View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 22nd, 2014, 7:58 pm



Reply to topic  [ 285 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
 Reasons Why?? We should draft a QB with our 1st Pick. 
Author Message
Online
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2815
Post 
I'll be fine with whoever we pick. I'm not Anti-Stafford, although I don't think he's got what it takes. Here's what I see:

He had Massaquoi, who's climbing boards right now, and he also had Moreno as potent weapons, and he still struggled at times. I look at the tape (and not just highlight reels) and there are times he makes some great throws, and there's alot of times where he completely misses on the easy, must make throws. And when you have a rb like Moreno, and face 8 man fronts and one on one coverages a majority of the time, you have to do better.

Like many have said, Cutler was THE guy at Vanderbilt. VY had weapons at Texas, and he also wasn't a conventional qb, so not sure where to pinpoint his issues. Leinart had Bush, White and Jarret, and he's struggled. I need to go thru each QB and pinpoint which QB's are rated high with other highly rated players coming out in similar years and see their success rate, but Its just something i've noticed lately.

I just don't think QB is the right pick at this time for us. I'm not sure next year will be either. I think we need to build a team and THEN put the best QB available to us, in a position to succeed. Its what they do in NE, its what they do in Tennessee, where Swartz learned. There's alot of offensive options that make me think hard, but I just can't justify offense unless its BPA, when we have the dead last place defense. Defense is why we went 0-16, and without improvement, we're on the road to repeating.


April 16th, 2009, 8:00 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9940
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Murtyle wrote:
I said viable option... Those are not viable options IMO, for reasons that I have brought forward (Culpepper's injury history, spread QBs not transitioning to the NFL and likely not being in a position to draft Bradford).. The only one I've even heard refuted is Culpepper's injury history...


Culpepper has had one injury in his career, so that is definitely refutable. As for the spread QB going into the NFL, I agree. But I never said I wanted Stafford to run this team. There are still FA quarterbacks with starting experience we could sign to backup Daunte. Grossman, Frye, Batch, Losman....maybe not what you'd like, but better than nothing. And far better than putting an unproven rookie out there to sink or swim. That IS a viable option.

Murtyle wrote:
Just as you endorse taking Curry in hopes that they will coach him into a franchise MLB...

Of course it takes time... This is exactly why if they feel Stafford can be a franchise QB he has to be the guy... The Carson Palmer model is exactly what I would be looking to do...


Curry has experience at MLB and has been coached at that position. He knows the role and has the size and athleticism to play the spot. Yes, there will be a learning curve....but who will have the bigger curve? Curry or Stafford? You know the answer. And the fact that Curry could be moved to any of the LB spots is further testimony to his value.

Murtyle wrote:
Come on Mike... If there is a kicker that never missed a kick in this draft, you'd verbally castrate this team for taking him #1 overall... That is just a nonsense comment...


First of all, it was a comment made to make my point. If a kicker is the top overall talent in the draft, we are ALL in trouble. And what is the likelihood of that happening? Slim and none. And Slim just left town.

Murtyle wrote:
I am a staunch supporter of BPA, but you have to do it within reason... Like you don't draft WR 3 years straight and you don't take a kicker with the 1st overall pick... You have to take the best player for your team... The player who is going to make the most impact on your team over his career... If you have a guy with the grade of 98 at a position that is already filled and there is a guy with the grade 97 at a position that isn't filled who do you take? If there is an OC with a grade of 88 and a LT with the grade of 87 and you have a need at both positions, you would take the OC ?


Does Curry not fill a need? And is he not the highest rated player for most teams? The ONLY player who may have a higher rating is Crabtree. I've seen no other players that have had a higher rating. And you have to watch how the ratings are established. Left tackles, pass rushers and quarterbacks are often given higher (false) ratings because of the position they play. I don't believe in that type of rating system. Rate the player based on his abilities and skill set for his position, and don't adjust the numbers BECAUSE of his position.

Murtyle wrote:
Nobody ever wants to talk about Stafford's skill set... All I hear is "Even Peyton Manning wouldn't be good behind this line"... In fact, you never answered me about Stafford having it, yet time and time again when things were falling apart around him at UGA, he found a way to win... Lets talk about that. why is it that he isn't worth the #1 overall pick IYO?


Now it is YOU talking nonsense. Just about everyone on this board has acknowledged that Stafford has a great arm. Just about everybody on this board has acknowledged that he can make all the throws and has good athleticism. He shows good footwork and mechanics. How is that not talking about his skillset? What has many of us questioning Stafford is his decision making and his consistency. Both were mediocre at best in college, and coaching doesn't always improve those qualities. Those things are paramount to a QB. Joe Montana didn't have a great arm, and wasn't a superb athletic specimen. But his decision making, his play making ability and his consistency were all off the charts. Those qualities made him a winner. Yes, he had a great team around him....when he won the Super Bowl. But even Jerry Rice has given credit to Montana for turning that team around. And even Steve Young has said if not for Montana, he would not have been as successful at SF.

I have answered your questions about him having 'it'. You claim he found ways to win. I didn't see it. I watched about five UG games, and I came away thoroughly unimpressed with his ability to carry that team. Bradford, Tebow and McCoy were much better in that regard. Even Brian Hoyer showed more poise under pressure than Stafford. His performance against MSU was a Jekyll and Hyde act. That was a microcosm of his inconsistency.

Truth be known, I would prefer the Lions wait until pick #65 and take Rhett Bohmar. Less investment and I think that kid has as good of a chance to be a quality QB as does Stafford. He may have made a poor decision off the field, but his on the field skills were excellent.


