It will definitely be interesting to see how it shakes down with the Chiefs getting Cassel. As has been already mentioned, that really makes the number of teams who might take a QB a lot less and could make these two guys fall farther. However, NYJ will need a QB at 17, the Bears at 18 could take a flyer if Sanchez or Stafford are still there. And is Tampa really set with going into the season with Luke McCown, Josh Johnson and Brian Griese? This makes it kind of a shaky situation if they are going to wait until 20 to grab a QB. It seems that the consensus is that after Stafford, Sanchez, and Freeman there is no QB worth taking until at least the third round. Freeman is a project who won't be able to step in right away, and whoever suggested taking Rhett Bomar is an idiot. I just see the Lions getting hoodwinked and having to take someone like a Bomar or a Harper.

I don't want to see the Lions use #1 on a QB, but I don't think they have much of an option. If they don't get Stafford at #1 he may drop down to #10 if the 49ers don't sign Warner. I can see them taking him. Then at #17 there goes Sanchez to the Jets. I don't know if the Bears or Bucs would want to take on a project QB like Freeman, but would we feel good about taking him at #20?

I'm on the Curry bandwagon, but there is a part of me that just thinks that the Lions will (and need to) take a QB at #1. I've already ruled out the possibility of a trade, that's not going to happen, especially with no world beaters out there.

Teams that could take a QB between our two first round picks
#4 seahawks
#8 Jaquars
#11 Bills
#17 Jets
#18 Bears
#19 Tampa Bay

Remove the Jags and Bills from the list. David Garrard just got a lengthy contract extension a year ago--he isn't going anywhere anytime soon. As for the Bills, Edwards still has potential and the Bills have other needs. Jauron is more than likely on "the hot seat" this year and so there's almost no chance he goes with a rookie QB.

The Seahawks are a possibility...a slim one. If they were going to go QB, I would expect them to attempt to move Hasselback before the draft while he still has some value. Considering that there hasn't even been any rumors to suggest this, I don't expect the 'hawks to go QB.

Jets, Bears, and Bucs are all very likely (though the Bucs appear to be seeking a veteran QB) but the Lions could leapfrog them all with a trade-up.

I've been thinking about this for some time and would like a little feedback.

Mayhew is on record as saying he wanted to sign Culpepper before last season started. Now he only played in 4 games but he did show SOME mobility and he still had an arm. Could Culpepper be more then just a stop gap option for one year? If he shows anything good this year, I think he could be around another 1 or 2 years, while we groom another QB under him. I'm leaning towards him as our best/only option.

Correct me if i'm wrong but his current contract is worth only one year. Any chance the restructuring is for two years? Or if he does prove himself to be legit, is he here to stay for another year or two while we groom a QB under him?

Maybe they could be holding out for Stanton to show some signs of being worth his high draft pick. But could Culpeppers flashes of his old self be enough to make the decision to not take StafFORD, and hold onto Culpepper for another year to take a QB next year and have him ride the pine under Culpepper?

Regarding Stanton: If they still have hopes of Stanton being worth his pick- meaning our future starter- they would not be trying to wheel and deal for Cutler. Cutler would be our franchise quarterback, leaving Stanton to be a backup. I have to think that they are keeping Stanton on the roster for a reason, but logic tells me that it is to be an affordable backup. He has never performed, so he won't cost much now or at contract time. If he were still considered starter material, we'd be looking for another veteran backup, not another young guy.

Culpepper's contract was structured so that IF he showed flashes of his old self in '08, we'd pick up his option in '09. That went out the door when we picked up his option anyway, without the evidence. I have to think that Mayhew believes Culpepper still has it and will offer an extension if he plays well. Whatever Mayhew's master plan was with Daunte, he is sticking to it. You could argue that Daunte was signed to buy Stanton one more year of needed development. It makes sense at first, but Cutler disproves this theory.

Another option is that the one year deal was setting us up for a QB #1 pick. At the time of the signing, it was evident that we'd be picking at or near the top. With a promising crop of young QBs potentially coming out- Daunte gives us an excuse to sit the draftee. It would be reckless to plan a pick that far out though.

I don't think Daunte helps our future, whatever the plan. I'd just cut him.

-ILMP

You don't get many chances to get a decent QB that young. They either get extensions or are traded just before their contract is up, or cut if they're a wash. The trade talks all involved Cassel. We were using Cassel as bait to get Cutler, and regardless of the plans for Dante & Stanton, if you have a chance to get a QB with superior talent to what you have, you take a shot at it. Only if it panned out, would plans have changed. Since it didn't (some deal still could be made) they'll stick with whatever plan it was they originally had.

