. And to take a good team from this year as an example, I bet the Titans fans don't complain that the best player on their team is a big fat 320-pound DT with anger-management problems, and that their "face-of-the-franchise" highly-drafted QB was benched for an old vet with a rough past, because they were winning. And they were doing it the old-fashioned way...taking care of the ball, running well, blocking well, and playing solid defense.

Pablo wrote:
Second, the one star we have on this team is CJ, why not invest in someone who will be able to get him the damn ball? Think about it, Montana to Rice, Manning to Harrison, Aikman to Irvin, Brady to Moss... We only have the 2nd part of that equation and that is wasting the talent of the most talented player on our team.


We are getting him the damn ball. With the beat-up, washed-up, five-man committee of QB's we had this year, we got him the ball 78 times for 1,331 yards and 12 touchdowns...Pro Bowl numbers, even if he doesn't get the nomination.

Give any QB on our roster more time to throw and he'll get CJ the damn ball even more times.

Pablo wrote:
Third, and pay close attention here, is timing. QB's take time to develop. If you select a QB you have a 3 year maturation process. Every year we delay taking a QB, we push our development back 3 years. Take a LT, plug them in and this holds true for almost every position (WR is another exception). Build your OL, that will take two years and then select a QB - now you are 5 years down the road with the first couple years of the OL pretty much wasted. This is absolutely critical, yet nobody seems to grasp it. Lets just keep pushing back the time table for this franchise by not getting a QB...


1. Not necessarily. Some rookie QB's can be successful right away, if they're drafted onto teams with good management, good running games, and good defenses...it's just that Detroit doesn't have any of these until they fix their front office, and invest the high picks to fix their O-Line, and Defense.

If a QB has to sit for a few years (and in Detroit, he likely will), all the more reason not to draft him in the first round. You can warm a bench cheaper than $7-8 million a year.

Draft a "project" guy in the later rounds who's too raw to draft higher but still has talent. But to have a first-round QB sitting on your bench while first-round tackles and defenders all around the league step in and make a big impact for their teams I think is a waste.

If we spend 2009 building a better team (so there's less weighing on a future QB's shoulders), and draft a QB in 2010 onto a good team with good protection, he can be successful right away. But not a QB drafted onto an 0-16 team with new management, new schemes, new coaches, etc.

Pablo wrote:
Fourth, the Lions have some solid LTs (and OLs) for that matter over the years. How has that worked out? It hasn't - plain and simple. Lomas Brown was a very good LT, 7-time pro-bowler, who played for the Lions ten years - how did our QBs look then.


This is more anecdotal example/counterexample, and it's easy to cherry-pick positions/players for any position and team that played well or didn't play well. There are a lot of teams that DID improve significantly by adding future-multiple-ProBowler Tackles to their teams.

And I think I would take the Lions QB ratings ranked 17th, 12th, and 5th in the league (as they had in 1993-1995 with Lomas Brown, ESPN stats don't go older) over what we have today (most sacks in the league past 3 seasons).

Pablo wrote:
Fifth, so OT's are safer in the draft? How have the Lions done in this category over the past ten years or so? Gosder Cherilus (Rnd 1 - 08'), Jeff Backus (Rnd 1 - 01'), Stockar McDougle (Rnd 1, 00'), Aaron Gibson (Rd 1 - 99'). Sure everyone likes to point our how Joey was a bust, but that was just one pick... How are all these top college OT's working out for our offensive line?
.

I think Backus played better in his prime than now obviously (and that's why I want to replace him at the top of the 2009 draft). But no, with a few exceptions, Detroit has not drafted particularly well at OT in the past few years....
nor have they drafted well at QB
nor at WR
nor at DE
nor at LB
nor at...well, I don't think I need to rehash all Millen's bad drafts at every position.

Pablo wrote:
Sixth, everyone OUTSIDE of Detroit understands how important it is for the Lions to land a great QB. Why? They have seen the impact of a great QB on their favorite franchise. Only folks who were fans in the 50's understand this in Detroit.


