View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 30th, 2014, 5:27 am



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

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post 
If defensive backs were covering the plates, i'd be impressed.


April 19th, 2009, 12:28 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
njroar wrote:
If defensive backs were covering the plates, i'd be impressed.


Or if he threw the balls from more than 20 feet away. My sister could have hit those plates standing that close.....and she's never thrown a football in her life.


April 19th, 2009, 9:55 am
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
njroar wrote:
If defensive backs were covering the plates, i'd be impressed.


Or if he threw the balls from more than 20 feet away. My sister could have hit those plates standing that close.....and she's never thrown a football in her life.


LMAO I think that's going a little far. I know my woman couldn't hit the side of my house let alone a plate in the air for one second. It wasn't super impressive but saying anyone could do it is over the top :p


April 19th, 2009, 10:37 am
Profile
5th Round Pick - Traded
User avatar

Joined: January 11th, 2005, 11:35 pm
Posts: 1079
Post 
Don Banks who just a couple weeks ago that there was no way the Lions would draft a QB #1 overall has come to the same conclusion that I've been saying all along.

Quote:
Throughout my previous five mocks, I've resisted giving Stafford to the Lions because quarterback isn't the position I thought new head coach Jim Schwartz would prioritize in the draft as he begins to rebuild his winless club. But going with Stafford over Jason Smith or Aaron Curry may come down to this for the Lions: Quarterback is really the only position that has enough value to even vaguely justify the kind of money the No. 1 pick now commands.


Banks is not the first one to come this conclusion either - Drew Sharp, Tom Kowalski, Kevin Seifert and Mel Kiper have made reference to this.

The only way I see the Lions not drafting Stafford is if his agent asks for the moon and stars. If that's the case the pick will be Jason Smith who presents the next best value/potential.

_________________
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.


April 19th, 2009, 11:01 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Leo wrote:
Don Banks who just a couple weeks ago that there was no way the Lions would draft a QB #1 overall has come to the same conclusion that I've been saying all along.

Quote:
Throughout my previous five mocks, I've resisted giving Stafford to the Lions because quarterback isn't the position I thought new head coach Jim Schwartz would prioritize in the draft as he begins to rebuild his winless club. But going with Stafford over Jason Smith or Aaron Curry may come down to this for the Lions: Quarterback is really the only position that has enough value to even vaguely justify the kind of money the No. 1 pick now commands.


Banks is not the first one to come this conclusion either - Drew Sharp, Tom Kowalski, Kevin Seifert and Mel Kiper have made reference to this.

The only way I see the Lions not drafting Stafford is if his agent asks for the moon and stars. If that's the case the pick will be Jason Smith who presents the next best value/potential.


And one of the things many of us have been saying Leo, is that Tom Condon is a bastard of an agent to deal with, and the signability of Stafford, as a result, is far less than that of any other prospect.

Based on that, you can fully expect Condon to want the moon, the stars, a few planets and their moons to boot.


April 19th, 2009, 1:47 pm
Profile
Pop Warner Allstar
User avatar

Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 8:28 pm
Posts: 140
Location: Hell
Post 
Quote:
Quarterback is really the only position that has enough value to even vaguely justify the kind of money the No. 1 pick now commands.


So what if Stafford and Sanchez had returned for their senior seasons? Would we HAVE to draft Josh Freeman? Or Pat White? Or Nate Davis or some other QB because that is the only position worth drafting #1 overall? If QB is the only position that has the value of the #1 overall pick, than why even have that 1st pick? Just give that team the best QB and move on. Sure would make the draft shorter. And that team wouldn't have to go through all that pesky scouting and evaluation to figure out who is actually the best player, or the best fit for their team, because it doesn't matter if they aren't a QB, they wouldn't be worth the #1 pick anyway.

From here on out, if any team drafts anybody other than a QB at #1, it will be the biggest blunder in the history of everything.

