View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 25th, 2014, 6:21 pm



Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 On why the Lions shouldn't go QB with the #1 pick... 
Author Message
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2747
Post On why the Lions shouldn't go QB with the #1 pick...
No--it doesn't have anything to do with a belief that a first round QB "is doomed to fail" here or that they should "build the lines first" or nonsense like that.

It simply isn't good value.

Take a look at draft order. It goes:

Lions
Rams
Chiefs
Seahawks
Browns
Bengals
Raiders
Jaguars
Packers

Then something like

49ers
Bills
Saints
Redskins
Broncos
Texans

Then

Chargers
Jets
Bears
Buccaneers
Lions again

If you look at the teams before the Lion's SECOND pick, only four stand out as potential QB drafters: 49ers, Jets, Bears, and Buccaneers. While I think the 49ers probably WILL take a QB, I'm not so sure on the Jets, Bears, and Bucs.

The Jets blew a 2nd round pick on a QB a couple years ago and they still--maybe--have Favre. It depends on what their new coach wants.

The Bears have a number of needs and, in Lionlike fashion, seem to draft a bust every time they go for a first round QB. They maybe too shy to take one.

Jon Gruden is still the coach in Tampa, and its well known he prefers veteran QBs. I believe the Bucs will go in a different direction with their pick.

Hell, even if one of those teams was going to draft a QB, the Lions could leapfrog them by swapping picks with the Texans or the Chargers. They might have to give up one of their third rounders to do it, but in my mind its worth it. While they need every pick they can get, if they don't take a QB this year, they'll take one next year, so what difference does it make?

If Matt Stafford AND Sam Bradford both enter the draft they'll be the top two QBs. Some people prefer Stafford. Others Bradford. I think they both have potential. And if the Lions followed the strategy I outlined, they'd get one of the two at a value of $20M as opposed to $50M. So if they bust, their economic drain on the team is minimal and the team can afford to sit them on the bench for a while. Additionally, by drafting a position other than QB at #1 the team would save a butt load of cash. Ryan was paid much more than Jake Long even though he was drafted two picks later, simply because he was a QB. So the Lions save a ton of money and reduce their exposure to the risk of bust.

So take Curry or Smith at #1, then Stafford or Bradford (whichever is available) with the second first rounder.


December 31st, 2008, 1:22 am
Profile
Millen Draft Pick - Epic Bust

Joined: December 27th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Posts: 693
Post 
Exactly how Aaron Rodgers fell to the Packers. The same would have happened with Joey had the Lions not taken him.


December 31st, 2008, 1:47 am
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
I like the way you are thinking, but I think there are other teams that could take a qb at #1.

For example, you left out the rams, chiefs, and seahawks. While not 100% likely, any of those teams could draft qb @1.

Don't get me wrong, it would be great for this to happen this way, but there is a lot of risk involved. I don't like any idea of trading any draft pick. Way too many holes to fill, and 3rd rounders are great pickups as far as production/money goes. I still would give it a go, and if we have to (because they are taken by 20), just skip drafting a qb and take a free agent after the draft that has at least won a game in his career.

I just think the qb crop this year is weak as hell and none are really worthy of a top 20 pick. Next year now, yeah, that's a qb class.


December 31st, 2008, 9:14 am
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: October 30th, 2004, 12:30 pm
Posts: 2205
Location: Austin, TX
Post 
No QB this year! Build the Lines 1st and get us a better defense!

_________________
Image

NEVER GIVE UP!


December 31st, 2008, 12:40 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9520
Location: Dallas
Post 
LionsFan4Life wrote:
No QB this year! Build the Lines 1st and get us a better defense!


Full disclosure, LionsFan4Life is a big Horns fan and wants us to hold out for McCoy. :wink:

Once again, a QB will likely sit a year and take a few to develop, might as well bring one in if he is a potential franchise QB.

Blueskies, you may be onto something. We still need to see what happens in FA as you never know and someone who you think doesn't need a QB could cut their starter and others could be signed in FA so the need barometer will change.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


December 31st, 2008, 12:56 pm
Profile WWW
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: October 30th, 2004, 12:30 pm
Posts: 2205
Location: Austin, TX
Post 
Pablo wrote:
LionsFan4Life wrote:
No QB this year! Build the Lines 1st and get us a better defense!


Full disclosure, LionsFan4Life is a big Horns fan and wants us to hold out for McCoy. :wink:

Once again, a QB will likely sit a year and take a few to develop, might as well bring one in if he is a potential franchise QB.

Blueskies, you may be onto something. We still need to see what happens in FA as you never know and someone who you think doesn't need a QB could cut their starter and others could be signed in FA so the need barometer will change.


Hey, hey! that's not ENTIRELY true... :lol:

_________________
Image

NEVER GIVE UP!