April 16th, 2009, 9:02 am
Profile
Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: April 16th, 2005, 3:23 pm
Posts: 941
Location: Hollywood, FL
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
Culpepper has had one injury in his career, so that is definitely refutable. As for the spread QB going into the NFL, I agree. But I never said I wanted Stafford to run this team. There are still FA quarterbacks with starting experience we could sign to backup Daunte. Grossman, Frye, Batch, Losman....maybe not what you'd like, but better than nothing. And far better than putting an unproven rookie out there to sink or swim. That IS a viable option.


That 1 injury is what everyone has blamed his poor performances on... So regardless, either it didn't effect his poor play or it did... I just don't know how you can plan for him to return to the form he showed half a decade ago with superior talent around him... If that is viable to you, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion... I just don't share it...

Batch re-signed with PIT first of all and I don't see how Grossman, Frye or Losman can possibly be better options than if they believe Stafford can be a franchise QB... You agree that the position is the most important on the field, but you would settle for a far lesser talent?

Quote:
Curry has experience at MLB and has been coached at that position. He knows the role and has the size and athleticism to play the spot. Yes, there will be a learning curve....but who will have the bigger curve? Curry or Stafford? You know the answer. And the fact that Curry could be moved to any of the LB spots is further testimony to his value.


Quote:
However, there is still some talk among league insiders that Curry could take a surprising tumble on draft day.

One general manager, who asked not to be identified, characterized Curry as "probably the safest guy this year," but still thinks he's "fighting history to be taken as high as you all [the media] think."

The point is a valid one.

Only one linebacker has been selected earlier than the ninth overall pick since 2001, and the exception -- Green Bay's A.J. Hawk -- is a solid starter but has yet to show the playmaking ability expected from a player taken with the fifth overall pick in 2006.

The meteoric rise in quarterback Mark Sanchez's stock since the Southern Cal pro day and the belief that Curry fits best outside in the 4-3 alignment is prompting some within the scouting community to suggest that Curry could slip -- perhaps all the way down to the Jacksonville Jaguars at No. 8 overall.

Prominent in the rationale for why Curry could slip is the belief that his size and skills don't translate particularly well to the 3-4 defense. The inside linebacker position in the 3-4 defense -- the position many feel Curry, at 6-feet-2 and 254 pounds, fits best -- is generally considered the least valuable of the linebacker positions in either the 3-4 or 4-3 scheme.


It seems like I'm not the only one that has these reservations about taking a LB that high...

As far as his MLB experience... IMO, its minimal and its hardly worth mentioning the few snaps he got in practice and a few plays in nickle situations where he mainly dropped back in coverage anyway...

Now I'm not saying he can't play the position... I think thats where he'll end up and he'll likely be very good at it... But when the VAST majority of good LBs are taken later in the draft, I have to question the intelligence of taking him 1st overall... Think about this for a minute... James Harrison (The Defensive Player of the Year) just got a new contract that payed him $20 MIL guaranteed... How in the world can we justify giving a player that plays the SAME or arguably a LESS important position, at least $15 more guaranteed than the DPOY? How is that a winning strategy?

People always talk about how you can get a good QB up and down the draft (which I have proven to not be likely), but fail to acknowledge that without a doubt, you can find GREAT LBs up and down the draft and it happens every year...


Quote:
First of all, it was a comment made to make my point. If a kicker is the top overall talent in the draft, we are ALL in trouble. And what is the likelihood of that happening? Slim and none. And Slim just left town.


How does bringing up a situation that will never happen prove a point?

Quote:
Does Curry not fill a need? And is he not the highest rated player for most teams? The ONLY player who may have a higher rating is Crabtree. I've seen no other players that have had a higher rating. And you have to watch how the ratings are established. Left tackles, pass rushers and quarterbacks are often given higher (false) ratings because of the position they play. I don't believe in that type of rating system. Rate the player based on his abilities and skill set for his position, and don't adjust the numbers BECAUSE of his position.


Of course he does and yes he does seem to be the highest player on teams boards, but there is more too it than those criteria and you know it... Like it or not, position does factor in... As does contract size, upside and sign ability among others... Its the way things are... While Curry has Stafford beat in sing ability, he is considered a better LB right now than what Stafford is a QB... Stafford has the edge in contract (Best at his position made 34.5 MIL guaranteed -P. Manning- best at Curry's made $20 MIL - 6 million dollar difference vs 15 or so), Stafford has more upside and he plays at a position that influences the team more than what Curry will...

I don't know who gives the players that play these positions false ratings... Do you have anything to substantiate that claim?

Quote:
Now it is YOU talking nonsense. Just about everyone on this board has acknowledged that Stafford has a great arm. Just about everybody on this board has acknowledged that he can make all the throws and has good athleticism. He shows good footwork and mechanics. How is that not talking about his skillset? What has many of us questioning Stafford is his decision making and his consistency. Both were mediocre at best in college, and coaching doesn't always improve those qualities. Those things are paramount to a QB. Joe Montana didn't have a great arm, and wasn't a superb athletic specimen. But his decision making, his play making ability and his consistency were all off the charts. Those qualities made him a winner. Yes, he had a great team around him....when he won the Super Bowl. But even Jerry Rice has given credit to Montana for turning that team around. And even Steve Young has said if not for Montana, he would not have been as successful at SF.


The argument against Stafford is 90 % philosophy and 10 % about questions about his abilities... What is questioned about his ability is very subjective and biased... A spades a spade...

His decision making skills were bad yet, he was given full control at the LOS to change the play and he had over a 2-1 TD to INT ratio his senior year... Doesn't sound to me like his coaches thought he made bad decisions...

People say he doesn't have "it", but time and time again he has led his team back... Time and time again, when everything was falling around him he stood tall....

People say he doesn't have the heart, charisma, determination or leadership to make it... I posted article showing the adversity that he went through at UGA... It is an inside take on Stafford showing that passion and ability to overcome adversity... It contradicts that perspective effectively and directly... I don't know where this comes from... I really don't..