I swear, this whole "we have to draft Stafford because he's a QB" stuff is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know if any of these "experts" have ever heard of a tautology, but it's a pretty basic idea that even some of those dipshits should be able to grasp: Circular arguments are completely illogical. If you want to say that Stafford is the best player in the draft, and that you think he will be a franchise QB for years to come and will ultimately lead Detroit to the promised land, that's fine. I might disagree, but at least I can respect the logic of your argument. But when you say "Detroit has to draft a QB because that's the only position worth drafting" well that's when I lose all respect for your basic cognitive abilities. If QB was the only position worth drafting, how do you explain Jake Long going #1 last year? Weren't the Dolphins supposed to select Matt Ryan? Do you think that drafting Jake Long instead of Matt Ryan was a mistake? I bet the Dolphins don't feel that way.

"We have to draft a QB, so we have to draft Stafford. We have to draft Stafford, because he is a QB." There is no reasoning, no explanation, no logic behind a statement like that, and it's essentially what the "experts" have been mouth-crapping for weeks now. If you don't need to be even a little intelligent to get a job writing this junk, then why don't we save some money and hire monkeys to flail away at keyboards.

[/rant] :evil:


April 19th, 2009, 5:38 pm
Profile
Heisman Winner
User avatar

Joined: March 28th, 2005, 7:50 pm
Posts: 805
Location: Burbs of De-town
Post 
MrSpoon wrote:
Quote:
Quarterback is really the only position that has enough value to even vaguely justify the kind of money the No. 1 pick now commands.


So what if Stafford and Sanchez had returned for their senior seasons? Would we HAVE to draft Josh Freeman? Or Pat White? Or Nate Davis or some other QB because that is the only position worth drafting #1 overall? If QB is the only position that has the value of the #1 overall pick, than why even have that 1st pick? Just give that team the best QB and move on. Sure would make the draft shorter. And that team wouldn't have to go through all that pesky scouting and evaluation to figure out who is actually the best player, or the best fit for their team, because it doesn't matter if they aren't a QB, they wouldn't be worth the #1 pick anyway.

From here on out, if any team drafts anybody other than a QB at #1, it will be the biggest blunder in the history of everything. I swear, this whole "we have to draft Stafford because he's a QB" stuff is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know if any of these "experts" have ever heard of a tautology, but it's a pretty basic idea that even some of those dipshits should be able to grasp: Circular arguments are completely illogical. If you want to say that Stafford is the best player in the draft, and that you think he will be a franchise QB for years to come and will ultimately lead Detroit to the promised land, that's fine. I might disagree, but at least I can respect the logic of your argument. But when you say "Detroit has to draft a QB because that's the only position worth drafting" well that's when I lose all respect for your basic cognitive abilities. If QB was the only position worth drafting, how do you explain Jake Long going #1 last year? Weren't the Dolphins supposed to select Matt Ryan? Do you think that drafting Jake Long instead of Matt Ryan was a mistake? I bet the Dolphins don't feel that way.

"We have to draft a QB, so we have to draft Stafford. We have to draft Stafford, because he is a QB." There is no reasoning, no explanation, no logic behind a statement like that, and it's essentially what the "experts" have been mouth-crapping for weeks now. If you don't need to be even a little intelligent to get a job writing this junk, then why don't we save some money and hire monkeys to flail away at keyboards.

[/rant] :evil:

=D>


April 19th, 2009, 5:47 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: April 12th, 2005, 12:35 am
Posts: 881
Location: Boston, MA
Post 
Saying that there is only one position that justifies the #1 pick is beyond ludicrous. The number one pick money is a sunk cost--they'll have to pay it for whoever they draft. Although we have an honest debate over whether certain positions may command significantly more money as a #1 than others (i.e. Curry v. Stafford), there is no question that it will be a lot of moolah no matter who it is.