This has a lot to do with the "face-of-the-franchise" concept--we identify other teams by their star skill players, even if that's not the most important thing on their team.

Lots of outside observers, who may not be fully aware of the suckitude of our O-Line and our Defense may say "go for it--take your QB of the future!", because usually the QB is the first position you can name for another team, even if it's not always the first priority they should address during any particular rebuilding year.

But I'd rather fill other positions. Everybody was hammering Houston for taking a defensive lineman #1 overall a couple years back instead of dynamic "Barry-Sanders-with-speed" (or so they said at the time) running back Reggie Bush.

But the Texans knew that they were in a division dominated by the Colts high-powered offense, and they had to slow them down. They took the position of greater need. I know...I'm offering one example, but my point is that external observers who know about 0-16, but haven't sat down and watched 0-16 happen aren't always the best people to judge our situation.

Pablo wrote:
Seventh, the curse of Bobby Layne is now over. I don't believe in curses but if you do his jinx on the franchise and QB spot is now over.


Did he mention a particular position in his curse? I though it just applied to the whole team...superstition anyway :-)

Pablo wrote:
Eighth, Blueskies made a great point. QBs can make an OL look better as well. With a Brady or Manning here, I bet the Lions OL would look much better. It opens up the running game which makes the defense attack you differently.


With Ogden or Pace (in their primes) our QB would look better, too. But, again, I think there are a lot more things that have to go right for a QB to be successful and not bust than for a LT to be successful, especially on a terrible team (and we're the worst).

Pablo wrote:
Ninth, if there is truly a franchise QB available this year the Lions can get him and nobody can get in their way. As bad as the Lions have been, when was the last time they were in this position? 1980. There is no assurance we will be in this position again. Say the Lions win 4-5 games next year, well guess who gets the franchise QB - not the Lions. (yet I bet they can still get a very good LT)


The #1 overall pick is getting more bizarrely expensive every year. Think how many Lions fans want to trade down for more picks, but we can't because it's so expensive that nobody wants it.

If we're in the top-5 again next year (which is likely), we won't have trouble trading up to #1 if we really want to because of how much the #1 overall is a curse, not a blessing, to the team stuck with it.

Pablo wrote:
Tenth, no position has more impact on a football team than QB. Period - end of discussion. And no team needs more of an impact than the Lions.


No, not end of discussion :-)

No position on a football team sets a franchise backwards more than an super-big-money QB bust.

No position on a football team needs a good supporting cast (which Detroit doesn't have) more than a QB. A LT can dominate early if he has the tools. A QB, even a good one, has a lot more needs.

Pablo wrote:
Bonus - 50 years of experience should teach us something?


It should...and yet, we keep coming back to watch the Lions :(


January 13th, 2009, 5:52 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
Wow nice research on the draft. Looks like I was pretty dead on without having any criteria for "a franchise qb". I wasn't making a point either way, just saying that you don't have to draft a qb top 5 to get a great one. That point is still valid.


January 13th, 2009, 7:56 pm
Profile
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post 
Pablo wrote:
We were 0-16, no reason to play it safe. This team needs to take some risks, what the hell do we have to lose?

Why should we take a QB? Let me give you just ten simple reasons...

First, this team needs an identity and a face of the franchise. A QB gives a team that more than any other position - by far. Drafting an OL won't give them this.

Second, the one star we have on this team is CJ, why not invest in someone who will be able to get him the damn ball? Think about it, Montana to Rice, Manning to Harrison, Aikman to Irvin, Brady to Moss... We only have the 2nd part of that equation and that is wasting the talent of the most talented player on our team.

Third, and pay close attention here, is timing. QB's take time to develop. If you select a QB you have a 3 year maturation process. Every year we delay taking a QB, we push our development back 3 years. Take a LT, plug them in and this holds true for almost every position (WR is another exception). Build your OL, that will take two years and then select a QB - now you are 5 years down the road with the first couple years of the OL pretty much wasted. This is absolutely critical, yet nobody seems to grasp it. Lets just keep pushing back the time table for this franchise by not getting a QB...