He was inconsistent... His whole team was and I could care less about pre season rankings in College Football... What was UofM when they lost to App St? In the end UGA was clearly not the best team in the league... Besides the year before UGA was ranked 13th in the PS and ended up 2nd... So what does that say?

Quote:
I have answered your questions about him having 'it'. You claim he found ways to win. I didn't see it. I watched about five UG games, and I came away thoroughly unimpressed with his ability to carry that team. Bradford, Tebow and McCoy were much better in that regard. Even Brian Hoyer showed more poise under pressure than Stafford. His performance against MSU was a Jekyll and Hyde act. That was a microcosm of his inconsistency.


Of course you he didn't look like he was carrying his team compared to those other guys... They're all in spread offenses(other than Hoyer - who he beat).. UGA is a run first offense...


Look its clear we aren't going to agree on this... We both have argued our points and backed them up... There is no one way to build the team... That is for sure... I don't care what way they do it as long as it gets done... If drafting Curry sets a chain of events in place where we get that historic defense and it leads us to a championship I am all for it...


April 16th, 2009, 8:49 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: April 12th, 2005, 12:35 am
Posts: 881
Location: Boston, MA
Post 
Saying that Culpepper had "one injury" is like causing a thirty car pile-up on the highway and saying you only had "one accident." The dude tore knee ligaments that I didn't even know existed! :lol:

_________________
Alphonso Smith for Dan Gronkowski? Epic fail, McDaniels.


April 16th, 2009, 10:18 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9940
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Strawberries&Chocolat wrote:
Saying that Culpepper had "one injury" is like causing a thirty car pile-up on the highway and saying you only had "one accident." The dude tore knee ligaments that I didn't even know existed! :lol:


If you break both bones in your forearm, do you tell people you broke your arm twice?


April 17th, 2009, 8:59 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9940
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Murtyle wrote:
That 1 injury is what everyone has blamed his poor performances on... So regardless, either it didn't effect his poor play or it did... I just don't know how you can plan for him to return to the form he showed half a decade ago with superior talent around him... If that is viable to you, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion... I just don't share it...


Was it the injury, or the improper time of recovery? Many felt that Daunte came back too soon and that team doctors in Miami and Oakland made a huge mistake in allowing him to return to the field. Last season his performance for Detroit was poor for several reasons outside just the injury. This was an 0-16 team....his play didn't get them there.

Murtyle wrote:
Batch re-signed with PIT first of all and I don't see how Grossman, Frye or Losman can possibly be better options than if they believe Stafford can be a franchise QB... You agree that the position is the most important on the field, but you would settle for a far lesser talent?


I am talking about as a backup to Daunte, not the future of the franchise. If Daunte gets injured, do you really want Stafford brought in to replace him? Doesn't that go against everything being said about 'developing' Stafford and letting him learn for a year before allowing him to start?

If Drew Stanton is not developing, then the Lions need to cut ties with him. If he is developing, there's no need for Stafford. If Stafford is selected, what is the chance of Stanton being the primary backup and Stafford continuing to hold the clipboard? Highly unlikely, in my eyes, because Stafford IS a better QB than Stanton, plus he will have the big contract, plus there will be fan pressure, plus front office (Ford) pressure....

Murtyle wrote:
Quote:
However, there is still some talk among league insiders that Curry could take a surprising tumble on draft day.

One general manager, who asked not to be identified, characterized Curry as "probably the safest guy this year," but still thinks he's "fighting history to be taken as high as you all [the media] think."

The point is a valid one.

Only one linebacker has been selected earlier than the ninth overall pick since 2001, and the exception -- Green Bay's A.J. Hawk -- is a solid starter but has yet to show the playmaking ability expected from a player taken with the fifth overall pick in 2006.

The meteoric rise in quarterback Mark Sanchez's stock since the Southern Cal pro day and the belief that Curry fits best outside in the 4-3 alignment is prompting some within the scouting community to suggest that Curry could slip -- perhaps all the way down to the Jacksonville Jaguars at No. 8 overall.

Prominent in the rationale for why Curry could slip is the belief that his size and skills don't translate particularly well to the 3-4 defense. The inside linebacker position in the 3-4 defense -- the position many feel Curry, at 6-feet-2 and 254 pounds, fits best -- is generally considered the least valuable of the linebacker positions in either the 3-4 or 4-3 scheme.


It seems like I'm not the only one that has these reservations about taking a LB that high...

As far as his MLB experience... IMO, its minimal and its hardly worth mentioning the few snaps he got in practice and a few plays in nickle situations where he mainly dropped back in coverage anyway...

Now I'm not saying he can't play the position... I think thats where he'll end up and he'll likely be very good at it... But when the VAST majority of good LBs are taken later in the draft, I have to question the intelligence of taking him 1st overall... Think about this for a minute... James Harrison (The Defensive Player of the Year) just got a new contract that payed him $20 MIL guaranteed... How in the world can we justify giving a player that plays the SAME or arguably a LESS important position, at least $15 more guaranteed than the DPOY? How is that a winning strategy?

People always talk about how you can get a good QB up and down the draft (which I have proven to not be likely), but fail to acknowledge that without a doubt, you can find GREAT LBs up and down the draft and it happens every year...


I could care less what one GM says. Also, let's look at that scenario. Because A.J. Hawk hasn't turned out to be the Get All Be All playmaker that the Pack envisioned him to be, then we should avoid taking a LB that high? By that logic, we should avoid a QB AT ALL COSTS at the number one spot, because there have been more top overall picks on QBs that have not become good NFL QBs than have.