December 31st, 2008, 2:54 pm
Profile
Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: April 16th, 2005, 3:23 pm
Posts: 941
Location: Hollywood, FL
Post 
1. Detroit Lions
0 16 0 .000 .559 143-113-0

2. St. Louis Rams ----------- Bulger is aging and hasn't played well.
2 14 0 .125 .533 136-119-1

3. Kansas City Chiefs --------- Is Thigpen really the answer? I doubt it.
2 14 0 .125 .537 137-118-1

4. Seattle Seahawks ---------- Hasselback is aging.
4 12 0 .250 .498 127-128-1


5. Cleveland Browns
4 12 0 .250 .572 145-108-3

6. Cincinnati Bengals
4 11 1 .281 .553 141-114-1

7. Oakland Raiders
5 11 0 .313 .520 133-123-0

8. Jacksonville Jaguars ----- Garrard didn't live up to expectations as lone starter.
5 11 0 .313 .537 137-118-1


9. Green Bay Packers
6 10 0 .375 .504 129-127-0

10. San Francisco 49ers ---- Martz' offense made O'Sullivan look capable
7 9 0 .438 .447 114-141-1


11. Buffalo Bills
7 9 0 .438 .453 116-140-0

12. Denver Broncos
8 8 0 .500 .457 117-139-0

13. Washington Redskins
8 8 0 .500 .479 121-132-3

14. New Orleans Saints
8 8 0 .500 .496 127-129-0

15. Houston Texans
8 8 0 .500 .518 132-123-1

16. San Diego Chargers *
8 8 0 .500 .516 132-124-0

17. New York Jets --------- Favre is dirt old and no one is sold on Clemons.
9 7 0 .563 .471 120-135-1

18. Chicago Bears ------------ How many decades have they been looking for a QB?
9 7 0 .563 .475 121-134-1

19. Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- They did draft Sims. This wouldn't surprise me.
9 7 0 .563 .480 123-133-0


20. Detroit Lions (from Dallas)
9 7 0 .563 .498 126-127-3

I highly doubt any of these top 2 QBs make it to 20... I said the same thing about Quinn though...


December 31st, 2008, 10:14 pm
Profile
Heisman Winner

Joined: December 8th, 2008, 3:16 pm
Posts: 785
Post 
i dont see the jags taking a qb in the first round.


December 31st, 2008, 11:06 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3378
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post 
LionsFan4Life wrote:
No QB this year! Build the Lines 1st and get us a better defense!


Thats right!

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


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


January 1st, 2009, 3:09 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2747
Post 
Murtyle wrote:
2. St. Louis Rams ----------- Bulger is aging and hasn't played well.
2 14 0 .125 .533 136-119-1


Bulger is only 31. That is still fairly young for a QB. Less than two years ago he signed a $60M+ contract, nearly half of which was guaranteed money (source: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2951390). His performance the last two years has been abysmal, but most of that can be blamed on the offensive line. With how much STL has invested in Bulger, and all their other needs he simply isn't going anywhere. They'll probably bring in a FA to compete, but they won't waste the second pick on a QB.

Murtyle wrote:
3. Kansas City Chiefs --------- Is Thigpen really the answer? I doubt it.
2 14 0 .125 .537 137-118-1


Here are Thigpen's 2008 stats:
Passing Rushing
Comp Att Yards TDs Int Att Yds Avg TD
230 420 2,608 18 12 62 386 6.2 3

Those aren't half bad. I don't know if he's the answer, but I do know the chiefs badly need defensive end help (they only had 10 sacks this year). I guess it depends on what the new GM wants, but unless Stafford/Bradford really impress, I think they would go Orakpo or Curry over either of the QBs.

Murtyle wrote:
4. Seattle Seahawks ---------- Hasselback is aging.
4 12 0 .250 .498 127-128-1


Aging? Yes. Old? No. The Seahawks struggled this year mostly due to (almost) their entire WR corps going on IR. If a team takes a QB in the top 5, he should be starting within a season or at most two. I think the Seahawks want to keep Hasselback around for a bit longer than that. They might go QB in the 2nd or 3rd, but not with their first pick.

Murtyle wrote:
8. Jacksonville Jaguars ----- Garrard didn't live up to expectations as lone starter.
5 11 0 .313 .537 137-118-1


Garrad signed a 6 year $60M contract less than a year ago. He had a down year, but so did the entire team. He's not going anywhere and he isn't getting replaced.

Murtyle wrote:
10. San Francisco 49ers ---- Martz' offense made O'Sullivan look capable
7 9 0 .438 .447 114-141-1


First, Martz is gone. And second, JTO was benched in favor of undrafted Shaun Hill. Alex Smith is total bust.

