View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 24th, 2014, 7:22 am



Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Matt Stafford 
Author Message
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post 
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
I've conclusively proven that drafting a QB before building a team around them is a strategy that fails time and time again (Carr, Harrington, Alex Smith) Don't post this nonsense.


You misinterpreted my post. The way I saw it, kdsberman was saying that you HAD to draft a QB AFTER you built the team. That it was IMPOSSIBLE to take the QB and THEN build the team. This isn't the case. That was what I was saying I had proven. That BOTH strategies can work as long as you draft the right players and have a QUALITY GM.

If its between drafting Oher or Stafford you don't ask, LT or QB? That is foolish. Rather, you ask Oher or Stafford? The decision on whether to draft one or the other shouldn't be based on their position but on the player himself. Both positions are needed by the Lions, and they are both important.

All of the pro bowl QBs I mentioned, as you have proven, had pro bowl LTs. And the two do largely coincide. Here's a further question: how many of those pro bowl LTs were drafted in the first round? The Lions could draft a pro bowl LT in the second round like New England has. Like Indy has. Like San Diego has. The Lions don't have to blow their top pick in order to find an elite LT.

So, what I'm saying is, the whole "we should take Oher/Smith because he's a LT and not a QB" is a retarded argument. The decision on who the Lions ought to take with the first pick should be based on the individual player, not the position.


Or the Lions could take their franchise QB in Round 6 like New England has. Or not draft their franchise QB at all like Dallas.There could be four undrafted QBs in the playoffs this year (Romo,Warner,Delhomme,Garcia). Of course the position matters. If you hooked up "best talent available", you can easily fool yourself into taking a WR. The Lions are basically an expansion team. Is a QB more important than a LT? Yes. Is a QB more important than an Offensive Line as a collective? Hell no. As an expansion team, you have to solidify both fronts first prior to getting a young QB to take the reins. As the Browns and Texans learned. A great step towards solidifying the front is taking a LT #1. In today's NFL, top flight LTs do not drop in the draft. Back in the 70s and 80s, they were more apt to fall in the draft. 80% of pro bowl tackles the past 5 years were first round picks. As opposed to 48% of pro bowl quarterbacks the past 5 years being first rounders.


December 14th, 2008, 5:43 pm
Profile
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post 
Good QBs are passed on draft after draft for a multitude of secondary reasons (height,arm strength,school,system,bowl performances). They rise for the same reasons, with a real scouting staff, the Lions can get a Jake Delhomme or Tony Romo themselves.


December 14th, 2008, 6:01 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3362
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post 
v1ly4 wrote:
Quote:
I've conclusively proven that drafting a QB and then building a team around him is a strategy that works time and time again. (Manning, Palmer, Rivers...) Don't post this nonsense.


I've conclusively proven that drafting a QB before building a team around them is a strategy that fails time and time again (Carr, Harrington, Alex Smith) Don't post this nonsense.


Thank you. Because it is non-sense. Its stupidity.

Make all your fancy quotes all you want, but you dont change my mind. If this team wants to win, it will rebuild through the trenches.
If Marino or Elway had a great LT, im sure YOU wouldnt be able to name them off the top of your head anyway so that statement was a waste.
LINEMAN win the games, if you dont believe that then go talk tennis on some board, or boring golf.

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


December 14th, 2008, 8:02 pm
Profile
Post 
The fact of the matter is you can build a team either way.

In fact, you can build a team where the Qb isn't all that important of a spot (Tenn., Carolina, NE, and Baltimore).

You don't need to have a top-notch Qb in the NFL, and top notch Qbs in the NFL are VERY EXPENSIVE. Tenn. spent a lot of money on V. Young and a top pick, and found out that Qb isn't all that important to them. Kerry Collins isn't a world beater, but he suits them just fine.

Why would we draft someone that can't contribute, or won't contribute, or would be better off on the bench, when we could draft a LT that could start from day 1? Why would we draft someone that CAN'T or SHOULDN'T play right away when there are workable, perhaps even better formulas, that pose a scenario where you CAN draft a player right away and get some return on your investment THIS YEAR?

I understand that you can draft a QB this year, but IMO there aren't any "world beaters" at the top of this draft. Are there Qb's that can succeed and be viable NFL starters? Sure, but most Qb's can succeed...