Jamarcus Russell (moving towards bust)
Alex Smith (definite bust)
Eli Manning (won a SB, but not because of his own play, decent starter)
Carson Palmer (good starter, but not great)
David Carr (huge bust)
Michael Vick (prison biitch)
Tim Couch (colossal bust)
Peyton Manning (future HOFer)
Drew Bledsoe (won't sniff the HOF, decent starter)
Jeff George (great skills, so what happened? BUST)

Making the transition from OLB to MLB won't be as traumatic because of the experience he has. Does it mean that he's guaranteed to make a seamless transition? No, there are no guarantees, as we both know so well, being demented Lions' fans that we are.

I also find this to be absolute crap-
Quote:
Prominent in the rationale for why Curry could slip is the belief that his size and skills don't translate particularly well to the 3-4 defense. The inside linebacker position in the 3-4 defense -- the position many feel Curry, at 6-feet-2 and 254 pounds, fits best -- is generally considered the least valuable of the linebacker positions in either the 3-4 or 4-3 scheme.


So the ILB position in the 3-4 is not valuable, but the Patriots used a number 10 pick last season to land one. The 49ers spent an 11 pick on Patrick Willis on the least valuable position among linebackers in the 34? This foolish statement speaks volumes to the lack of credibility of this individuals opinion. A playmaker, at any position, is worth a high value pick, even a number one overall.

And as far as the money goes, it doesn't matter. You are going to pay that out regardless of who we pick, that's the curse of having the first overall selection. I'd rather spend it on a player more likely to start from day one and be a solid to great player rather than pay it to a player who automatically sits out a year (if we're lucky) and then still possesses a greater risk of being a bust than the LB.

Murtyle wrote:
Quote:
First of all, it was a comment made to make my point. If a kicker is the top overall talent in the draft, we are ALL in trouble. And what is the likelihood of that happening? Slim and none. And Slim just left town.


How does bringing up a situation that will never happen prove a point?


It proves that I want the Lions to take the best player available. IF (big IF) the Lions found a kicker that could consistently boom 65 yarders between the uprights, put air underneath his kickoffs that allowed cover teams to nail returners quickly, I'd be fine with them taking a kicker first overall. Yes....that is what I said. Why? Because in the NFL, a league of parity (for most), a kicker can impact the outcome of the game just as much as a QB, moreso in some cases. Kicker win more last minute games than QBs do. Yes, QBs do impact the game during the first 59 minutes and some seconds.....but it is a kicker who has the pressure at the end. So, if that kicker happens to be determined to be the best player available in the draft, then the Lions should take him.

Murtyle wrote:
Quote:
Does Curry not fill a need? And is he not the highest rated player for most teams? The ONLY player who may have a higher rating is Crabtree. I've seen no other players that have had a higher rating. And you have to watch how the ratings are established. Left tackles, pass rushers and quarterbacks are often given higher (false) ratings because of the position they play. I don't believe in that type of rating system. Rate the player based on his abilities and skill set for his position, and don't adjust the numbers BECAUSE of his position.


Of course he does and yes he does seem to be the highest player on teams boards, but there is more too it than those criteria and you know it... Like it or not, position does factor in... As does contract size, upside and sign ability among others... Its the way things are... While Curry has Stafford beat in sing ability, he is considered a better LB right now than what Stafford is a QB... Stafford has the edge in contract (Best at his position made 34.5 MIL guaranteed -P. Manning- best at Curry's made $20 MIL - 6 million dollar difference vs 15 or so), Stafford has more upside and he plays at a position that influences the team more than what Curry will...


I know this Murtyle, you are pointing out contract numbers of other players at their respective positions, and that doesn't matter. Ray Lewis is getting 8 million per year. So what? As I said before, the Lions are going to have to pay that money out anyhow, regardless of who they take. I am not interested in what position they are spending it on, but rather the quality of player they are spending it on. And while you state that Stafford has more upside than Curry, he also possesses, in my opinion, far greater risk. AND, let me add this; if you pay Stafford $40 guaranteed, with a total contract value of say $60M over 5 years....it would actually turn out to be that much for 4 years if he sits the entire first season. So now you've gone from paying $12M per playing year to $15M per playing year for that somewhat risky prospect. AND, as you said, Curry has better signability, which means he and his agent (which is important in this) would accept less in regards to year over year salary. QBs generally demand more salary, and even some premium in the way of signing bonus. That being said, I feel not only would signing Curry be more financially prudent, but it also enhances our chances of re-signing him to a second contract, whereas Stafford would demand even more money if he works out to be just a good starter.

Murtyle wrote:
I don't know who gives the players that play these positions false ratings... Do you have anything to substantiate that claim?


Have you ever listened to Mel Kiper? He automatically vaults Stafford to the top overall position though his big board doesn't have him placed as the top overall prospect. Why? Because of the position he plays. And as such, I believe individual prospect ratings are similarly skewed.

Murtyle wrote:
Quote:
Now it is YOU talking nonsense. Just about everyone on this board has acknowledged that Stafford has a great arm. Just about everybody on this board has acknowledged that he can make all the throws and has good athleticism. He shows good footwork and mechanics. How is that not talking about his skillset? What has many of us questioning Stafford is his decision making and his consistency. Both were mediocre at best in college, and coaching doesn't always improve those qualities. Those things are paramount to a QB. Joe Montana didn't have a great arm, and wasn't a superb athletic specimen. But his decision making, his play making ability and his consistency were all off the charts. Those qualities made him a winner. Yes, he had a great team around him....when he won the Super Bowl. But even Jerry Rice has given credit to Montana for turning that team around. And even Steve Young has said if not for Montana, he would not have been as successful at SF.


The argument against Stafford is 90 % philosophy and 10 % about questions about his abilities... What is questioned about his ability is very subjective and biased... A spades a spade...