I think it's a pipe dream at this point to think that Stanton has the chance of becoming the man. Every year we say: "They are keeping Stanton for a reason"! We think it's because he is the future, but reality is probably because he's cheap. I just don't see him being groomed to be the guy any longer as I once thought.

Now if Sanchez is sitting at #33, Pull the trigger for sure. Stafford will be long gone by then.

I'd take a flyer on Bomar, but it would be late 3rd rounder or later.

I'd say Sanchez at 33 is a no brainer easily, but I don't think we should count out Stanton yet.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to. I'd love for Stanton to get a shot and succeed. But there is about a 90% probability of a QB acquisition IMO, and if that signing is a higher profile FA or a high draft pick, Stanton will end up 3rd on the depth chart.

Some people like to write off Stanton as a bust already. As a second round pick, all he really needs to be is a reliable backup to justify his contract. Look at DanO at 3 million per year. I don't know his exact salary, but Stanton likely makes 1.X million per year. That's not starter money anyway.

That's also why Sanchez is a no brainer at 33. Last year's #33 earns 7.455 million over 4 years. That is about 1.86 million/year average. Sanchez need only be a quality backup at that rate. The risk is low, the potential reward very high.

-ILMP

Gosselin "gets it right" in terms of PREDICTING the top 100 players actually drafted.

He is known for his ability to predict which players will be SELECTED in the draft.... but that is not the same as predicting which players will actually succeed at the NFL level.




IF ..... the Lions truly want to draft Stafford, then they had BETTER trade down. There are very few teams that actually represent a possibility before the #10 pick with San Fran.... so the Lions could take LESS than the ridiculous Jimmy Johnson chart "value chart says they can get.... just to get a CHEAPER salary for that QB.

And when ANYONE wants to say that nobody would trade up..... do you think that Seattle would trade a 5th round choice to move up in front of St. Louis to insure they get their future "FRANCHISE" OLT???

If we don't ask for much in return, the Lions could dramatically reduce the salary of their pick with a trade down.... and still VERY LIKELY get Stafford anywhere in the Top 10 picks at this point.

If they do end up picking Stafford at #1 overall.... I'll be surprised.

I hate say it but I agree with Mel Kiper here but basically saying that you rank Stafford among the 10 best players in the draft than that value for QB trumps all other picks.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=393673 ... id=3595115

But what I believe Mayhew will do is draft Aaron Curry #1 and sign him to a contract that will make him the 3rd highest paid defensive player player in the NFL something Curry is never going to be and move him to the middle to boot.

Kiper pretty much hit the nail on the hammer.

Stafford only has to be as good as Eli Manning to be worthy of the pick.

Double standards are okay for some people I guess.

I completely and whole heartedly DISagree.

If the top three players show a high likelihood to be perennail All Pros, but your QB prospect, even if rated #4, has all sorts of question marks about his ability to lead a team, read a defense, throw accurately, etc. it doesn't launch him to top overall value automatically.

I believe Curry, Jason Smith and Michael Crabtree (if he recovers to form) will all be among the best at their respective positions in the NFL once they've matured. I think Stafford, when he hits his ceiling, will be nothing more than a slightly above average QB in the NFL. Just my gut feelings, and I've been wrong before. But holding a QB to the benchmark of Eli Manning because he was taken first overall "once upon a time" is utterly ridiculous.

The issue is the Stafford seems to have a higher probability of being a bust than a superstar. And Kiper is touting Stafford for purely selfish reasons, because he's been sucking that kids nads since Staffords high school days. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Stafford's agent has an under-the-table deal brokered with Kiper on pushing this kid to get his draft status improved beyond what it should be.

I think people's misconceptions of what a "franchise" qb are, have skewed people's opinions of QB's. To me, a franchise QB, is one that's going to lead your team for double digit years (10+). Think Elway, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Tom Brady, Joe Montana. A Super Bowl win doesn't make you a franchise QB.

Eli was on the hot seat prior to winning the Super Bowl, the trade discussions of Cutler make me question his longevity. Big Ben probably solidified his spot with 2 rings, but I'm not sure he'll survive 10 years if he gets knocked around like he did last year. Would Matt Ryan be getting MVP votes without Michael Turner the true falcon MVP? Would Flacco have cracked the starting lineup if Bowler didn't go in IR or if Troy Smith hadn't of had that freak illness? If the Raven's didn't have the dominant defense, how would they have ranked?

The debate between Manning and Leaf assumed both were franchise qb's, just which one would be better. Leaf had all the skills, he was just a few hamsters short of a full cage. The debate for Stafford is between bust or viable QB. And that's where my issue is with him.

The saying goes, "if there's a franchise QB available, you don't pass on him". I don't see anyone in this draft class that could be compared to any of the "franchise" qb's in the past.

Again, just my opinion.