I would be more into drafting a QB is there was a "special player" at the position this year. There are some that are better than others this year, but no one that jumps out to me. Carson Palmer was the last Qb that I really liked coming out of the draft. I thought that Cutler looked good too, but IMO Carson was special. These guys coming out don't seem all that "special" to me. I don't see much of a difference between the top 2-3 and Hunter Cantwell... I don't see a perfect prospect, or someone with a great knowledge of the game. I see a couple of guys that are hyped up and probably a little better than the next 4-5 guys below them, but I wouldn't be willing to spend $49 million dollars for that!

TAKE THE LT... They're just as hard to sign in FA, they make the kind of cash that we're going to have to pay the #1 over-all pick, and there are some particularily good ones in this years draft.


December 14th, 2008, 8:52 pm
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3362
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post 
You are very right wjb21ndtown, thats basically what i was thinking but i dont have as good of ways with words like you do. Generally, bad offensive line play will lose you a game. If a quarterback has a bad game, that doesnt take away the whole offense.

Dont be stupid, take an LT, not a quarterback. And for the love of God, dont draft to bench.

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


December 14th, 2008, 9:00 pm
Profile
Color Commentator - John Madden
User avatar

Joined: February 12th, 2006, 4:20 pm
Posts: 1861
Location: Des Moines, IA
Post 
WJB I couldn't have said it better myself! :D

_________________
Image


December 14th, 2008, 9:29 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post 
Great discussion!

How about this idea.....we do have 2 first rounds picks, why not take LT with one and QB with the other? That way we should be able to get top notch players at each position. With a sold OLine the entire offense will improve & with a solid QB prospect (that isn't thrown to the wolves immediately unless he's proven he can handle it) we should be ok for quite a few years. Of course we'll need to replace Raiola, but with Gos at RT and a high pick at LT our offense should improve dramatically IMO

***DISCLAIMER:Of course it depends on who grades out where...just talking in general if there were a really good prospect at each position available when we pick. Also, it depends on who's doing the picking for the Lions***

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


December 15th, 2008, 9:51 am
Profile
Pop Warner Vet
User avatar

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 12:28 pm
Posts: 111
Location: Grand Rapids
Post 
Quote:
why not take LT with one and QB with the other?


1. We have needs all over the place. We really-really-really need immediate impact Defense players, at positions like DT, ILB, CB, among others.

Every high pick we spend on a QB is a draft pick that we can't spend on someone who can come in and make an impact right away.

2. We already have QB's on our roster who deserve a chance.

Dan-O has played well enough (6 TD's to only 4 INT's, 58.4 comp %, 80.3 rating) on a bad team with bad protection (except the Indy game, where the protection was good), that he deserves a shot next year.

Culpepper has been terrible these past few years, but he's still a former 3x Pro Bowler. If he's not dealing with the stuff that's hurt him this year and the last two (rushing back from injury, coming in off the street as a starter), and he has an entire offseason to prepare, he could still have a lot left to contribute.

Stanton seems to have a bad case of the injury bug, but he's still a tall, mobile, young former 2nd-rounder with a good arm. We should give him an opportunity to compete for the position too, since we've already invested training and a roster spot in him.

We have enough questions at QB that we should spend 2009 answering them, not falling in love with whoever happens to be the most talented kid coming out of college and throwing away the potential we currently have. Orlovsky has at least earned the starting opportunity, and if Culpepper has an entire offseason with the team, then I'm totally okay with him as a backup.

Let's spend our high draft picks in 2009 on positions that clearly need to be upgraded (Darby, Lenon, Backus etc), not positions that could possibly need to be upgraded.

3. A rookie QB can be successful, but not in our current situation. He would have to sit on the bench

Two examples to look at would be Atlanta and Baltimore. They took rookie QB's in the first round of 2008, and those guys are playing pretty well.

However, looking at the stats, Atlanta and Baltimore are ranked #29 and #30 in pass attempts and ranked #1 and #2 in rush attempts.

In Atlanta, Matt Ryan can be successful because he has a good run game to lean on, and he doesn't need to pass very often. Also, his protection is pretty good (14 sacks in 403 dropbacks).

In Baltimore, Joe Flacco can be successful because he has a good defense to rely on that keeps games close. Also, his protection is okay (25 sacks in 403 dropbacks).