I have no idea what the Hell you're trying to say here. Consistency IS an ability. Reading defenses IS an ability. Decision making in split seconds IS an ability. These are not philosophies.

Murtyle wrote:
His decision making skills were bad yet, he was given full control at the LOS to change the play and he had over a 2-1 TD to INT ratio his senior year... Doesn't sound to me like his coaches thought he made bad decisions...


That is a product of the Georgia system. Previous Georgia QBs had the same control given to them. 2-1 TD to INT ratio? So what....tons of other college QBs have that ratio or better. Why not consider them with the overall first pick?

Murtyle wrote:
People say he doesn't have "it", but time and time again he has led his team back... Time and time again, when everything was falling around him he stood tall....


Times when he was "leading the team back", it was his own poor play that led to the team having to be brought back. That's what I saw at the MSU game.

Murtyle wrote:
People say he doesn't have the heart, charisma, determination or leadership to make it... I posted article showing the adversity that he went through at UGA... It is an inside take on Stafford showing that passion and ability to overcome adversity... It contradicts that perspective effectively and directly... I don't know where this comes from... I really don't..


You want to talk about dealing with adversity? Take a look at some of the crap Curry has had to go through. Stafford's 'dilemma' at Georgia is NOTHING compared to what Curry had to endure...or Michael Oher...or a host of other prospects in this draft. What Stafford had to deal with is typical for young players thrust into the limelight. That article could have been about any one of a thousand college football players. I don't call what he went through 'adversity'.

Murtyle wrote:
He was inconsistent... His whole team was and I could care less about pre season rankings in College Football... What was UofM when they lost to App St? In the end UGA was clearly not the best team in the league... Besides the year before UGA was ranked 13th in the PS and ended up 2nd... So what does that say?


It says he had a better team around him. But either you care about the rankings or not....which is it?

Murtyle wrote:
Quote:
I have answered your questions about him having 'it'. You claim he found ways to win. I didn't see it. I watched about five UG games, and I came away thoroughly unimpressed with his ability to carry that team. Bradford, Tebow and McCoy were much better in that regard. Even Brian Hoyer showed more poise under pressure than Stafford. His performance against MSU was a Jekyll and Hyde act. That was a microcosm of his inconsistency.


Of course you he didn't look like he was carrying his team compared to those other guys... They're all in spread offenses(other than Hoyer - who he beat).. UGA is a run first offense...


It has nothing to do with the offensive scheme. That's a poor excuse to cover for him. Spread offenses can be run first...and usually are. It has to do with his performances. They just weren't that good or consistent. The MSU game was closer than it should have been, and he was the reason they struggled early.

Murtyle wrote:
Look its clear we aren't going to agree on this... We both have argued our points and backed them up... There is no one way to build the team... That is for sure... I don't care what way they do it as long as it gets done... If drafting Curry sets a chain of events in place where we get that historic defense and it leads us to a championship I am all for it...


I agree. I have said countless times that if Stafford is taken and he becomes a great QB for this team and leads them into the playoffs, I will GLADLY admit my mistake.....GLADLY.

I wouldn't be pissed off, like when they took BMW, if they take Stafford. I am not convinced he will be a complete washout in the NFL, ala Joey or Alex Smith. I just see some attributes that concern me and see other players at other positions that don't concern me in that regard.


April 17th, 2009, 10:09 am
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
Did anyone see Stafford throwing the footballs at the plates on Fallon's late night show? I just saw it on ESPN and it was actually pretty funny. He did miss one but he still showed some guts to do it. Lol, how bad would it be if you missed them all on national tv?

He showed more guts there than he did on the chat session yesterday.


April 17th, 2009, 11:41 am
Profile
Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: April 16th, 2005, 3:23 pm
Posts: 941
Location: Hollywood, FL
Post 
faulkn22 wrote:
Did anyone see Stafford throwing the footballs at the plates on Fallon's late night show? I just saw it on ESPN and it was actually pretty funny. He did miss one but he still showed some guts to do it. Lol, how bad would it be if you missed them all on national tv?

He showed more guts there than he did on the chat session yesterday.


http://www.faniq.com/blog/Matthew-Staff ... Blog-22404

I can't figure out if that is a difficult thing to do or not...


April 17th, 2009, 12:57 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
Nice find; I tried really quick but I couldn't find a link online. Thanks for that.

I'm sure that all the prospects entering the NFL could hit some of them, I just thought it was funny because he didn't want to throw at the combine but he'll throw at the plates on one of the late night shows, hahaha.

He definitely had some zip on them, though.


April 17th, 2009, 1:16 pm
Profile
Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: April 16th, 2005, 3:23 pm
Posts: 941
Location: Hollywood, FL
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
Was it the injury, or the improper time of recovery? Many felt that Daunte came back too soon and that team doctors in Miami and Oakland made a huge mistake in allowing him to return to the field. Last season his performance for Detroit was poor for several reasons outside just the injury. This was an 0-16 team....his play didn't get them there.


He certainly came back to soon and I agree that a lot of the criticism that he has gotten is unfair (as far as his play here is concerned)... Like I said I do think he is still a QB that can win some games in this league... Not a championship, but he can be a place holder while we ready Stafford...


Quote:
I am talking about as a backup to Daunte, not the future of the franchise. If Daunte gets injured, do you really want Stafford brought in to replace him? Doesn't that go against everything being said about 'developing' Stafford and letting him learn for a year before allowing him to start?


It depends on the situation... If Pepp gets injured at the end of the year then I am fine with Stafford coming in and I would actually prefer it.... If it is 2 games in, give Stanton his shot... There is no absolute need to play him this year... If it is beneficial to his development then go for it...