Murtyle wrote:
17. New York Jets --------- Favre is dirt old and no one is sold on Clemons.
9 7 0 .563 .471 120-135-1


18. Chicago Bears ------------ How many decades have they been looking for a QB?
9 7 0 .563 .475 121-134-1

19. Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- They did draft Sims. This wouldn't surprise me.
9 7 0 .563 .480 123-133-0[/b]


That's why I put these teams as maybes. But, since they are all conveniently right in a row, you could leapfrog them with a simple trade up a few slots.

But this topic may prove to be pointless if Bradford stays in school. There is now speculation that he may, after Goodell said there wouldn't be a rookie pay cut next season. If thats the case the Lions will be forced to draft Stafford or trade down, and they might get some interesting offers, as he'd be pretty much the sole 1rst round QB available in the draft.[/b]


January 1st, 2009, 3:47 am
Profile
5th Round Pick - Traded

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 2:11 pm
Posts: 1071
Location: Wolverine, Mi.
Post 
Blueskies wrote:
Murtyle wrote:
2. St. Louis Rams ----------- Bulger is aging and hasn't played well.
2 14 0 .125 .533 136-119-1


Bulger is only 31. That is still fairly young for a QB. Less than two years ago he signed a $60M+ contract, nearly half of which was guaranteed money (source: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2951390). His performance the last two years has been abysmal, but most of that can be blamed on the offensive line. With how much STL has invested in Bulger, and all their other needs he simply isn't going anywhere. They'll probably bring in a FA to compete, but they won't waste the second pick on a QB.

Murtyle wrote:
3. Kansas City Chiefs --------- Is Thigpen really the answer? I doubt it.
2 14 0 .125 .537 137-118-1


Here are Thigpen's 2008 stats:
Passing Rushing
Comp Att Yards TDs Int Att Yds Avg TD
230 420 2,608 18 12 62 386 6.2 3

Those aren't half bad. I don't know if he's the answer, but I do know the chiefs badly need defensive end help (they only had 10 sacks this year). I guess it depends on what the new GM wants, but unless Stafford/Bradford really impress, I think they would go Orakpo or Curry over either of the QBs.

Murtyle wrote:
4. Seattle Seahawks ---------- Hasselback is aging.
4 12 0 .250 .498 127-128-1


Aging? Yes. Old? No. The Seahawks struggled this year mostly due to (almost) their entire WR corps going on IR. If a team takes a QB in the top 5, he should be starting within a season or at most two. I think the Seahawks want to keep Hasselback around for a bit longer than that. They might go QB in the 2nd or 3rd, but not with their first pick.

Murtyle wrote:
8. Jacksonville Jaguars ----- Garrard didn't live up to expectations as lone starter.
5 11 0 .313 .537 137-118-1


Garrad signed a 6 year $60M contract less than a year ago. He had a down year, but so did the entire team. He's not going anywhere and he isn't getting replaced.

Murtyle wrote:
10. San Francisco 49ers ---- Martz' offense made O'Sullivan look capable
7 9 0 .438 .447 114-141-1


First, Martz is gone. And second, JTO was benched in favor of undrafted Shaun Hill. Alex Smith is total bust.

Murtyle wrote:
17. New York Jets --------- Favre is dirt old and no one is sold on Clemons.
9 7 0 .563 .471 120-135-1


18. Chicago Bears ------------ How many decades have they been looking for a QB?
9 7 0 .563 .475 121-134-1

19. Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- They did draft Sims. This wouldn't surprise me.
9 7 0 .563 .480 123-133-0[/b]


That's why I put these teams as maybes. But, since they are all conveniently right in a row, you could leapfrog them with a simple trade up a few slots.

But this topic may prove to be pointless if Bradford stays in school. There is now speculation that he may, after Goodell said there wouldn't be a rookie pay cut next season. If thats the case the Lions will be forced to draft Stafford or trade down, and they might get some interesting offers, as he'd be pretty much the sole 1rst round QB available in the draft.[/b]


Interesting point of view Blueskies, and I agree with your evaluation somewhat. Chances of teams trading up for the first overall pick seems less likely this year based on the lack of a clear-cut #1 talent at QB or RB. There are so many options at LT that I doubt anyone would want to trade up for that position as well. At this point there is no consesus on a clear #1 talent overall regardless of position. Its still to early for that, and I don't agree with the idea of elevating a position such as QB simply because it is considered premium or happens to be a position of need. In fact I believe the Lions best chance for trading down to garner more picks will be with there later first rounder or there spot at the top of the second.


January 1st, 2009, 12:49 pm
Profile
Junior Varsity

Joined: August 20th, 2005, 8:16 pm
Posts: 189
Location: Battle Creek
Post 
I said it when jay cutler was coming out, he was the best QB in that draft and would be a mistake not to draft him! ill say it agian this year Matt STAFFORD is going to be a grat Qb in the NFL, the boy has a cannon for a arm, and arm strength makes up for alot! 3 years from now well al be saying the samething, WHY DIDNT THEY DRAFT STAFFORD ! this of corse only counts if he declares!