However, I think that there needs to be a distinction made between "best player available" and "most valuable player available." The distinction being that the prospect with the highest chance of success is not necessarily the most valuable. For instance, an example that was used earlier is that the best punter prospect in the history of the draft would probably barely command a first round pick, if at all. Although we could get into superlatives such as a "punter who could pin the other team at the 1 yard line from any place on the field" if we're speaking realistically, taht will never happen.

Yes, Curry is a very safe pick. But if there is, say a 95% chance that he plays at a pro bowl level, I would still not take him with the overall pick in this draft. There are two outstanding left tackle prospects, and I would say that there is a maybe, 75% chance that each will perform at a pro bowl level. Although some may disagree with me here, I would take a 75% chance of getting a pro bowl left tackle over a 95% chance of a pro bowl linebacker any day of the week. As an example, Patrick Willis is probably the best linebacker in the league, and Joe Thomas is probably maybe the sixth or seventh best left tackle in the league. However, if we held the 2007 Draft again, I would guarantee that Joe Thomas would come off the board before Willis. It's just a harder position to fill and it requires a skillset that only a select few people on Earth possess.

That said, even though quarterback is the most valuable position, Stafford, in my estimation is not the most valuable player. I would judge him as a below average first-round quarterback prospect--maybe give him a 45% chance of playing at a pro bowl level. Although quarterback is more important than left tackle, it's not THAT much more important than tackle.

Thus, I have reached the conclusion that one of the tackles is the only pick that makes sense for the Lions. I know that it's not the biggest "need" but team needs are highly fluid--you never know when you're going to hit on that fifth round cornerback, for instance, or when your first round running back goes out for the season for a career ending injury. At the same time, you don't draft four wide receivers in six drafts. Thus, you draft "most valuable player available" within reason. That player, I believe, is one of the left tackles.

Curry is a nice player, but if you only drafted the "safe pick" you would have a team full of safeties, guards, and centers. If it was Phillip Rivers rather than Stafford, I would feel differently about drafting a tackle--but I agree with Mr. Spoon that you don't take Nate Davis just becuase he's the best quarterback.

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


April 19th, 2009, 6:07 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: November 2nd, 2008, 1:29 am
Posts: 427
Post 
Quote:
Reasons Why?? We should draft a QB with our 1st Pick.


Back to the original question... and the answer???

Because a physical talent on the level of Josh Freeman doesn't come around often enough to pass it up. The frame, the arm, the mobility. Fo'get abo't it. Franchise maker.

Flame away... :D

-ILMP


April 19th, 2009, 11:27 pm
Profile
#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 am
Posts: 1427
Post 
Quote:
Yes, Curry is a very safe pick. But if there is, say a 95% chance that he plays at a pro bowl level, I would still not take him with the overall pick in this draft. There are two outstanding left tackle prospects, and I would say that there is a maybe, 75% chance that each will perform at a pro bowl level. Although some may disagree with me here, I would take a 75% chance of getting a pro bowl left tackle over a 95% chance of a pro bowl linebacker any day of the week. As an example, Patrick Willis is probably the best linebacker in the league, and Joe Thomas is probably maybe the sixth or seventh best left tackle in the league. However, if we held the 2007 Draft again, I would guarantee that Joe Thomas would come off the board before Willis. It's just a harder position to fill and it requires a skillset that only a select few people on Earth possess.

That said, even though quarterback is the most valuable position, Stafford, in my estimation is not the most valuable player. I would judge him as a below average first-round quarterback prospect--maybe give him a 45% chance of playing at a pro bowl level. Although quarterback is more important than left tackle, it's not THAT much more important than tackle.
Thus, I have reached the conclusion that one of the tackles is the only pick that makes sense for the Lions. I know that it's not the biggest "need" but team needs are highly fluid--you never know when you're going to hit on that fifth round cornerback, for instance, or when your first round running back goes out for the season for a career ending injury. At the same time, you don't draft four wide receivers in six drafts. Thus, you draft "most valuable player available" within reason. That player, I believe, is one of the left tackles.


Excellent post!!!