Fourth, the Lions have some solid LTs (and OLs) for that matter over the years. How has that worked out? It hasn't - plain and simple. Lomas Brown was a very good LT, 7-time pro-bowler, who played for the Lions ten years - how did our QBs look then.

Fifth, so OT's are safer in the draft? How have the Lions done in this category over the past ten years or so? Gosder Cherilus (Rnd 1 - 08'), Jeff Backus (Rnd 1 - 01'), Stockar McDougle (Rnd 1, 00'), Aaron Gibson (Rd 1 - 99'). Sure everyone likes to point our how Joey was a bust, but that was just one pick... How are all these top college OT's working out for our offensive line?

Sixth, everyone OUTSIDE of Detroit understands how important it is for the Lions to land a great QB. Why? They have seen the impact of a great QB on their favorite franchise. Only folks who were fans in the 50's understand this in Detroit.

Seventh, the curse of Bobby Layne is now over. I don't believe in curses but if you do his jinx on the franchise and QB spot is now over.

Eighth, Blueskies made a great point. QBs can make an OL look better as well. With a Brady or Manning here, I bet the Lions OL would look much better. It opens up the running game which makes the defense attack you differently.

Ninth, if there is truly a franchise QB available this year the Lions can get him and nobody can get in their way. As bad as the Lions have been, when was the last time they were in this position? 1980. There is no assurance we will be in this position again. Say the Lions win 4-5 games next year, well guess who gets the franchise QB - not the Lions. (yet I bet they can still get a very good LT)

Tenth, no position has more impact on a football team than QB. Period - end of discussion. And no team needs more of an impact than the Lions.

Bonus - 50 years of experience should teach us something?


When you are 0-16, it is high time to play it safe. Safe is the only option. Using a basketball analogy, in 2003, if the 17 win Cavs took Darko Milicic

1.The face of the franchise is the leaping Lion. Winning sells tickets.
2.Orlovsky and Culpepper have both shown that they can get CJ the ball, but only with protection. A rookie QB would be no different.
3.Where's Joey Harrington today? How come 2005 was another bad Lions season including him getting benched? Setting the young QB up to fail is what pushes back the "timetable". The only timetable I care about is getting more wins than we did the year before. Even you are admitting that taking a left tackle wins more football games next season. A young QB coming to a team with key components already in place greatly cuts down the development curve. See Ben Roethlisberger going 15-1 as a rookie and winning a Super Bowl his second season.
4. Lomas Brown was never a great LT. His leaguewide accomplishments began when Barry Sanders debuted, and ended as soon as he left Detroit. The Lions did though, have a respectable Offensive Line during the 1990s which definitely helped the Lions make the playoffs for half the decade. Ever since 2001, the Offensive Line have barely scrapped the bottom level of respectability and that was only when the best lineman weve had this decade, Damien Woody, was playing his best.
5. Even Aaron Gibson and Stockar McDougle had better careers than Chuck Long and Andre Ware.
6.Really now?
7. The only curse there is would be the inability to build a strong offensive and defensive line. The only time we did was in 1991.
8. Already refuted. Gaining the pocket presence to play behind a poor offensive line takes years of experience.
9. There are annointed Franchise QBs every year in the draft. Every year. Facts? There are only two Franchise QBs in the NFL. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.
10. Tell the Ravens that. Or maybe we can sign a 36 year old FA QB like the Cardinals did.


January 13th, 2009, 11:01 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: November 2nd, 2008, 1:29 am
Posts: 427
Post 
Quote:
We have to get the BEST player in this draft. As of right this moment, I believe the BEST player in this draft is a LT.