Quote:
If Drew Stanton is not developing, then the Lions need to cut ties with him. If he is developing, there's no need for Stafford. If Stafford is selected, what is the chance of Stanton being the primary backup and Stafford continuing to hold the clipboard? Highly unlikely, in my eyes, because Stafford IS a better QB than Stanton, plus he will have the big contract, plus there will be fan pressure, plus front office (Ford) pressure....


Most fans don't want a QB to come in until we have our oline developed... If they do pressure for him to play, they are being pretty hypocritical IMO...

Stanton can be a good backup QB in this league... I don't see why they should cut ties with him... The coaches should have total control of when to put Stafford in regardless of what happens in front of him on the depth chart...

Even if he comes in, starts early and gets the crap kicked out of him, I have as much faith as one possibly can that he'll overcome that...

Quote:
I could care less what one GM says. Also, let's look at that scenario. Because A.J. Hawk hasn't turned out to be the Get All Be All playmaker that the Pack envisioned him to be, then we should avoid taking a LB that high? By that logic, we should avoid a QB AT ALL COSTS at the number one spot, because there have been more top overall picks on QBs that have not become good NFL QBs than have.

Jamarcus Russell (moving towards bust)
Alex Smith (definite bust)
Eli Manning (won a SB, but not because of his own play, decent starter)
Carson Palmer (good starter, but not great)
David Carr (huge bust)
Michael Vick (prison biitch)
Tim Couch (colossal bust)
Peyton Manning (future HOFer)
Drew Bledsoe (won't sniff the HOF, decent starter)
Jeff George (great skills, so what happened? BUST)


I don't think that is the logic... I think the logic is that teams don't usually pick LBs (especially ones that don't rush the passer) in the top 5... The writer just threw that in as a side note..

Quote:
Making the transition from OLB to MLB won't be as traumatic because of the experience he has. Does it mean that he's guaranteed to make a seamless transition? No, there are no guarantees, as we both know so well, being demented Lions' fans that we are.


I think the reason he will be able to make the transition is because he played an on-the-ball type of SLB... He is used to dealing with a wash and taking on lead blockers... I think his little experience as a "MLB" in nickle situations has minimal impact...

Quote:
I also find this to be absolute crap-

Prominent in the rationale for why Curry could slip is the belief that his size and skills don't translate particularly well to the 3-4 defense. The inside linebacker position in the 3-4 defense -- the position many feel Curry, at 6-feet-2 and 254 pounds, fits best -- is generally considered the least valuable of the linebacker positions in either the 3-4 or 4-3 scheme.

So the ILB position in the 3-4 is not valuable, but the Patriots used a number 10 pick last season to land one. The 49ers spent an 11 pick on Patrick Willis on the least valuable position among linebackers in the 34? This foolish statement speaks volumes to the lack of credibility of this individuals opinion. A playmaker, at any position, is worth a high value pick, even a number one overall.


Hmm... I thought you liked Rob Rang (NFLDRAFTSCOUT)....

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/story/11630138

It seems to me like you are saying in one breath that despite position a playmaker is a playmaker and should be considered at any draft slot, yet in the next breath you use past precedence of teams selecting a position high in the draft to discredit the author's account... So you are saying that you can use past precedent to justify a pick, but you can't use it to discredit a pick?

From the same article, Ozzie Newsome (GM BAL - a second and this time named GM) said:

Quote:
Moving Curry inside -- as some have suggested the Chiefs might do if they draft Curry with the third overall pick -- may rob him of the space in which he's most effective. And as Baltimore general manager Ozzie Newsome pointed out at the combine, inside linebackers simply don't hold the value of other positions.

"It's the same reason why centers don't go high, or offensive guards don't go high," Newsome said. "Unless you're a special tight end, you don't go high. We put the premium on quarterbacks, corners, left tackles and pass rushers. For the most part, those are the guys that are going to come off the board early.


I don't know that there is a better source to back up this philosophy than that..

Quote:
And as far as the money goes, it doesn't matter. You are going to pay that out regardless of who we pick, that's the curse of having the first overall selection. I'd rather spend it on a player more likely to start from day one and be a solid to great player rather than pay it to a player who automatically sits out a year (if we're lucky) and then still possesses a greater risk of being a bust than the LB.


We are just going to have to agree to disagree here... I think over-paying players holds a franchise back... I don't see how Curry can ever live up to that kind of money unless he develops into a dynamic 3-4 olb a la Demarcus Ware , Shawn Merriman or James Harrison... Even they don't get paid that kind of money...

At least Stafford or one of the LTs come closer to their market....
Quote:
I know this Murtyle, you are pointing out contract numbers of other players at their respective positions, and that doesn't matter. Ray Lewis is getting 8 million per year. So what? As I said before, the Lions are going to have to pay that money out anyhow, regardless of who they take. I am not interested in what position they are spending it on, but rather the quality of player they are spending it on. And while you state that Stafford has more upside than Curry, he also possesses, in my opinion, far greater risk. AND, let me add this; if you pay Stafford $40 guaranteed, with a total contract value of say $60M over 5 years....it would actually turn out to be that much for 4 years if he sits the entire first season. So now you've gone from paying $12M per playing year to $15M per playing year for that somewhat risky prospect. AND, as you said, Curry has better signability, which means he and his agent (which is important in this) would accept less in regards to year over year salary. QBs generally demand more salary, and even some premium in the way of signing bonus. That being said, I feel not only would signing Curry be more financially prudent, but it also enhances our chances of re-signing him to a second contract, whereas Stafford would demand even more money if he works out to be just a good starter.


The only thing that matters when it comes to contracts is the cap #... So if he plays only 4 years of a 5 year contract it doesn't matter... Paying 15 mil more than the best at one position does more to hurt your cap in the long run than paying 6 mil more in the other... Assuming they both turn into franchise players... How can Curry possibly justify that extra $15? That said, I doubt that if STafford gets 6 Mil more than P. Manning that he'll be able to justify that too, but the fact still remains that he is much closer to his market...