I see Stafford as a player that fits in somewhere between Rex Grossman and Jay Cutler.

I think he is a better prospect than Grossman was at the time.... but has some similarities as well. I also see some similarities with Cutler.... but I think Cutler has an important edge on accuracy, which is perhaps the most important "trait" for a QB in the NFL.

I realize that there is a lot of "space" between Grossman and Cutler..... but I think that says a lot as well.

Considering that Stafford is a junior who will need time to develop and may need to sit a year or two.... and he would be brought on to a team that sets him up to fail..... I don't see where there is good "value" in bringing in Stafford to THIS team.


April 20th, 2009, 11:26 am
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/20 ... w_ric.html

That link has a good interview with Rick Gosselin, where he explains why he would take Stafford.

I would have liked to respond to him at a few points, but overall, he does a good job of supporting his argument.

I would have asked him who did the 49'ers take to support Willis? Making the argument that you can't take a LB because they by themselves aren't miracle makers can kind of be deflected because when you take a QB, you then get him protection. So you can leave one out to hang and criticize but not the other way around?

The other thing I would have asked him is how much did Atlanta's passing game go up with the addition of Matt Ryan? He makes it sound like the QB was responsible for the turnaround, when anyone that has a minute to look up the stats can see that it was Michael Turner and the defense that improved greatly.

Overall, he makes great points about MLB (possibly getting Maualuga at 20, Laurinaitis at 33, or Phillips at either 3rd round pick.


April 22nd, 2009, 7:23 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Strawberries&Chocolat wrote:
Saying that there is only one position that justifies the #1 pick is beyond ludicrous. The number one pick money is a sunk cost--they'll have to pay it for whoever they draft. Although we have an honest debate over whether certain positions may command significantly more money as a #1 than others (i.e. Curry v. Stafford), there is no question that it will be a lot of moolah no matter who it is.

However, I think that there needs to be a distinction made between "best player available" and "most valuable player available." The distinction being that the prospect with the highest chance of success is not necessarily the most valuable. For instance, an example that was used earlier is that the best punter prospect in the history of the draft would probably barely command a first round pick, if at all. Although we could get into superlatives such as a "punter who could pin the other team at the 1 yard line from any place on the field" if we're speaking realistically, taht will never happen.

Yes, Curry is a very safe pick. But if there is, say a 95% chance that he plays at a pro bowl level, I would still not take him with the overall pick in this draft. There are two outstanding left tackle prospects, and I would say that there is a maybe, 75% chance that each will perform at a pro bowl level. Although some may disagree with me here, I would take a 75% chance of getting a pro bowl left tackle over a 95% chance of a pro bowl linebacker any day of the week. As an example, Patrick Willis is probably the best linebacker in the league, and Joe Thomas is probably maybe the sixth or seventh best left tackle in the league. However, if we held the 2007 Draft again, I would guarantee that Joe Thomas would come off the board before Willis. It's just a harder position to fill and it requires a skillset that only a select few people on Earth possess.

That said, even though quarterback is the most valuable position, Stafford, in my estimation is not the most valuable player. I would judge him as a below average first-round quarterback prospect--maybe give him a 45% chance of playing at a pro bowl level. Although quarterback is more important than left tackle, it's not THAT much more important than tackle.

Thus, I have reached the conclusion that one of the tackles is the only pick that makes sense for the Lions. I know that it's not the biggest "need" but team needs are highly fluid--you never know when you're going to hit on that fifth round cornerback, for instance, or when your first round running back goes out for the season for a career ending injury. At the same time, you don't draft four wide receivers in six drafts. Thus, you draft "most valuable player available" within reason. That player, I believe, is one of the left tackles.

Curry is a nice player, but if you only drafted the "safe pick" you would have a team full of safeties, guards, and centers. If it was Phillip Rivers rather than Stafford, I would feel differently about drafting a tackle--but I agree with Mr. Spoon that you don't take Nate Davis just becuase he's the best quarterback.