But you don't even know for sure which one. There are 4 solid LTs and no one really knows which will be better. If we pick LT at #1, we will be getting marginally better value than a team with a second round pick who takes the last of the four. We would be far better served to use 1b or even our 2nd, because they may well have a better career than the first taken. If all 4 are only separated by a small margin, then using pick one is a waste, even if the first one is the best overall player in the draft. The most value is going to be the 3rd or 4th tackle, along with the best contract for the franchise.

Think of it this way. Lets say LT #1 and 2 are A+ talent. LT #3 is A- talent and LT #4 is B+ talent. A+ number one will cost us over 10 million a year (likely around 12 million). LT #3 or #4 will fall to the second round. At the top of the second round, a draftee will make around 1 million per year.

So... 12 million/year for A+ ??? Or 1 million/year for A- ??? This is why taking the top LT is fiscally irresponsible and completely retarded. You'll pay 12 times the salary to a player who is likely to play only slightly better, and could play worse.

QB is different. Jon Kitna makes 5 million dollars to deliver backup quality numbers. You can pretty much bank on paying a starting QB those kind of numbers. So spending that 10+ million on a top QB makes better sense. You can pretty much bank on either Bradford or Stafford being able to crack Detroit's starting lineup, since we have no established QB. It's not that expensive to pay a good QB 10+, when we are going to have to eventually pay half of that anyway to whichever backup becomes our starter (or a mediocre FA).

Plus at QB, there are two front runners who appear to be a cut above the rest. There is no 3rd or 4th pick value here, because those picks represent serious compromises. Both QBs may go top five or top ten for sure. So you take your favorite at one, because there is no equivalent value available later. Even if you don't want to pick QB, please understand the economic reality: A #1 LT pick will be overpriced by at least 9 million over pretty comparable players. A QB will be only slightly overvalued over his equivalent player, and if he pans out, will be worth every penny.

Quote:
...you don't have to draft a qb top 5 to get a great one.


This is true, but there are way more 1st rounders on that list than any other number. The odds are clearly better in round one. Don't pretend there is equal chance of success from a later round pick. They are there for a reason. Just because a QB makes it to the Superbowl, you can't assume them all equal. A great defensive team may make the Superbowl despite mediocre play. A great offensive team may make it because of exceptional QB play. The Superbowl alone does not indicate equivalent talent at that position.

Quote:
If we spend 2009 building a better team (so there's less weighing on a future QB's shoulders), and draft a QB in 2010 onto a good team with good protection, he can be successful right away.


Maybe, but if we are drafting a QB onto a 'good team', that means we've probably won half a dozen games. That gives us mid-pack draft position and we are probably looking at the 3rd best quarterback in the draft. The first one or two might be NFL ready, but the third guy will be lacking something. The team will be ready, the new QB may not.

QBs have a longer shelf life. Our potential franchise QB will still be here- and probably better with one year of experience.

Top QB with one year of experience + good line from 2010 draft > Raw, likely lesser QB with good line from '09 draft and one year experience.

We will not likely get a better QB by waiting. The odds and the draft position are not on our side.

-ILMP

EDIT: Let me try to give prospective: The best LT in league history would never be drafted first if placed up against a Peyton Manning or a Dan Marino or a John Elway. The needs of this team are secondary. The initial analysis starts and ends with the potential of the best QB available. If the top QB has the potential to play on the level of those elite QBs, then you have to take him. That's all we really have to go on- past performance and perceived potential. No LT can have the kind of impact of an elite QB. If you don't think Bradford or Stafford are that guy, that is legitimate. But to say we shouldn't draft QB because we have so many needs or need a particular position more- is short sighted. The #1 draft position is, quite frankly, the quarterback's position to lose. QB is the default, unless you know someone else is going to be better.


January 13th, 2009, 11:08 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post 
InterimLionsMasterPimp wrote:
But you don't even know for sure which one. There are 4 solid LTs and no one really knows which will be better. If we pick LT at #1, we will be getting marginally better value than a team with a second round pick who takes the last of the four. We would be far better served to use 1b or even our 2nd, because they may well have a better career than the first taken. If all 4 are only separated by a small margin, then using pick one is a waste, even if the first one is the best overall player in the draft. The most value is going to be the 3rd or 4th tackle, along with the best contract for the franchise.