Financially speaking, this team should probably go for Monroe... Long only got 30 MIL last year... We might be able to get him for 32 MIL or so... He isn't represented by Condon and IMO he's a better pick than J. Smith... If safe is the way we want to go here, he makes the most sense here... Screw Jason Smith, this guy led the nation in blocking percentage and set school blocking records... Beating Dbrick and Albert...
Quote:
Have you ever listened to Mel Kiper? He automatically vaults Stafford to the top overall position though his big board doesn't have him placed as the top overall prospect. Why? Because of the position he plays. And as such, I believe individual prospect ratings are similarly skewed.


Ok I guess I was confused... Ratings and mock drafts are different... Kiper doesn't have him #1 on his board because he is a QB... He just projects him to go #1 and he makes a good case for it... Even though he believes that a few other guys are slightly ahead of Stafford, he believes STafford is a franchise QB and unless you have one, you shouldn't pass on one...

Quote:
I have no idea what the Hell you're trying to say here. Consistency IS an ability. Reading defenses IS an ability. Decision making in split seconds IS an ability. These are not philosophies.


I am saying that 90% of the anti stafford argument comes down to building a complete line and defense before you draft any QB... Because "P. Manning wouldn't succeed behind this line... What makes you think M. Stafford could?" I don't agree with it and that seems to be what I end up arguing against the vast majority of the time... You are one of the few that actually have debated me on Stafford's actual merits...

It goes back to the comment I made a while back, that DET fans have been very quick to call out guys like Kiper for calling for Stafford because he is a QB, and yet they only discount him because he is a QB... Its the same thing...

The comment wasn't directly aimed at you it was an overall observation...

Quote:
That is a product of the Georgia system. Previous Georgia QBs had the same control given to them. 2-1 TD to INT ratio? So what....tons of other college QBs have that ratio or better. Why not consider them with the overall first pick?


Because they didn't have the talent that STafford has... Stafford's decision making ability was called into question and I gave the counter point that if that was the case then why would they give him total control at the LOS? Why wouldn't he have thrown more INTs vs TDs? Stafford has both the talent and mental makeup and that is why he is considered so high in the draft... Even by you as you said you would be with me if we were drafting at 5 or 6... You must think that he has franchise type talent...

Its part of the system because Stafford can handle it... They could have easily had him check the sideline for any play changes like a lot of these college QBs, but they didn't need to...

Quote:
Times when he was "leading the team back", it was his own poor play that led to the team having to be brought back. That's what I saw at the MSU game.


Really? it was totally his poor play that made that game close at half? I personally didn't get to watch the first half of that game, but I have seen every game he played this year and I can say without a doubt that "his poor play" was not the reason that he had to bring them back in games...

If you watched UGA games this year, you would see a lot of dropped balls, bad (sometimes horrible) routes, poor line play, an over matched defense and yes some inconsistency by stafford...

He did have Moreno though and I forgot to ask this... When were these times that Stafford struggled even more without Moreno? He played in every game the last 2 seasons... Please don't say Stafford's freshman year...

Quote:
You want to talk about dealing with adversity? Take a look at some of the crap Curry has had to go through. Stafford's 'dilemma' at Georgia is NOTHING compared to what Curry had to endure...or Michael Oher...or a host of other prospects in this draft. What Stafford had to deal with is typical for young players thrust into the limelight. That article could have been about any one of a thousand college football players. I don't call what he went through 'adversity'.


I never called into question Curry or anyone else's ability to endure did I? I merely brought up the fact that despite what everyone thinks of the kid, everything hasn't been handed to him... He's had to earn it and overcome and he did... Whether what he went through was enough for you is a different thing entirely... Everything that was put in front of him he overcame...

Quote:
It says he had a better team around him. But either you care about the rankings or not....which is it?


pre season rankings don't matter... I said that... My point is that if they do matter to you then not only should you recognize that he took a #1 team and made them into a #13 team, you should also recognize that he took a #13 team and made them a #2 team...

Like I said... Rankings don't matter...

Quote:
It has nothing to do with the offensive scheme. That's a poor excuse to cover for him. Spread offenses can be run first...and usually are. It has to do with his performances. They just weren't that good or consistent. The MSU game was closer than it should have been, and he was the reason they struggled early.


Are you sure you've watched 5 games because all I keep hearing about is the first half of 1 game? :D

Its not a "poor excuse" its the truth... Spread offenses can be run first, but McCoy and Bradford are not in those... In Tebow's case they are run first, but its usually him doing the running... Spread offenses are quick strike offenses... What UGA runs is a ball control run first offense that is designed to eat up the clock... I can see why people would not say he is as important to his team as these other guys...

Lets take the UF game for example... Everyone has seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpMMXpgxPSY

but no one comments on the awful route by the freshman Green... Had he squared off his route, that isn't an interception... The 2nd one was totally his fault for not reading the underneath coverage, but the last one was the only place that ball could have went for a completion... It hit his receiver in the back shoulder and then was intercepted...

Now add to the fact that in the first half he had 2 TD passes dropped (One in the endzone and another there wasn't a soul around him - A total broken coverage) and Blair Walsh missed 2 FGs.... Thats a different game coming out after half... To make matters worse the bullet proof Moreno fumbled a good pitch from stafford that led to a TD... Yet like the first half of the MSU game it was stafford's play that had them lose... It wasn't Stafford's play that caused them to fall behind... I'm sure it was staffords fault that they lost to GT and ALA too despite giving up 40 pts to each and scoring at least 30...

These are the things I don't get...