Last edited by FEEDINGmyLIONScheese on January 2nd, 2009, 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.



January 1st, 2009, 7:12 pm
Profile YIM
Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: April 16th, 2005, 3:23 pm
Posts: 941
Location: Hollywood, FL
Post 
Blueskies wrote:
Murtyle wrote:
2. St. Louis Rams ----------- Bulger is aging and hasn't played well.
2 14 0 .125 .533 136-119-1


Bulger is only 31. That is still fairly young for a QB. Less than two years ago he signed a $60M+ contract, nearly half of which was guaranteed money (source: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2951390). His performance the last two years has been abysmal, but most of that can be blamed on the offensive line. With how much STL has invested in Bulger, and all their other needs he simply isn't going anywhere. They'll probably bring in a FA to compete, but they won't waste the second pick on a QB.

Murtyle wrote:
3. Kansas City Chiefs --------- Is Thigpen really the answer? I doubt it.
2 14 0 .125 .537 137-118-1


Here are Thigpen's 2008 stats:
Passing Rushing
Comp Att Yards TDs Int Att Yds Avg TD
230 420 2,608 18 12 62 386 6.2 3

Those aren't half bad. I don't know if he's the answer, but I do know the chiefs badly need defensive end help (they only had 10 sacks this year). I guess it depends on what the new GM wants, but unless Stafford/Bradford really impress, I think they would go Orakpo or Curry over either of the QBs.

Murtyle wrote:
4. Seattle Seahawks ---------- Hasselback is aging.
4 12 0 .250 .498 127-128-1


Aging? Yes. Old? No. The Seahawks struggled this year mostly due to (almost) their entire WR corps going on IR. If a team takes a QB in the top 5, he should be starting within a season or at most two. I think the Seahawks want to keep Hasselback around for a bit longer than that. They might go QB in the 2nd or 3rd, but not with their first pick.

Murtyle wrote:
8. Jacksonville Jaguars ----- Garrard didn't live up to expectations as lone starter.
5 11 0 .313 .537 137-118-1


Garrad signed a 6 year $60M contract less than a year ago. He had a down year, but so did the entire team. He's not going anywhere and he isn't getting replaced.

Murtyle wrote:
10. San Francisco 49ers ---- Martz' offense made O'Sullivan look capable
7 9 0 .438 .447 114-141-1


First, Martz is gone. And second, JTO was benched in favor of undrafted Shaun Hill. Alex Smith is total bust.

Murtyle wrote:
17. New York Jets --------- Favre is dirt old and no one is sold on Clemons.
9 7 0 .563 .471 120-135-1


18. Chicago Bears ------------ How many decades have they been looking for a QB?
9 7 0 .563 .475 121-134-1

19. Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- They did draft Sims. This wouldn't surprise me.
9 7 0 .563 .480 123-133-0[/b]


That's why I put these teams as maybes. But, since they are all conveniently right in a row, you could leapfrog them with a simple trade up a few slots.

But this topic may prove to be pointless if Bradford stays in school. There is now speculation that he may, after Goodell said there wouldn't be a rookie pay cut next season. If thats the case the Lions will be forced to draft Stafford or trade down, and they might get some interesting offers, as he'd be pretty much the sole 1rst round QB available in the draft.[/b]


This is a copy cat league and teams see what Flacco and Ryan did this year... On top of this, I would think a lot of teams would like to have the successor at QB ready to go when the time comes, so teams with 30 yr old + Qbs do come into play...If both Stafford and Bradford declare, I'd be shocked if either one fell out of the top 10...


January 1st, 2009, 7:21 pm
Profile
#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 am
Posts: 1427
Post 
Quote:
This is a copy cat league and teams see what Flacco and Ryan did this year... On top of this, I would think a lot of teams would like to have the successor at QB ready to go when the time comes, so teams with 30 yr old + Qbs do come into play...If both Stafford and Bradford declare, I'd be shocked if either one fell out of the top 10...


Considering that Bulger and Garrard signed big deals that make them virtually untradeable........the Rams and Jags aren't likely to take a QB early.

It is certainly possible that a QB could fall into the twenties.......and that has been happening in recent years even when QBs are expected to go higher (Rodgers and Quinn).


January 4th, 2009, 12:07 am
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3378
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post 
FEEDINGmyLIONScheese wrote:
I said it when jay cutler was coming out, he was the best QB in that draft and would be a mistake not to draft him! ill say it agian this year Matt STAFFORD is going to be a grat Qb in the NFL, the boy has a cannon for a arm, and arm strength makes up for alot! 3 years from now well al be saying the samething, WHY DIDNT THEY DRAFT STAFFORD ! this of corse only counts if he declares!


Dont matter when you dont have an offensive line.

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


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


January 4th, 2009, 12:45 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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.