This is actually a GOOD reason to wait till pick 20 for LT if we think one is going to fall. I don't think it is a good reason to pick QB at number one, but a good reason to nab the best non LT talent in the draft, which I don't think it QB.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


January 13th, 2009, 11:49 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: November 2nd, 2008, 1:29 am
Posts: 427
Post 
Quote:
This is actually a GOOD reason to wait till pick 20 for LT if we think one is going to fall. I don't think it is a good reason to pick QB at number one, but a good reason to nab the best non LT talent in the draft, which I don't think it QB.


For sure pick 20, but I was thinking of the 33rd overall. I just couldn't see all four going in the first. But then I check a draft projection and see all four listed as top 15 prospects. And then it shows Ciron Black and Eben Britton going top 25. I do not buy it for a second, with the variety of talent in this draft. I believe one of the four will drop to the 20, and I absolutely do not buy all 6 of these guys in the first round. One will fall to second or I'll eat my shorts.

So I'd say define where you think the drop off is. If that is after the 4th best, I'd shoot for the 4th guy at 20. This would be great value. If the 5th and 6th are legitimately that close to the top four, let one drop to our 33 pick. I think the chances are really good that one of these lower 4 players outplays the top player anyway. I cannot stress enough that if there are really 6 top round prospects, there is going to be the least value in the guy taken at the top.

Despite my rants, I'm not 100% on the QB selection. I do like Bradford's skills a lot, and I like Stafford's arm more than his overall performance. I am just not at all for overpaying by perhaps 10 times for what looks to be a lottery for the best LT to come out this year. I'd hate to pay the 12 million for Andre Smith, just to see him bested by Monroe at 2 million. The numbers are arbitrary, and are draft position dependent, but the logic is solid. Value-wise, there is a very strong statistical likelihood that we get hosed at #1 LT. We may get a pro bowler at LT for 12, but another team could get a pro bowler at LT for 1 or 2. It's a possibility at any position. It is a probability at LT.

-ILMP


January 14th, 2009, 12:25 am
Profile
League MVP

Joined: January 13th, 2006, 4:18 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Maryland
Post 
InterimLionsMasterPimp wrote:
Quote:
We have to get the BEST player in this draft. As of right this moment, I believe the BEST player in this draft is a LT.


But you don't even know for sure which one. There are 4 solid LTs and no one really knows which will be better. If we pick LT at #1, we will be getting marginally better value than a team with a second round pick who takes the last of the four. We would be far better served to use 1b or even our 2nd, because they may well have a better career than the first taken. If all 4 are only separated by a small margin, then using pick one is a waste, even if the first one is the best overall player in the draft. The most value is going to be the 3rd or 4th tackle, along with the best contract for the franchise.

Think of it this way. Lets say LT #1 and 2 are A+ talent. LT #3 is A- talent and LT #4 is B+ talent. A+ number one will cost us over 10 million a year (likely around 12 million). LT #3 or #4 will fall to the second round. At the top of the second round, a draftee will make around 1 million per year.

So... 12 million/year for A+ ??? Or 1 million/year for A- ??? This is why taking the top LT is fiscally irresponsible and completely retarded. You'll pay 12 times the salary to a player who is likely to play only slightly better, and could play worse.

QB is different. Jon Kitna makes 5 million dollars to deliver backup quality numbers. You can pretty much bank on paying a starting QB those kind of numbers. So spending that 10+ million on a top QB makes better sense. You can pretty much bank on either Bradford or Stafford being able to crack Detroit's starting lineup, since we have no established QB. It's not that expensive to pay a good QB 10+, when we are going to have to eventually pay half of that anyway to whichever backup becomes our starter (or a mediocre FA).