I watched every single game he played this year, except a half in the Cap. One Bowl... From beginning to end... Forward and back in slow motion... I'm not kidding... I've disected every INT, every play... I've studied him more than 1 man should study another... Its really quite ridiculous and I am as sure as one can be that Stafford can be a franchise QB... And believe me, I was not biased in Stafford's favor... In fact, earlier in the year, before I found that all of UGA's games were on "on demand" I had this to say

Quote:
Stafford is over rated... Tebow, Bradford, Harrell and McCoy are all intriguing, but difficult to tell how much is their talent, how much is the talent around them and how much is the system?

Personally, I like Sanchez... His TD to INT ratio is good, has good size at 6-3 225 lbs, plays in a pro style offense, can make all the throws, his mobility is under-rated and may be there later in the draft than the others...


http://www.lionbacker.com/forum/viewtop ... c&start=15

I had seen the same games as you... The NAT televised ones.. ASU, ALA and I believe I made this comment after the UF game... After I broke down everything and scrutinized his game I had my mind changed...

In fact, a hole in Stafford's game that I don't hear mentioned almost ever that I noticed, is that he has a problem with the fade pass... For whatever reason, he and his receivers were never on the same page with it... I am assuming the problem is with him because they all seemed to have trouble with it... His touch getting throws over the LBs and under the Safeties is going to have to be addressed as well... He is extremely good at throwing through creases in the secondary, but when there are none and he has to drop it over the coverage, he isn't as consistent with it as I would like... I think this is one area where Sanchez actually has him beat...

I know not everyone can see every game, but I think NFLDRAFTSCOUT does a good job, at showing how many big plays, 3rd down conversions and such he made in their game analysis... Its free through cbs sportsline right now if anyone wants to check it out... I think some would be surprised at the impact he had that seems to get lost in the flow of the game...

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1114942


April 17th, 2009, 4:20 pm
Profile
Heisman Winner

Joined: February 10th, 2005, 6:52 pm
Posts: 813
Location: Linden, MI
Post 
Obviously I'm in the Stafford camp for this year, but to all the Curry folks; ponder this.

Defense is won and lost on 3rd down. When Curry is the MLB as you hope, who comes off the field on 3rd down for the nickel? Curry, Peterson or Sims?

Its very possible that the Lions next MLB does not stay on the field in a coverage situation.

_________________
OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?


April 17th, 2009, 9:45 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9940
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
jrd66 wrote:
Obviously I'm in the Stafford camp for this year, but to all the Curry folks; ponder this.

Defense is won and lost on 3rd down. When Curry is the MLB as you hope, who comes off the field on 3rd down for the nickel? Curry, Peterson or Sims?

Its very possible that the Lions next MLB does not stay on the field in a coverage situation.


Curry and Sims stay on the field as LBs. Peterson is used as a rush end, along with Cliff Avril. Jared Devries and Dewayne White are used inside.

OR

We run a 3-3-5 defense, with Avril, Devries and White up front.


April 17th, 2009, 9:50 pm
Profile
5th Round Pick - Traded

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 2:11 pm
Posts: 1066
Location: Wolverine, Mi.
Post 
" QB WATCH: The Lions' backup quarterbacks didn't inspire confidence Friday. Drew Stanton threw several passes that wobbled or missed their targets. Drew Henson, who once played third base for the Yankees, threw like a third baseman with a three-quarters delivery "

After this minicamp is over they will realize they need a QB to back-up DC. I think Staffords a done deal as far as who they will take at #1. In my opinion Stafford is probably the best QB ( has the most upside ) available.I have been on the Curry bandwagon since day one, and always have felt taking BPA is the best way to build a team. But I also believe that you take what the draft gives you and this draft is weak at DL, although we may be able to get a solid MLB, and that is a huge need. I was hoping the Lions would be able to retool the defense in this draft


April 18th, 2009, 10:46 am
Profile
Heisman Winner

Joined: February 10th, 2005, 6:52 pm
Posts: 813
Location: Linden, MI
Post 
liontrax wrote:
" QB WATCH: The Lions' backup quarterbacks didn't inspire confidence Friday. Drew Stanton threw several passes that wobbled or missed their targets. Drew Henson, who once played third base for the Yankees, threw like a third baseman with a three-quarters delivery "

After this minicamp is over they will realize they need a QB to back-up DC. I think Staffords a done deal as far as who they will take at #1. In my opinion Stafford is probably the best QB ( has the most upside ) available.I have been on the Curry bandwagon since day one, and always have felt taking BPA is the best way to build a team. But I also believe that you take what the draft gives you and this draft is weak at DL, although we may be able to get a solid MLB, and that is a huge need. I was hoping the Lions would be able to retool the defense in this draft


You're certainly right about that. You can't take what's not there. The trick is to realize what's available and how it fits with what you've already got.

_________________
OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?


April 18th, 2009, 6:01 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: November 2nd, 2008, 1:29 am
Posts: 427
Post 
Quote:
In my opinion Stafford is probably the best QB ( has the most upside ) available.


I think your statement is far more accurate without the portion in the parenthesis. If the draft were solely based on upside, then I think Freeman would be the first pick (and Herm Johnson would be top ten). His combination of elite size, athleticism, and arm strength give him a ceiling above any QB in the draft. If both players were developed flawlessly, Stafford would reach his physical limits before Freeman.

But upside is only half of the story. Probability of reaching said upside is the other.

Also, regarding the plates: I saw it suggested that 6 balls were missing from the rack and only 4 throws aired, meaning 2 misses were likely edited out. I've only seen a gif of one throw, since I have dial up. I cannot confirm. Not that it means anything, but FYI. FTR, the one throw I saw looked pretty impressive.

-ILMP


April 18th, 2009, 11:22 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 285 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [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.