This was a very good post, but you make some high assumptions on Smith and Monroe. 75% chance of becoming an All Pro? I don't share that belief for either of them. Joe Thomas was seen as a complete player, something Smith is not. Thomas was a solid pass blocker and devastating run blocker in college. The single concern with him was his knee injury, which he showed in college he recovered from. Smith has more work to do in his run blocking before he gets to that level, and JT has only gotten better since then.
Monroe has had three knee surgeries already, on the same knee. That is not a good sign. One injury isn't chronic. But three? I like the skillset that Monroe has, and without the injury concern I would readily agree that he is destined for multiple PBs in this league. But that much done already tells me the issue could become degenerative and cut his career short.

I don't think Curry has a 95% chance of being an All Pro. But I do think he could have the same impact for this team that a franchise LT would. Why? Because although Backus isn't a quality starter in the NFL, he is about average. So the improvement beyond his skills won't be near as great as the improvement of getting Curry at Mike in place of Paris Lenon. The talent improvement is huge and would make an impact in every facet of the defensive game. Would he single handedly make this defense even average? No. But a better LT isn't going to make our offense a top ten scoring maching either. Particularly if we get either one with a bad wheel, or one who has little experience in run blocking from a three point stance. Much different dynamics to deal with.


April 22nd, 2009, 1:03 pm
Profile
National Champion
User avatar

Joined: December 16th, 2008, 8:44 am
Posts: 843
Post 
Just heard Kiper say Staffords representatives are back in Detroit again... Sorry to be the one spreading this info, lol.

Of course, this is self-serving for him to say so take it for what its worth.


EDIT: Then there is this... http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nflnation/0- ... draft.html

Brace yourself for what he says with 3:36 left in the video...

I have a feeling that this is a done deal, folks... but I'm holding onto hope.


April 22nd, 2009, 1:40 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
faulkn22 wrote:
Just heard Kiper say Staffords representatives are back in Detroit again... Sorry to be the one spreading this info, lol.

Of course, this is self-serving for him to say so take it for what its worth.


EDIT: Then there is this... http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nflnation/0- ... draft.html

Brace yourself for what he says with 3:36 left in the video...

I have a feeling that this is a done deal, folks... but I'm holding onto hope.


Funny, but I just heard Terry Foster talk about how, based on things he's hearing from inside the Lions organization, they may end up taking Curry number one overall.

This is based on two things:
1. WCF has definitely told Mayhew to go get the player he and Schwartz want, not who they think the Ford family wants.

2. That either Mayhew or Schwarts have reservations about Stafford and Smith, but both have no issues with Curry.

If Mayhew sticks to his word, and the above is true, then expect Curry to be taken.

It is entirely possible that Stafford's agent is in Detroit to continue negotiations, but based on the idea that Curry will be the pick if he isn't willing to be more realistic in the demand for Stafford's contract.

Who knows? But I would surely be ecstatic if Curry's name is called first on Saturday.


April 22nd, 2009, 2:33 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11944
Post 
PFT wrote:
Report: Lions Near Deal With Stafford
Posted by Aaron Wilson on April 22, 2009, 2:40 p.m. EDT

University of Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford is on the verge of striking a deal with the Detroit Lions to become the top overall pick of the draft, according to Dave Birkett of the Oakland Press.

Per the unconfirmed report, Lions team president Tom Lewand, the team’s chief negotiator, has sought final approval from team owner William Clay Ford. A deal could reportedly be completed at some point today.

Citing a source, Birkett writes that it would require a “catastrophe” for the Lions to not land Stafford as the No. 1 overall pick of the draft.

We heard separately from a league source that Stafford was so confident that he would ultimately be the Lions’ guy that he has been telling former Georgia teammates that he’ll be the No. 1 pick and receive a deal with nearly $40 million in guaranteed money.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/04/ ... -stafford/


April 22nd, 2009, 2:51 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 285 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.