Plus at QB, there are two front runners who appear to be a cut above the rest. There is no 3rd or 4th pick value here, because those picks represent serious compromises. Both QBs may go top five or top ten for sure. So you take your favorite at one, because there is no equivalent value available later. Even if you don't want to pick QB, please understand the economic reality: A #1 LT pick will be overpriced by at least 9 million over pretty comparable players. A QB will be only slightly overvalued over his equivalent player, and if he pans out, will be worth every penny.

Quote:
...you don't have to draft a qb top 5 to get a great one.


This is true, but there are way more 1st rounders on that list than any other number. The odds are clearly better in round one. Don't pretend there is equal chance of success from a later round pick. They are there for a reason. Just because a QB makes it to the Superbowl, you can't assume them all equal. A great defensive team may make the Superbowl despite mediocre play. A great offensive team may make it because of exceptional QB play. The Superbowl alone does not indicate equivalent talent at that position.

Quote:
If we spend 2009 building a better team (so there's less weighing on a future QB's shoulders), and draft a QB in 2010 onto a good team with good protection, he can be successful right away.


Maybe, but if we are drafting a QB onto a 'good team', that means we've probably won half a dozen games. That gives us mid-pack draft position and we are probably looking at the 3rd best quarterback in the draft. The first one or two might be NFL ready, but the third guy will be lacking something. The team will be ready, the new QB may not.

QBs have a longer shelf life. Our potential franchise QB will still be here- and probably better with one year of experience.

Top QB with one year of experience + good line from 2010 draft > Raw, likely lesser QB with good line from '09 draft and one year experience.

We will not likely get a better QB by waiting. The odds and the draft position are not on our side.

-ILMP

EDIT: Let me try to give prospective: The best LT in league history would never be drafted first if placed up against a Peyton Manning or a Dan Marino or a John Elway. The needs of this team are secondary. The initial analysis starts and ends with the potential of the best QB available. If the top QB has the potential to play on the level of those elite QBs, then you have to take him. That's all we really have to go on- past performance and perceived potential. No LT can have the kind of impact of an elite QB. If you don't think Bradford or Stafford are that guy, that is legitimate. But to say we shouldn't draft QB because we have so many needs or need a particular position more- is short sighted. The #1 draft position is, quite frankly, the quarterback's position to lose. QB is the default, unless you know someone else is going to be better.


Actually, LT is one of the highest payed players on a team, up there with QB, CB and DE. So a LT at the top of the draft would have value. Even if we could get a decent on later on for cheaper why not pay to get the best. We already have a mediocre LT in Bacus. There are probably 4-5 first round LTs. In my opinion I do know who the best one is, Michael Oher, which I said later in my post. Not all 5 of these tackles are potential top 10 players so really it would be a choice between 2 or 3 of them, and of them all I believe 100% Oher is going to be the best. The third and fourth best ones will not fall into the second round, they will likely be gone before we pick again in the first. If you had to chose between a Orlando Pace/Walter Jones or a Ross Verba/Adam Meadows which would you pick?


Do you know that Matt Stafford is going to have a better career than say a Nate Davis or a Josh Freeman or a Graham Harrell who we could get much later and for much cheaper? Stafford is a B player to me. Those other 3 guys are all about B players and could be had in the third round. Bradford POTENTIALLY is an A player, but he still hasn't declared.

Also, my post has nothing to do with the post on Superbowl QBs or Superbowl LT. I want the best player. If it's a QB take one. To me Stafford is NOT that guy. Bradford MAY be that guy. Until Bradford declares the best guy is Michael Oher, who may still be the best even when Bradford enters. We need to look at everyone and figure out who the best is. If Bradford declares and we believe that he is the best player in this draft and he is going to be "the guy" for our franchise then take him. If he declares and we decide that he isn't the best then do we take him just because he's maybe the best QB of this draft? No. My point is don't take a QB simply for the sake of taking a QB.

My last point: Stop calling things "retarded". I've read that in several of your posts.