Detroit has none of these advantages. Kevin Smith looks like a good back, but we really need to fix our O-Line at multiple positions (G,C,G,LT), not just LT in order to open holes for him to even approach the kind of dominance Atlanta gets from Michael Turner.

And Detroit's protection is bad (49 sacks in 490 dropbacks).

And I won't even waste time comparing Detroit's defense to Baltimore's.

Plus, those two teams clearly needed a new QB. Baltimore gave Boller enough chances to develop and he didn't. Atlanta's star QB went to jail.

If we draft a QB in 2009, he will be set up to fail. He'd have to sit on the bench. Why draft a guy to the bench when you could get an immediate-impact defender with a first-round pick?

If we fix our O-Line and Defense in 2009 and bring in a QB in 2010, it will be a much better situation for him to succeed right away (plus, who knows, maybe Orlovsky will turn out to be even better in '09).


December 15th, 2008, 11:15 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2700
Post 
I'm going to try this one last time:

You can't pick who to draft on the basis of what abbreviation they have next to their name on a roster (T or QB).

If you want to draft on need, that's fine. However, I once again ask the rhetorical question, which position on the Lions isn't a NEED?

The Lions offensive line is bad, but their defense is worse. Jeff Backus is as bad as the QBs on their roster. Yeah, Dan O played "decent" yesterday--but so did the offensive line. QB is just as big of a need on this team as left tackle.

And even if you assert that LT must be addressed this year, the Lions need not do it with the first pick. They could, but as I've already proved you can find quality LTs in the later rounds--particularly the second.

A lot of people have this assumption that drafting a LT will immediately improve the Lions. It may, or it may not.

For instance, look at the Bengals in 2002. They took Levi Jones 10th overall. The next year they were picking first (Carson Palmer). They went from a bad team to the worst team--even with the addition of a quality LT.

The Jets took Ferguson 4th overall in 2006, and their team went from terrible to mediocre. But the year after they were back in the top 10 taking Gholston 6th overall. Only now--after the addition of a quality QB and a great guard have they become SB contenders.

You want instant improvement? Then you have to address the teams biggest need, and its not LT or QB. It's defense. Because its impossible to fix all of the holes on this team in one off season, the Lions will be picking in the top five again next year. A starting left tackle or a benched quarterback will yield the same results--a top five pick.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not on the draft Stafford bandwagon (at least not yet). I haven't seen enough of him play, and people whose college football opinion I value have told me he looks worse than Harrington did. Same thing for Oher. Many on this board assert that he's the best tackle available, but most mock drafts rank Smith higher. This makes me think that either we have the rare pleasure of a draft with two Orlando Paces/Ogdens or the tackles are both quality--but not necessarily worthy of the first overall pick.

WJB's argument:
Quote:
I don't see much of a difference between the top 2-3 and Hunter Cantwell... I don't see a perfect prospect, or someone with a great knowledge of the game. I see a couple of guys that are hyped up and probably a little better than the next 4-5 guys below them, but I wouldn't be willing to spend $49 million dollars for that!


Is a good argument that people should make if they're against the Lions drafting a QB. But saying take a LT because its a LT and not a QB is foolish.

Let's say you have to give out the academy award for best picture. And you have two movies to chose from. Unfortunately you haven't seen either one. All you know is that one is a drama and the other is an action movie. Then you decide to give the movie to the drama just because its a drama. Foolish, just like taking a prospect based on position alone.


December 15th, 2008, 12:33 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: October 30th, 2004, 12:30 pm
Posts: 2205
Location: Austin, TX
Post 
v1ly4 wrote:
Quote:
why not take LT with one and QB with the other?


1. We have needs all over the place. We really-really-really need immediate impact Defense players, at positions like DT, ILB, CB, among others.

Every high pick we spend on a QB is a draft pick that we can't spend on someone who can come in and make an impact right away.

2. We already have QB's on our roster who deserve a chance.

Dan-O has played well enough (6 TD's to only 4 INT's, 58.4 comp %, 80.3 rating) on a bad team with bad protection (except the Indy game, where the protection was good), that he deserves a shot next year.

Culpepper has been terrible these past few years, but he's still a former 3x Pro Bowler. If he's not dealing with the stuff that's hurt him this year and the last two (rushing back from injury, coming in off the street as a starter), and he has an entire offseason to prepare, he could still have a lot left to contribute.