January 14th, 2009, 12:57 am
Profile
NFL Veteran
User avatar

Joined: September 15th, 2004, 6:02 am
Posts: 1355
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Post 
I thought Bradford declared like last week.


January 14th, 2009, 4:07 am
Profile WWW
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
negative


January 14th, 2009, 7:32 am
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: October 30th, 2004, 12:30 pm
Posts: 2205
Location: Austin, TX
Post 
Don't declare Bradford, don't declare!

_________________
Image

NEVER GIVE UP!


January 14th, 2009, 8:28 am
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels
User avatar

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 12:45 pm
Posts: 1834
Post 
Nearly all the good juniors are declaring making QB a position we need to look into sooner rather then later. Lately I have been thinking possibly Freeman at the top of the 3rd.


January 14th, 2009, 1:27 pm
Profile
League MVP

Joined: January 13th, 2006, 4:18 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Maryland
Post 
Honolulu_Blue wrote:
I thought Bradford declared like last week.


Stafford declared about a week or so ago. Bradford has not announced his decision yet. I believe tomorrow is the deadline for jrs. to declare so we'll know one way or the other by the end of the week.


January 14th, 2009, 1:48 pm
Profile
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post 
InterimLionsMasterPimp wrote:
Quote:
We have to get the BEST player in this draft. As of right this moment, I believe the BEST player in this draft is a LT.


But you don't even know for sure which one. There are 4 solid LTs and no one really knows which will be better. If we pick LT at #1, we will be getting marginally better value than a team with a second round pick who takes the last of the four. We would be far better served to use 1b or even our 2nd, because they may well have a better career than the first taken. If all 4 are only separated by a small margin, then using pick one is a waste, even if the first one is the best overall player in the draft. The most value is going to be the 3rd or 4th tackle, along with the best contract for the franchise.

Think of it this way. Lets say LT #1 and 2 are A+ talent. LT #3 is A- talent and LT #4 is B+ talent. A+ number one will cost us over 10 million a year (likely around 12 million). LT #3 or #4 will fall to the second round. At the top of the second round, a draftee will make around 1 million per year.

So... 12 million/year for A+ ??? Or 1 million/year for A- ??? This is why taking the top LT is fiscally irresponsible and completely retarded. You'll pay 12 times the salary to a player who is likely to play only slightly better, and could play worse.

QB is different. Jon Kitna makes 5 million dollars to deliver backup quality numbers. You can pretty much bank on paying a starting QB those kind of numbers. So spending that 10+ million on a top QB makes better sense. You can pretty much bank on either Bradford or Stafford being able to crack Detroit's starting lineup, since we have no established QB. It's not that expensive to pay a good QB 10+, when we are going to have to eventually pay half of that anyway to whichever backup becomes our starter (or a mediocre FA).

Plus at QB, there are two front runners who appear to be a cut above the rest. There is no 3rd or 4th pick value here, because those picks represent serious compromises. Both QBs may go top five or top ten for sure. So you take your favorite at one, because there is no equivalent value available later. Even if you don't want to pick QB, please understand the economic reality: A #1 LT pick will be overpriced by at least 9 million over pretty comparable players. A QB will be only slightly overvalued over his equivalent player, and if he pans out, will be worth every penny.

Quote:
...you don't have to draft a qb top 5 to get a great one.


This is true, but there are way more 1st rounders on that list than any other number. The odds are clearly better in round one. Don't pretend there is equal chance of success from a later round pick. They are there for a reason. Just because a QB makes it to the Superbowl, you can't assume them all equal. A great defensive team may make the Superbowl despite mediocre play. A great offensive team may make it because of exceptional QB play. The Superbowl alone does not indicate equivalent talent at that position.

Quote:
If we spend 2009 building a better team (so there's less weighing on a future QB's shoulders), and draft a QB in 2010 onto a good team with good protection, he can be successful right away.


Maybe, but if we are drafting a QB onto a 'good team', that means we've probably won half a dozen games. That gives us mid-pack draft position and we are probably looking at the 3rd best quarterback in the draft. The first one or two might be NFL ready, but the third guy will be lacking something. The team will be ready, the new QB may not.

QBs have a longer shelf life. Our potential franchise QB will still be here- and probably better with one year of experience.

Top QB with one year of experience + good line from 2010 draft > Raw, likely lesser QB with good line from '09 draft and one year experience.

We will not likely get a better QB by waiting. The odds and the draft position are not on our side.

-ILMP

EDIT: Let me try to give prospective: The best LT in league history would never be drafted first if placed up against a Peyton Manning or a Dan Marino or a John Elway. The needs of this team are secondary. The initial analysis starts and ends with the potential of the best QB available. If the top QB has the potential to play on the level of those elite QBs, then you have to take him. That's all we really have to go on- past performance and perceived potential. No LT can have the kind of impact of an elite QB. If you don't think Bradford or Stafford are that guy, that is legitimate. But to say we shouldn't draft QB because we have so many needs or need a particular position more- is short sighted. The #1 draft position is, quite frankly, the quarterback's position to lose. QB is the default, unless you know someone else is going to be better.


How many franchise QBs are there in 2009 NFL? Would Jamarcus Russell count as one? I mean he was taken #1 just a couple years ago and the Raiders have a long term commitment to him. Would Kurt Warner count as one? Took 5 years to get in a game and hes 37 years old but hes lead the Cardinals to the NFC title game. Arizona practically signed him off the scrap heap a few years back. Won a title and has 2 mvps in the distant past. What about Jake Delhomme? Took 6 years to play, but hes lead the Panthers to a Super Bowl, playoffs 3 of 5 years as starter. Eli Manning? His body of work would be that of an average QB, but did elevate his game in last years playoffs. Or, are the only two great Quarterbacks active are Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. The only ones with consistent elite level production and playoff success (moreso Brady than Peyton). There are more 1st round QBs that has been to the Super Bowl. But, that in itself does not tell the whole story. Quarterbacks taken in Round 1 are given much more leeway and are given second and third chances in the NFL than mid to late round QBs who normally have to either perform in their one opportunity or they are out. Look at the QBs that have made these Super Bowls on a case by case scenario. You would see a Kerry Collins who was already jettisoned by 2 teams and was on his last chance with the Giants. He by no means was a 'franchise QB' for the Giants that year. Trent Dilfer. He was shipped out of Tampa for Shaun King, and he won a title with the Ravens, but by no means did he play like the 6th pick in the draft. At that point he averaged less than 10 completions a game. With the Ravens defense, he only had to score a TD a game. Jim McMahon had a terrifically similar career to Trent Dilfer. Eli Manning is well on his way as well. They are all 1 time Pro Bowlers. Rex Grossman. I dont really think I ever need to expound on him, but my general point is clear. Many teams have made the Super Bowl with less than stellar QBs. There is only 1 true and proven way to win in the NFL. That would be in the trenches. Bringing up salary cap implications make no sense in the least when we have 40 million in cap room and just went 0-16. When you go 0-16, you take the best player in the draft and let it stand. The best player in a particular draft is relative to team need and current roster. The Lions current roster includes a Left Tackle that cant play the game of football any longer. Jeff Backus is finished. He also would be the only LT on the roster. The worst offensive line in football. At QB, they have a QB in Dan Orlovsky that has shown promise behind such a porous offensive line, and with improved protection, they will by proxy have an improved run game which will allow him to produce at a higher level. The Lions also have Drew Stanton who has shown to be as much as a franchise NFL QB as Sam Bradford and Matt Stafford has. Jon Kitna is a decent backup and Culpepper still has an arm which gives him a fighting chance. How can you tell me a LT would be grossly overpaid when Jamarcus Russell signed for the exact same money that Tony Romo signed for? You cannot be serious. A Left Tackle is the only option for the Detroit Lions with the #1 draft choice in 2009.


January 14th, 2009, 1:57 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 16  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.