Stanton seems to have a bad case of the injury bug, but he's still a tall, mobile, young former 2nd-rounder with a good arm. We should give him an opportunity to compete for the position too, since we've already invested training and a roster spot in him.

We have enough questions at QB that we should spend 2009 answering them, not falling in love with whoever happens to be the most talented kid coming out of college and throwing away the potential we currently have. Orlovsky has at least earned the starting opportunity, and if Culpepper has an entire offseason with the team, then I'm totally okay with him as a backup.

Let's spend our high draft picks in 2009 on positions that clearly need to be upgraded (Darby, Lenon, Backus etc), not positions that could possibly need to be upgraded.

3. A rookie QB can be successful, but not in our current situation. He would have to sit on the bench

Two examples to look at would be Atlanta and Baltimore. They took rookie QB's in the first round of 2008, and those guys are playing pretty well.

However, looking at the stats, Atlanta and Baltimore are ranked #29 and #30 in pass attempts and ranked #1 and #2 in rush attempts.

In Atlanta, Matt Ryan can be successful because he has a good run game to lean on, and he doesn't need to pass very often. Also, his protection is pretty good (14 sacks in 403 dropbacks).

In Baltimore, Joe Flacco can be successful because he has a good defense to rely on that keeps games close. Also, his protection is okay (25 sacks in 403 dropbacks).

Detroit has none of these advantages. Kevin Smith looks like a good back, but we really need to fix our O-Line at multiple positions (G,C,G,LT), not just LT in order to open holes for him to even approach the kind of dominance Atlanta gets from Michael Turner.

And Detroit's protection is bad (49 sacks in 490 dropbacks).

And I won't even waste time comparing Detroit's defense to Baltimore's.

Plus, those two teams clearly needed a new QB. Baltimore gave Boller enough chances to develop and he didn't. Atlanta's star QB went to jail.

If we draft a QB in 2009, he will be set up to fail. He'd have to sit on the bench. Why draft a guy to the bench when you could get an immediate-impact defender with a first-round pick?

If we fix our O-Line and Defense in 2009 and bring in a QB in 2010, it will be a much better situation for him to succeed right away (plus, who knows, maybe Orlovsky will turn out to be even better in '09).


I am in agreement with this guy... good post!

_________________
Image

NEVER GIVE UP!


December 15th, 2008, 1:13 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post 
IMO when you draft a QB (regardless of which round) they should sit their @$$ on the bench/hold the clipboard for at least 2 years (the rare exception does apply). If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't too long ago where a rookie QB would sit and learn the system for 2-3 years (if not longer) before they were given the reigns, why has it changed? IMO because it has changed we are seeing many more QB "busts".

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


December 15th, 2008, 2:12 pm
Profile
Post 
Blueskies wrote:
I'm going to try this one last time:

You can't pick who to draft on the basis of what abbreviation they have next to their name on a roster (T or QB).

If you want to draft on need, that's fine. However, I once again ask the rhetorical question, which position on the Lions isn't a NEED?

The Lions offensive line is bad, but their defense is worse. Jeff Backus is as bad as the QBs on their roster. Yeah, Dan O played "decent" yesterday--but so did the offensive line. QB is just as big of a need on this team as left tackle.

And even if you assert that LT must be addressed this year, the Lions need not do it with the first pick. They could, but as I've already proved you can find quality LTs in the later rounds--particularly the second.

A lot of people have this assumption that drafting a LT will immediately improve the Lions. It may, or it may not.

For instance, look at the Bengals in 2002. They took Levi Jones 10th overall. The next year they were picking first (Carson Palmer). They went from a bad team to the worst team--even with the addition of a quality LT.

The Jets took Ferguson 4th overall in 2006, and their team went from terrible to mediocre. But the year after they were back in the top 10 taking Gholston 6th overall. Only now--after the addition of a quality QB and a great guard have they become SB contenders.

You want instant improvement? Then you have to address the teams biggest need, and its not LT or QB. It's defense. Because its impossible to fix all of the holes on this team in one off season, the Lions will be picking in the top five again next year. A starting left tackle or a benched quarterback will yield the same results--a top five pick.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not on the draft Stafford bandwagon (at least not yet). I haven't seen enough of him play, and people whose college football opinion I value have told me he looks worse than Harrington did. Same thing for Oher. Many on this board assert that he's the best tackle available, but most mock drafts rank Smith higher. This makes me think that either we have the rare pleasure of a draft with two Orlando Paces/Ogdens or the tackles are both quality--but not necessarily worthy of the first overall pick.

WJB's argument:
Quote:
I don't see much of a difference between the top 2-3 and Hunter Cantwell... I don't see a perfect prospect, or someone with a great knowledge of the game. I see a couple of guys that are hyped up and probably a little better than the next 4-5 guys below them, but I wouldn't be willing to spend $49 million dollars for that!


Is a good argument that people should make if they're against the Lions drafting a QB. But saying take a LT because its a LT and not a QB is foolish.

Let's say you have to give out the academy award for best picture. And you have two movies to chose from. Unfortunately you haven't seen either one. All you know is that one is a drama and the other is an action movie. Then you decide to give the movie to the drama just because its a drama. Foolish, just like taking a prospect based on position alone.


Where do I say "take an LT because it's not a QB"? NEVER... I say take an LT because it's a position of needAND a position of value.

You don't JUST draft positions of need, you also HAVE draft positions of value. You can find talent at ANY position outside of Rd. 1. You don't draft Gains Adams #1 over all simply because he's the best DE in the draft, the same way you don't draft Jerod Mayo or Keith Rivers #1 over all because they're the best LB's or Cedric Ellis because he's the best DT. You evaluate ALL of the talent in the draft and grab a player of value and need at the spot you're picking at. There aren't ANY DE's, DT's. or LB's that have proven worthy of a top five pick this year.


December 15th, 2008, 2:24 pm
QB Coach

Joined: January 13th, 2006, 4:18 am
Posts: 3216
Location: Maryland
Post 
One thing I want to point out that I don't think is getting addressed enough is that the Lions currently have 8 picks in this draft. So just because we address a certain area first overall doesn't mean we can't improve other areas. As of right now no defensive player is worth #1 overall. However, in the 20's and at 33 there will be plenty of talent available at almost all positions. And after that we still have 5 picks. A quality GM will be able to evaluate the talent better and our later round picks should be able to contribute. Also, don't forget undrafted players. It seems every year you hear about so and so going undrafted or being drafted late and contributing. This year Chris Horton went 4 picks from the end of that draft and now he's a starting safety and potential Pro Bowler.

The Lions have to determine who the #1 overall prospect is in this draft and take them. And again to reiterate my point just because we take a certain player at #1 DOES NOT MEAN the rest of the team won't get upgraded with the 7 other picks we have.


December 15th, 2008, 2:50 pm
Profile
Post 
inheritedlionsfan wrote:
One thing I want to point out that I don't think is getting addressed enough is that the Lions currently have 8 picks in this draft. So just because we address a certain area first overall doesn't mean we can't improve other areas. As of right now no defensive player is worth #1 overall. However, in the 20's and at 33 there will be plenty of talent available at almost all positions. And after that we still have 5 picks. A quality GM will be able to evaluate the talent better and our later round picks should be able to contribute. Also, don't forget undrafted players. It seems every year you hear about so and so going undrafted or being drafted late and contributing. This year Chris Horton went 4 picks from the end of that draft and now he's a starting safety and potential Pro Bowler.

The Lions have to determine who the #1 overall prospect is in this draft and take them. And again to reiterate my point just because we take a certain player at #1 DOES NOT MEAN the rest of the team won't get upgraded with the 7 other picks we have.


I agree 100%... In another thread I listed a slew of LBs that should be available 1B or later... and as late as the 3rd - 4th rounds that could come in and contribute here. ONE good LB could change around our entire LB corps. A good MLB would be perfect, but even an upgrade at SSLB would be HUGE for us.

Further, IMO we HAVE to look at getting a quality safety in this draft. If William Moore is available at our 1B he should get a STRONG look, as should Myron Rolle (if he comes out), and Taylor Mays (if he comes out). I know I have strongly advocated drafting Alex Mack with 1B, but that is assuming that our 1B pick is around 23. If it is higher than that we have to look at a CB, LB, DT, DE or S.


December 15th, 2008, 2:56 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10302
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post 
I'm pretty sure Bradford is a redshirt sophomore, thus, he cannot declare...

_________________
_____
I have no faith this team will win a game the rest of the year. The kitties finish at 7-9 and Miss the playoffs as GB wins out and takes it from the kitties.
Image


December 15th, 2008, 3:36 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 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:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.